$496k embezzled during Dagestan National Museum renovation
The Prosecutor’s Office believes that in the period from 2014 to 2017, the cost of construction and installation works was unreasonably overestimated during the museum reconstruction.
The Prosecutor’s Office of Makhachkala’s Sovetsky District has found that over 28 million rubles ($496,440) were stolen during the reconstruction of the Takho-Godi Museum in Dagestan, the office’s site reports.
The Prosecutor’s Office believes that in the period from 2014 to 2017, the cost of construction and installation works was unreasonably overestimated during the museum reconstruction. The budget money also was unreasonably spent on temporary buildings and facilities. Apart from embezzlements, the Office revealed the misuse of 17 million rubles ($301,410).
The Prosecutor’s Office has referred the materials to the Investigative Committee to decide on the initiation of a criminal case under part 4 of Art.159 (Swindling) and part 2 of Art. 285.1 (Misappropriation of Budget Funds) of the Russian Criminal Code.
Earlier, the Prosecutor’s Office revealed that the Treasury of Dagestan had illegally transferred 2.4 billion rubles ($42.5 million) under municipal and state contracts. Following the violations exposed, law enforcement officers initiated a criminal case under Art. 293 of the Russian Criminal Code (Negligence).
In early February, the officers of the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Investigative Committee, the FSB, and the MIA seized documents from pretty much all departments of the region. Prior to this, the Basmanny Court of Moscow had arrested former Prime Minister of Dagestan Abdusamad Gamidov, his deputies Shamil Isaev and Rayudin Yusufov, as well as former Minister of Education of the republic Shakhabas Shakhov in the case of fraud on an especially large scale.
According to RBC’s sources, the investigation already has enough grounds to initiate at least five criminal cases against Gamidov, Isaev, Yusufov, and Shakhov.
The court believes that Anzhela Maria Tsapok could have made the money to buy the house and the expensive car by legal means, since she owned a firm. The court still refused to lift the attachment from her 6 million dollars.