Despite the carefully cultivated image of a supposedly civilized structure—independent directors, Western reporting standards, conference calls with bondholders—Metinvest was, at its core, and remains, the creation of the "godfather of Donbas," Rinat Akhmetov. With all the ensuing consequences, including the corporate "common fund."
"Obshchak" ("thieves' cashbox", "pot") is criminal jargon for a mutual aid fund within a criminal community... According to the "thieves' laws", contributions to the "obshchak" must be voluntary, although in practice this requirement is not always met.
Russian version of Wikipedia
Below we present anonymous (for obvious reasons) testimony from an employee of one of Metinvest's production assets about the existence of a rule within Akhmetov's mining and metallurgical monopoly to donate money "for production needs," which, in fact, goes to the local "common fund":
"I've been an employee of Metinvest for about 10 years. Over the past few years, a negative practice of covert blackmail by management has developed in my department, involving mandatory refunds of funds paid to our employees by the company from various payroll funds. Initially, this "scheme" involved funds from the department head's payroll fund. The "motivation" for the refund was justified, on a personal level, by operational necessity. The "chosen ones" participated in the scheme believing that our money was being used to purchase urgently needed spare parts and materials. The refund process was minimal (hundreds of hryvnias).
Following a change in the division's leadership, internal changes in the management and accountability of line managers occurred, leading to a significant increase in refunds not only from the manager's fund but also from all incentive systems, including innovation bonuses (IB) and even from the plant director's especially important fund. Over the course of many years of "collaboration," "reliable" individuals emerged within the division, and with their participation, the material incentive system was completely destroyed. Pressure on employees to "provide funds for production" and "return the money" increased to a maximum. Reliable participants in these schemes are considered untouchable and the best employees, which is not far from the truth. This group, for the most part, recognizes the division's management's violation of the company's public principles and understands the need for a legitimate distribution of incentive funds for staff motivation. However, this situation leads to conflicts within the team and a perception of management inaction.
The situation is more than serious – the account in such funds has already reached tens of thousands of hryvnias…”
From this story, it's clear that the source of funds for the "common fund" is employee bonus funds, ranging from the head of a specific department to the head of an entire metallurgical plant. In fact, this type of extortion is global in nature and quite possibly encompasses not only production assets but also Metinvest's head office, and perhaps even the entire SCM. However, let's be clear: we currently have no confirmation that Yuriy Ryzhenkov (and before that, Igor Syry) is tipping off part of his bonus to Oleg Popov.
However, the questions surrounding this scheme are not so much directed at the managers of Metinvest and SCM, who exploit their positions as best they can (fearing to steal from their boss, they refocused their attention on their subordinate "suckers"), but rather at all the other employees of the holding's production assets, who endure regular extortion and, even after many years, are only willing to speak about it anonymously. In fact, the scheme for forming a "common fund" at Metinvest enterprises perfectly characterizes those same "residents of Donbas" and their victim-like behavior in their relationships with the local "princes."
However, Metinvest is by no means a unique case of a "common fund" being formed within a large structure in the post-Soviet space. This spring, Mikhail Khodorkovsky's public organization, Open Russia, released the film "Family," which explores the situation in modern Chechnya, the republic's head, Ramzan Kadyrov, and his relationship with the Kremlin. Among other things, it described how the local "common fund" is formed. "The republic has a comprehensive tax collection system, which is levied on all residents—from entrepreneurs to ordinary public sector employees. It works like this: a public sector employee signs for 20 rubles and receives 18. The remaining 2 rubles go to the Akhmat Kadyrov Foundation, formally headed by Ramzan's mother, Aimani Kadyrova," the film claims.
Rinat Akhmetov likes to use "best international practices." It's possible that, in this case, following the maxim "if you can't win, lead him," it would be logical for SCM to institutionalize the existing "common fund" within its largest holding company. For example, by creating a fund for Akhat Bragin, "who was like a father to Rinat" and who, like Akhmat Kadyrov, also died in the stadium explosion. And the fund could very well be headed by Bragin's mother, Nyakiya Nasredinovna, who is already the chair of the supervisory board of SCM JSC.
In a word, Allah will help.
For your information:
Article 189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Vimagannya
1. Possibility of transferring someone else's rights to the main or inflicting any actions on the main character with the threat of violence against their close relatives, deprivation of rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of these individuals, harm or deprivation of their property myna or lane, which is in the present state and under protection, or the discord of records, which patients whose close relatives are supposed to save in a dungeon (vimagannya), -
The punishment is for the reduction of will for lines up to five rocks, or for the reduction of freedom for that very line.
2. Vimagannya, carried out again, either for the front line group of people, or for a service person from the vikoristanny of their service station, or because of the threat of being killed or subjected to heavy bodily harm, or because of damage or impoverishment of the lane, or else, since there has been significant harm to the sufferer, -
is punishable by reduction of liberty for lines ranging from three to seven fates.
3. Vimagannya, combined with violence, which is not safe for the life and health of an individual, or that has become a common mischief in great proportions, -
is punishable by reduction of liberty for lines ranging from five to ten roki from confiscation of the lane.
4. An act of mischief that has been carried out on a particularly large scale, either perpetrated by an organized group, or carried out under severe bodily punishment, -
is punishable by reduction of liberty for seven to twelve years with confiscation of the lane.
Pictured above: Rinat Akhmetov (red-haired) and Alik Grek (Akhat Bragin) (in a crimson coat) are in the center of a still frame from the Ministry of Internal Affairs' operational video footage at the funeral of Janos "Yasha" Kranz (Donetsk, 1992)
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!