Garyugin's case may burst wide open. Court freed St. Petersburg Metro from penalty

Garyugin's case may burst wide open. Court freed St. Petersburg Metro from penalty
Vladimir Garyugin Photo: Alexander Koryakov / Kommersant

The court allowed the State Unitary Enterprise St. Petersburg Metro (SUE) not return 466 million rubles spent on the construction of Admiralteiskaya station hall to the budget. Garyugin’s lawyer intends to terminate the case on the basis of this court decision.⁠

The 13th Arbitration Court of Appeal called back a number of the Audit Chamber's requirements for indemnity to the State Unitary Enterprise St. Petersburg Metro. The amount of 466.5 million rubles spent on the construction of the Admiralteiskaya subway station hall, which served as a pretext for an initiation of the criminal case against SUE Head Vladimir Garyugin, is the part of the recall indemnity. Based on the decision of the court the Garyugin’s lawyer Vladimir Lvov intends to apply for termination of the criminal case.

"This decision can not be subject to revision in the framework of the criminal case and the base, upon which it was instituted, has disappeared," - the lawyer told Kommersant.

Recall that Garyugin is suspected of Abuse of Authority (part 2 of Art. 201 of the Criminal Code) at the conclusion of the investment agreement with LLC Sovetnik. According to investigators, Metro released a commercial company from all construction costs on Admiralteiskaya subway station hall’s development. Thus, according to the Audit Chamber’s estimates, the treasury of the city was damaged in the amount of not less than 466 500 000 rubles. In addition, the Audit Chamber believes that in the contract with Sovetnik was supposed to enter the Smolny, not the SUE. However, officials, who controlled the construction, have not been charged yet.

Meanwhile, the Audit Chamber has revealed financial irregularities to the tune of 6 billion rubles from the Transport Committee of the Smolny, which oversees the St. Petersburg metro. The Committee was the manager of the budget and the customer of the underground facilities. The Audit Chamber act states that the Committee spent budget investments for investment commitments of the State Unitary Enterprise St. Petersburg Metro in the interests of some commercial organization. The Head of the Committee on Transport Alexander Golovin sent a letter to the Audit Chamber on the disagreement with results of the check and denied the alleged misuse of funds. However, auditors consider officials’ objections inconclusive.

Discuss

Recommended

1 / 3