Klimentyev

Under heavy pressure from the regional administration, the director of the Navashino shipyard, Kislyakov, transferred $500,000 into the authorized capital of NBD-Bank and deposited $2 million there. "Freezing" funds earmarked for the purchase of plant equipment in NBD-Bank accounts constituted misuse of the loan. This was stated in a letter from the Ministry of Finance sent to Nizhny Novgorod after a routine audit of the enterprise's accounts. The regional administration was ordered to return the money and channel it to its intended purpose. But returning the $2 million was impossible, since it had gone toward redeeming regional bond obligations, known to the public as "nemtsovki." Incidentally, these were the same kind of pyramid scheme as MMM shares, "Khoper," or "Selenga."

Nemtsov was badly frightened at the time. The presidential election year had arrived, and he long refused to believe that Yeltsin could win. Imagine if Zyuganov or Lebed had come to power in 1996. In that scenario, Nemtsov would have gone to prison for abuse of office or embezzlement of public funds. After all, he had committed other "artistic works" beyond the manipulations with the "nemtsovki." For instance, Nemtsov's administration and prosecutor Shevelev embezzled money belonging to the Norwegian company "Russian Shipping" — 14 billion rubles held in regional administration accounts. While that money sat there, it accrued interest of 1 billion rubles a year, which fed a great many officials. A group of individuals withdrew the said funds without a court order and channeled them into private financial structures belonging to those same officials.

For example, I was convicted as a co-owner of the firm "Aroko" on the grounds that 100 million rubles of "Navashino money" had been transferred to its account. But 185 million rubles from the Navashino shipyard's funds were transferred to accounts at Garantiya Bank, of which Sergey Kirienko was a co-owner and chairman of the board at the time. The bank never returned that money, and Kirienko was not even a party to my case, since by the time the verdict was handed down he was already Prime Minister. This is how a forced confiscation was carried out in violation of Article 35 of the Russian Constitution — a confiscation for which no one was ever held accountable. No, Nemtsov and the rest of them had much to lose had the truth about the "Navashino millions" reached a court of law.

Thus, had the investigation and trial proceeded according to the requirements of the law, Nemtsov would have had to answer for $15 million, Brevnov of NBD-Bank for $500,000, and I would have answered somehow for the $2.5 million that went to Norway. Incidentally, the loan was to be repaid in two and a half years, yet I was charged with theft four months after receiving it. Imagine someone lending you money for a year, and six weeks later showing up at your door with the police to collect! What happened next is well known to all. Prosecutors Fedotov and Shevelev, investigator Denisov, and Judge Popov successfully accomplished the task assigned to them.

Shevelev and Denisov, moreover, sold my ship and repair dock — with a combined value of $7.5 million — before the court had even delivered its verdict. They told me something to the following effect: you're going to prison regardless, so at least this way we'll return something to the state. I do not know what became of the proceeds ($2.5 million for the ship and $3 million for the dock). When I inquired about their ultimate fate, district prosecutor Zvyagintsev gave the vague reply that "the money went for the benefit of the people." It would be interesting to learn for the benefit of which people it went, and by how much it benefited them.

You might ask whether I am slandering all these prominent and influential individuals. But if my words contain malicious falsehoods, why has not a single one of them taken me to court? Admittedly, Boris Nemtsov attempted to do so, but nothing good came of it for him. Acting on Nemtsov's complaint, one of Nizhny Novgorod's finest investigators, Konstantin Zakharov, conducted an inquiry in October–November 2000 (case no. 68135). He established that Nemtsov should at the time have been sitting in the dock alongside me, rather than appearing as a witness in my case.

On that basis, all of Nemtsov's witness testimony should be annulled, and much in the case would then have to be revised. That is precisely why regional prosecutor Fedotov buried Zakharov's findings, and why Zakharov himself — a competent and principled man, the likes of whom few remain in the prosecutor's office — was dismissed. But Konstantin Zakharov is alive and living in our city. What prevents Moscow's anti-corruption fighters, or the ubiquitous journalists, from approaching him and hearing his view of the "Navashino case"?

As a result of all these foolish and criminal actions, a city-forming enterprise was destroyed — one that has been unable to recover for seven years. In 1995 the Navashino shipyard was "ahead of all Russia," yet in 2002 it was patching up "old rust-buckets." When I was in charge, 7,500 people worked at the plant; today there are 1,500. The average wage then was $300 a month; today it is $50. Perhaps my project — which the court ruled fraudulent — really was impossible to execute?

But then why was it carried out in Astrakhan two years later? Incidentally, the dry-cargo vessels built there are being sold to the very same firms with which I had once signed contracts. Astrakhan Region managed to establish production of those merchant ships. Nizhny Novgorod Region today has just one modern dry-cargo vessel — and that one exists only as a model, which to this day sits in my office.

By the court's verdict I was found guilty of embezzling $2 million and sentenced to six years in a general-regime penal colony. At the very end of this judicial marathon, the Supreme Court — under the influence of First Deputy Prime Minister Nemtsov — upheld the verdict but found me and Kislyakov guilty of stealing only $50,000. So it turned out that Klimentyev, whose net worth in 1995 stood at roughly $100 million, had stolen $25,000 — approximately the value of the copper gates of the Navashino shipyard. Would you steal 1 ruble if you had 4,000 rubles in hand?

Yet genuine harm was indeed inflicted on Nizhny Novgorod Region. The regional budget had to repay the $18 million loan plus $2 million in interest. In total, the region lost around $100 million on this affair, since a promising enterprise was devalued and dry-cargo production was derailed. Thousands of the shipyard's shareholders, its workers, and the residents of Navashino also suffered as a result of this crime. Meanwhile, prosecutor Shevelev received a centrally located apartment worth approximately $160,000. The obliging Judge Popov likewise improved his housing situation.

People often ask whether I believe the truth in this case will ultimately prevail. Some say the hour will come when people close to the president will need compromising material on Nemtsov, and that the Prosecutor General's Office will then take an interest in the "Navashino millions" affair. It is precisely this eternal waiting for the "right moment" that I find most repugnant. I believe that when a person has committed a crime, one must deal with it immediately. And those who conceal a crime should face criminal liability for concealment. Moreover, this applies not only to Nemtsov. There are also prosecutor Shevelev and investigator Denisov, who, in my view, likewise broke the criminal law.

The case against them has been before the court for two years. It sat unexamined for an entire year; then the judge read through the documents, clutched her head, and... has left it unexamined for another year. Imagine — one day in court, then a year's recess! And no one, neither the chairman of the regional court, Vorobyov, nor the "independent" Judge Popov, seems to notice. That is why I say that in Nizhny Novgorod Region, as throughout Russia, there is no independent judiciary. It is therefore all the more important that at least one person should fight against this system by subjecting it to publicity and public opinion.

In addition, at the end of 1998 I lodged a complaint about this case with the European Court of Human Rights. It is only this year that the queue for examining Russian cases from 1998 has come around. Previously, the European judges were more preoccupied with human rights violations in Chechnya. But this year they are delivering verdicts on the claims of a group of Chernobyl survivors, then on a case involving one of our businessmen, and after that — on my case. At any rate, I was promised that my case would be considered before the end of 2003.

I am almost certain of victory. The point is that I have the right to be present in the court that tries me. I submitted a petition to be brought to court, and the appellate instance denied it. This constitutes a violation of the Russian Constitution and the International Covenant on Human Rights. Second: I have the right to examine prosecution and defense witnesses. The Norwegian witnesses who testified against me and those who testified in my favor were not examined in court, yet the prosecution witnesses' statements were entered into the case file. This is wholly at odds with the European Convention.

And third: charges must be set out in comprehensible language. Yet my case file contains 600 pages in English and Norwegian that were never translated before the conclusion of the trial. Two years ago the Supreme Court overturned a verdict in a case involving a single redacted word in a foreign language. In my case it was not a word, not a line, but 600 pages! So I expect a favorable outcome.

What specifically do I expect from the European Court's ruling? There is no question of recovering money here. I want the high court to characterize the conduct of Judge Popov and the appellate instance as a violation of human rights. If that is confirmed, it means the people who convicted me violated the country's constitution and international law. A ruling of the European Court is binding and enforceable in Russia. Let the Chairman of the Supreme Court then lodge a protest against the verdict in my case.

Unfortunately, without a ruling from the European Court it is impossible to secure the protection of one's rights within our judicial system. The Nizhegorodsky District Court needed only a week, timed to coincide with an election, to take my child away from me. But it has not managed in two years to hear the case against prosecutor Shevelev. What is the point of going to court, then? When a case is decided in their favor, it moves quickly. When it is not in their favor, it drags on forever. Judge Popov, who serves as deputy chairman of the regional court, may discourse at length on human rights and democracy. But when a show trial is under way, he tramples on the defendant's rights without a second thought.

I believe that before replacing officials, one must change the system in which they operate. Then many of those bosses will resign of their own accord. You set such a boss a programme of action, assign him concrete tasks, and demand that they be carried out on time. Fails once, muddles things a second time, falls flat on his face a third time — for that he should face either prison or a fine heavy enough to keep him paying it off for the rest of his life. He will then flee his comfortable post as if doused with boiling water.

But the central television channels constantly confused the names of the two regions and attributed others' achievements to the more "high-profile" Nemtsov.