Criminal case of ex-Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin on corruption in the distribution of grants

2025

Alexander Monosov spoke about the features of the market that pushed him disinterestedly and regularly meet with Maxim Parshin

Answering questions from the defense at the court session on March 17, Alexander Monosov explained why he, "a recognized expert engaged in a person" - as his lawyer described it, had to spend his time meeting with Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin. The question was asked after Alexander Monosov said during interrogation that he regularly met with the deputy minister, while the question of any influence on anyone was never raised.

There is such a thing as "professional party," and you need to spend your time, energy on communicating with all significant participants in this "professional party." And Maxim Parshin, in addition, was not just a professional in his field, but was also a representative of the state, said Alexander Monosov.

We have such an attitude in our country that no matter what expert you are, but if the state does not perceive you, then something is wrong with you, "he said.

Alexander Monosov with his lawyer Denis Saushkin

Alexander Monosov insists that he did not extract any self-interest from meetings with the deputy minister:

The very fact of this communication is already a sufficient result for both him and me to be in the topic of "expert hanging out." There is no direct or indirect self-interest in this.

He gave a parallel with obtaining a diploma: this is a paper confirmation that a person is expert in the relevant industry, with a diploma he becomes more expensive in the labor market. And when you communicate with professionals, this communication is valuable in itself, "you need to invest time in it."

At meetings with Deputy Minister Alexander Monosov, it happened, he did not come empty-handed, but, for example, brought various documents. He detailed that the documents were usually on five topics that the deputy minister kept in focus: the transition to Russian DBMS, the transition to Russian OS, the experience of using rapid development systems, the use of AI, the use of Gostekh in large federal projects. Maxim Parshin was more convenient to watch documents in paper form, he explained.

He also confirmed what was said earlier by Maxim Parshin that he brought tea to some meetings. Alexander Monosov even took a package of such tea with him this time to demonstrate to the court.

The lawyer asked why Alexander Monosov met with the employees of the ministry, RFRIT.

Maxim Viktorovich is a busy person. We discussed some principles, approaches, etc., but so as not to have the effect of a "spoiled phone," it was often more convenient for him to talk directly with certain specialists. Since I knew many participants in this market, including Pavlov, it was easier for me to communicate directly with him, "Alexander Monosov explained to the court.

Alexander Monosov said in court that he confused the folders and instead of documents handed Maxim Parshin money

On March 17, 2025, Alexander Monosov, ex-general director of BFT-Holding, was interrogated in the BFT-Holding District Court of Moscow in a corruption criminal case. He noted that he was and is a highly qualified IT specialist, an independent expert, had a large circle of contacts in the IT industry. Before the arrest, he was, among other things, a member of the expert council on software under the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development.

The defendant stressed that expert activity took a lot of time from him, but in the long term the role of an independent expert was valuable. At the same time, bias in this regard is "categorically impossible" - a single case of bias would be enough to stop consulting with the expert, calling somewhere.

He met the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin more than 10 years ago, when he was still working in Minek. Between them formed "professional and friendly relations," "expert and professional communication was very interesting, because Maxim Viktorovich was engaged in a large list of questions." At one point, they agreed to have regular breakfasts. This made it possible to discuss a wide range of topics and not to look for "windows" in their schedules every time, Alexander Monosov explained to the court.

Interrogation of Alexander Monosov met in one court session

From the list of companies appearing in the criminal case, the so-called "Monosov list," Alexander Monosov is related to two - "Financier" and "Innovations in Human Resources Management" (HRlink). We are talking about ownership of shares in them. He repeatedly stressed that in all companies where he participated as an investor, he had nothing to do with operating activities.

Both of these firms applied for RFRIT grants in 2022, but did not receive them. HRlink twice participated in the RFRIT competition and earlier, in 2021, also with a negative result. Moreover, Alexander Monosov was then surprised that another company, Citros, received a grant for the development of software for automating KEDO, which is a competitor for HRlink: at that time, HRLink did not hear anything about Cytros and its interaction with customers. He was also familiar with the head of the RFRIT Alexander Pavlov at that time and even turned to him for explanations, which, however, did not satisfy Alexander Monosov.

The ex-head of BFT-Holding told the court where the list of companies that appears in the criminal case originally came from. According to him, in 2022, against the background of a significant change in the tender documentation and the process of working with the applicants of the RFRIT, Maxim Parshin invited him to express an expert opinion on what projects would be useful to the country so that, tracking them, you can see how RFRIT and its structures work out in practice:

Since I know a lot of companies in the market, their products and potential, I made a small list of such companies if I knew that they applied for a grant. These were the companies "Innovations in Human Resources Management," BSS, "Korus Consulting," "Business Logic," "Boss Personnel Systems" and "Polimatika Rus."

Later, he supplemented this list with about 7-8 more companies, showed Maxim Parshin and, at the request of the latter, showed the list to the general director of RFRIT Alexander Pavlov. Alexander Monosov believed that "if companies receive grants from this list, the desired result will be achieved, the state will not face insufficiently effective spending of budget funds, good products will indeed be created," and also that his "expertise in the eyes of Maxim Viktorovich will be once again confirmed."

During subsequent meetings with Deputy Minister Alexander Monosov, he was interested in the progress of the competition. The deadlines were shifted, and with the receipt of feedback from the RFRIT, he had problems. In turn, Alexander Monosov expressed his personal expert opinion on how it would be more effective to build work, analyzed the proposed solutions, including an analysis of the risks of terminating grant agreements and returning grants to the budget, "but in fact none of this was applied."

Alexander Monosov claims that the question of any influence on anyone has never been raised, believes that his activities cannot be recognized as pressure on the RFRIT grant committee, says that companies from the list did not ask him for anything. Moreover, he stressed, some of the companies from the list were its competitors in the main area of ​ ​ activity.

One of the key points of interrogation was the version of Alexander Monosov regarding the direct transfer of the deputy minister's folder of money in the Voronezh restaurant on July 12, 2022. 3.75 million rubles in cash were found in it. He told the court that he had not promised to hand over any money to Maxim Parshin.

The money that was withdrawn from his portfolio was my personal money, which I was going to spend on a gift to my wife for my birthday, - said Alexander Monosov.

As a gift, he wanted to purchase, in particular, jewelry from a brand that was no longer officially supplied to Russia, it was possible to pay only in cash. For this, they were prepared. Moreover, according to Alexander Monosov, he had a habit of wearing documents in the same folders, and he put the money in the same blue folder that he usually used for documents. On the eve of the meeting with Maxim Parshin, where both were eventually detained by the authorities, the assistant prepared the documents that Alexander Monosov was going to take with him to the meeting, and in the same closet to this folder in his office he put a folder with money. Both folders looked the same, says Alexander Monosov. The latter, according to his version, he mistakenly took to a meeting with Maxim Parshin instead of a folder with documents:

To the touch, the folder was the same as with the documents, - added Alexander Monosov.

He confirmed that he had previously periodically brought various documents to Maxim Parshin. Maxim Parshin himself spoke about this, in fact, in the previous meeting. And at the meeting on July 12, Alexander Monosov, in particular, was going to take with him a folder with documents on the Russian analogue of GitHub, the creation of which at that time was on the current agenda.

The defense in the same court session later showed the court a video with an autopsy and inspection of the room, where, according to Alexander Monosov, initially there were both specified folders in the closet, but the folder with documents remained there. The video recorded the discovery of this folder. Lawyer Denis Saushkin, as promised in the previous meeting, provided the court with permission from the investigator to open this room.

Alexander Monosov does not admit guilt in giving a bribe. Moreover, he noted that he never gave bribes to anyone: "This is a well-known topic in the market, which cost me, among other things, is not always easy." One of his arguments: Maxim Parshin in any case could not have any impact on the course of the RFRIT competition due to the peculiarities of the organization of the competitive selection procedure. Alexander Monosov pointed out at that time that on none of the records in the criminal case that were provided to him at the stage of acquaintance, they and Maxim Parshin talk about transferring any money for receiving grants by companies from the list.

I did not know what and how exactly Maxim Viktorovich was doing, what was in his powers, and what was not - we never discussed it. And, as can be seen from the records of meetings in the Ministry of Digital Development, which I got acquainted with already as part of the investigation of the criminal case, the ministry itself, too, until the very last moment, did not have a clear and understandable picture of the competitive selection. Maybe, of course, to some extent our conversations with Maxim Viktorovich may look like my desire that he influence the members of the RFRIT, exceeding his powers as an official of this rank, but I understood then and understand now that it was impossible to really do it. And certainly this was not connected with my self-serving interest, I did not receive any benefit from this and could not get in principle, - said Alexander Monosov.

The lawyer of Alexander Monosov asked him why he did not tell the version of events announced today during the preliminary investigation. Alexander Monosov explained that, firstly, at first he was shocked by the situation itself. He was also shocked by the original version of Maxim Parshin at the stage when they were both sent under house arrest as a preventive measure (Maxim Parshin later refused the version set out in his very first testimony). And subsequently, attempts to convey their version to the investigation were unsuccessful.

And among the questions of the state prosecutor was where Alexander Monosov got a file with a table of 73 RFRIT projects with notes. Alexander Monosov said that "someone from the fund gave." Who exactly gave, he could not remember.

The interrogation of Alexander Monosov was completed. The next meeting in the criminal case is scheduled for March 31.

In the criminal case of Maxim Parshin, the general director of the Financier company, in which Alexander Monosov invested, was interrogated

On March 10, after the interrogation of ex-Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin was completed, Stanislav Kutuzov, the founder and general director of the Financier IT company, one of the companies featured in the so-called Monosov list, was also interrogated in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow.

The interrogation was short-lived, unlike that of some other witnesses who had already been in court before. Stanislav Kutuzov told the court that of the two defendants, he personally knows only the former general director of BFT-Holding, Alexander Monosov. The acquaintance occurred at a stage when Financier tried to attract investment. The company's product was presented to Alexander Monosov, and he later became one of its investors.

Stanislav Kutuzov shared his impressions of the participation of Financier in the competitive selection of RFRIT in 2022

Stanislav Kutuzov also said that Financier participated in the competitive selection for RFRIT grants in 2022 in order to receive support for creating an on-premium version of its service for automating management reporting. In the end, the company did not receive a grant.

Impressions of the competitive selection of the general director of "Financier" were not the most positive, questions were raised by the level of expertise. Stanislav Kutuzov recalls that, for example, experts had to explain "basic things," because, for example, their company was compared with "1C" - "this is an accounting system, and we are a reporting system, that is, different types of products."

In general, we had to answer banal strange questions. It required a lot of effort from the team, it was hard, "he assesses.

The witness added that the application for the competitive selection of RFRIT "Financier" was repeated several times. I had to make various additions to the documentation, rewrite something.

Stanislav Kutuzov said that he did not ask Alexander Monosov, who was already among the investors in 2022, to assist in the competitive selection for RFRIT grants. At the same time, a whole team of employees inside Financier was engaged in the application for the competition. Answering the questions of the state prosecutor, Stanislav Kutuzov said that every time a decision is made to apply for a grant, the company must gather members of the company and inform all investors. At the same time, he clarified, there was no need to inform investors and did not inform them such details as, for example, the application number, the date of submission of the application, and so on.

Earlier, Financier has already attracted investments from several different sources. Stanislav Kutuzov assesses the experience of receiving funding through the IIDF as positive, and its experts as "a professional team, they have gathered some of the best specialists." And the process of selecting applications seemed to him quite simple.

The next hearing in the criminal case is scheduled for March 17.

Maxim Parshin explained to the court why a bribe in the distribution of RFRIT grants is legally impossible

During interrogation in a criminal case in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow on March 10, 2025, where TAdviser correspondent visited, former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin presented to the court his version of why in the existing organizational and legal structure "a bribe as such is impossible in principle."

Interrogation of Maxim Parshin met two court hearings

It proceeds from the fact that RFRIT was not and is not subordinate to the Ministry of Digital Development of Russia, is not its subordinate organization, but is included in the area of ​ ​ responsibility of the state corporation "ВЭБ.РФ" along with Skolkovo and the Innovation Assistance Fund. Subsidies are provided in accordance with the rules, the volume of subsidies is determined by the budget and consolidated budget painting, the Ministry of Digital Development cannot actually give a subsidy or withdraw it.

There are no managerial powers of officials of the ministry in relation to the RFRIT and any of its persons. And no one could give mandatory instructions to RFRIT, and he could not fulfill them. The Supervisory Board of RFRIT does not solve financial and economic issues: this is completely in the responsibility of the general director and the board. Decisions by the Supervisory Board are made collegially, and the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development had no influence on the members of the grant committee, Maxim Parshin argued.

The grant committee is not a fund management body, members of the supervisory board are not members of the grant committee, representatives of RFRIT are members of the grant committee without the right to vote. The RFRIT Grant Committee is a collegial body, all decisions in 2022 were made by consensus. At the same time, there was an opportunity to express a dissenting opinion, which, for example, was done by Boris Yudin, deputy director of the ANO CKIT, who had already been questioned in court as a witness.

Aleksei Popov, deputy director of the IT industry development department of the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development, was not an official at the RFRIT, says Maxim Parshin, noting that he could not give him any mandatory instructions. And he himself was also not an official in the RFRIT. In the official duties and official powers of Aleksei Popov in the Ministry of Digital Development, there is nothing about participation in the RFRIT grant committee or some other organizations and making decisions on grants.

Maxim Parshin noted that he could not contribute to the actions of Aleksei Popov in the interests of companies from the "Monosov list" - what he is accused of, since Aleksei Popov was not an official in the RFRIT and could not perform these actions in the service. Aleksei Popov could not carry out any instructions outside his authority either. This is not provided for by its official regulations.

Moreover, no one in the RFRIT was an official in understanding the criminal law, including the director general, and not to mention the members of the grant committee. Maxim Parshin connects this with the fact that RFRIT is not a government agency, a local government body, a state or municipal institution, a state or budgetary fund, is not a state corporation, state-owned company, public law company, state or municipal unitary enterprise, an economic company in which the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipal formations entities own directly or indirectly more than 50% of the vote or a joint stock company, in respect of which the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipalities own a "golden" action.

RFRIT is a non-membership unitary non-profit organization established by the Russian Federation in the organizational and legal form of the fund. That is, a bribe is impossible in understanding the law: in principle, I could not influence other officials due to their absence in understanding the law, - summed up Maxim Parshin.

5 years of regular breakfast together. What Alexander Monosov brought Maxim Parshin in packages and folders

At a court hearing on March 10, 2025, former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin shed even more light on his interaction with the ex-general director of BFT-Holding, Alexander Monosov, which took place before their arrest. As he was able to recall, almost weekly they met for about 5-6 years. First, the meetings took place in one restaurant, and then in another - in Voronezh. This usually happened on Wednesdays at 8 am as a "friendly business breakfast," where a wide range of issues were discussed, mainly one way or another related to professional activities.

The ex-official added that he "practiced such meetings with other respected people."

Alexander Monosov and Maxim Parshin discussed at regular meetings a wide range of issues, mainly related to professional activities

Maxim Parshin appreciated Alexander Monosov, first of all, as an expert in IT: "I am not an IT specialist in education, but he has both education and understands how products work and how they are created." He also appreciated him as a large entrepreneur who understands how the market works and functions. "He knew everyone in the market - the main companies, the main actors in the business, which is also very important," added Maxim Parshin.

The materials of the criminal case recorded five meetings in which Alexander Monosov handed over to Maxim Parshin "items similar to folders or packages," the state prosecutor recalled, asking what exactly was transferred in the package at the meeting recorded on December 21, 2022. Maxim Parshin replied that he did not remember for sure, but, "most likely, it was tea."

There are two options: either tea or documents, - he said.

As far as Maxim Parshin could remember, we are talking about green tea called "Black samurai," "good tea from pressure," "I really liked it." It was periodically brought by Alexander Monosov.

In response to this, the state prosecutor asked: if it was tea at this meeting, then what did Alexander Monosov mean then, mentioning that he "threw" a certain "ordinary bag" there with the words "I will sum up after the holidays." The state prosecutor read this from the case file. The prosecution was interested in what results were discussed here, and how they were related to the mentioned tea. Maxim Parshin found it difficult to give an accurate answer to this question: "It could be tea and documents, he could throw tea to the documents, for example."

The state prosecutor asked about the contents of the folders at other meetings. Maxim Parshin explained that sometimes he and Alexander Monosov agreed in advance that he would bring some documents. In April 2022, in particular, there was an active period when they discussed the creation of a national open source software repository (the Russian analogue of GitHub), and there were heated discussions. There was a very large amount of information in the mail, instant messengers, etc., which is difficult to work with. It was often more convenient to receive documents in paper form: they can be read in a car or put on a table, then they find themselves in a greater focus of attention, the former deputy minister explained to the court. Therefore, this was practiced.

Actually, they discussed the creation of the aforementioned repository with Alexander Monosov and later. According to Maxim Parshin, it was already about the final configuration associated with this project. There should have been a presentation, a schedule, comparisons of project implementation options, etc., it was necessary to make decisions, "Monosov was included in this process," and Maxim Parshin would not have been surprised by such documents from him then.

Interrogation of Maxim Parshin: Receiving 3.75 million rubles in a folder is an "incredible coincidence"

On March 10, 2025, the interrogation of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin continued in the Khamovnichesky District Court. As last time, a significant amount of his testimony concerned the process of competitive selection of RFRIT in 2022. Maxim Parshin told about this for more than an hour in a row after the start of the meeting, the TAdviser correspondent, who visited the court, reports. He also outlined his version of the situation with receiving money in a folder from Alexander Monosov and refused some of the testimony that he had given earlier.

One of the main messages that Maxim Parshin tried to convey to the court is that RFRIT is not a structure subordinate to the Ministry of Digital Development, that he himself did not have the authority to influence RFRIT, its general director and grant committee, the grant committee acted independently. Making various arguments, the former deputy minister also indicated that he did not affect the postponement of the competition in 2022, and did not influence the deputy director of the IT development department of the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development Aleksei Popov in order to submit to the meeting of the grant committee the so-called "Monosov list" and facilitate companies from this list of grants.

Separately, he drew the court's attention to the fact that, for example, an application for a grant from Inspark, which, according to investigators, was on the so-called Monosov list, was on the agenda of the grant committee and was considered even before the grant committee of this very "Monosov list" appeared in the general Telegram chat. She ended up among those who did not receive grants. And some of the companies from the sane list are at all direct competitors of the companies of Alexander Monosov, he also noted during the interrogation.

March 10 ended the interrogation of Maxim Parshin in court

The defendant again criticized the procedure for expert assessment of RFRIT projects, which was introduced at a certain point in 2022. "A very strange independent examination," Maxim Parshin assesses, stating that he and his defense saw its materials only recently after a lawyer's request.

The former deputy minister claims that it is still not clear who specifically acted as experts, whether there is an examination contract, what qualifications the experts have. In addition, there is no procedure for challenging the results, he said: "I was so appreciated and that's it, I did not receive a grant." He personally considers such an examination to be "an instrument of potential manipulation," because it is "impossible to challenge," and the methodology of independent examination is "anecdotal."

At the same time, Maxim Parshin admits that he himself then agreed on this independent examination, explaining that in a time pressure situation it was very difficult to oppose an already prepared and executed proposal. He stressed, however, that responsibility for coordination does not completely relieve itself.

He also remembered how at a meeting with Alexander Monosov in mid-December 2022 he spoke about his crowded "cup of patience," regret for holding this competition and then called it a "toxic support measure."

Maxim Parshin at the court hearing also reached the testimony concerning the meeting with Alexander Monosov directly, where there was a transfer of a folder with money in the amount of 3.75 million rubles. He insists that there was no transfer of funds for any promotion of companies, calls the incident "an incredible coincidence." He noted that even at the time of his arrest he said that he did not understand where the money came from, why such an amount.

The state prosecutor filed a petition in court to announce the interrogation protocol of Maxim Parshin dated July 13, 2023, that is, shortly after the arrest, justifying him with a significant contradiction in the testimony. We are talking about the following: immediately after the arrest, Maxim Parshin said that in 2022 Alexander Monosov offered him monthly material assistance, without putting forward any conditions for committing any actions on his part, and he agreed. When, after the arrest, it became known that there was money in the transferred folder, the deputy minister admitted that this amount was the material assistance promised to him for the previous period, according to the interrogation protocol. At the same time, regardless of the agreement on material assistance, he mentioned that there was an appeal to him for help in obtaining grants by certain companies.

But now Maxim Parshin refused these testimonies, explaining to the court that he gave them then at night, experienced pressure - "I succumbed to him," and at that time he did not yet have a lawyer ready to join the process, but only a lawyer by appointment. In addition, the money was a "big surprise" for him, he could not match the amount with anything, "and at that time this version seemed more or less believable." But, he told the court, already on July 14, during interrogation as an accused, he said that under Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not plead guilty, and will give detailed testimony later. Actually, later, on July 19, he did it.

In accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, in connection with the refusal, now these testimonies cannot be used as evidence in a criminal case. Lawyer Darya Shulgina told the court that the defense would file a petition to exclude them from the list of evidence.

Asking questions to Maxim Parshin during the interrogation, the state prosecutor, among other things, made a reference to one of his meetings with Alexander Monosov - December 21, 2022. From the dialogue read out, it follows that at that meeting Alexander Monosov mentioned a certain "list of two among 73 projects that have moved to the second stage," where "4 remain with priority," and "6 remain without priority." And Maxim Parshin mentioned particularly significant projects for which agreements had already been concluded at that time, as well as the process of voting "against" by the grant committee. He insists that the talk in all this dialogue, from which excerpts are given, was about especially significant projects, and voting also applies to them.

The interrogation of Maxim Parshin on March 10 was completed. His final chord was the details characterizing his personality and professional merit. The former deputy minister of digital development for context recalled that he had been in the civil service since 2002. Working earlier in the Ministry of Economic Development, he was responsible for the direction related to state and municipal services. Maxim Parshin calls the result the MPSC system, the Public services portal and the entire electronic government system. He also listed large-scale projects that were launched and implemented under his leadership at other places of work.

Maxim Parshin also asked the court to attach to the case file the book he wrote "The Quality of State and Municipal Services: On the Way to the Service State," which was published in 2013.

I could have done more, but I am where I am, - he summed up.

Some other details of the interrogation of the former deputy minister of digital development are in the following TAdviser materials, which will be released a little later.

In the same court session on March 10, Stanislav Kutuzov, general director of the Financier IT company, was also questioned as a witness. Separate material will also be published about his interrogation.

The next court hearing in the criminal case is scheduled for March 17.

Maxim Parshin gave the first testimony in the corruption case: Dissatisfaction with the work of RFRIT and weekly meetings with Monosov

On February 24, 2025, in a meeting on a criminal case in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, which lasted several hours, the interrogation of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin began. This was preceded by the presentation in a series of court hearings of evidence from the prosecution and evidence from the defense, including interviews of witnesses.

Maxim Parshin spoke in court about his view on the grant process and relations with Alexander Monosov

A significant part of the testimony of Maxim Parshin, voiced this time, concerns the context and process of the competitive selection of RFRIT for the issuance of grants for projects for the development of domestic software, which was held in 2022. Maxim Parshin recalled that the events under consideration took place against the background of the start of the SVO, when an emergency transition from imported IT solutions to domestic ones was required. At the time of the events under consideration, he himself was responsible to the Ministry of Digital Development for measures to support the IT industry.

He mentioned the government's initiative on grant support for particularly significant projects (OZP) for the implementation of Russian solutions, which arose in 2022. Their selection was carried out as part of the activities of industrial competence centers (ICC) created also at the initiative of the government and competence centers for the development of Russian system-wide and applied software (CDC). Initially, according to him, they were inclined to allocate all the funds available for support to support OZP - in this case, we are talking about the largest Russian companies.

But smaller companies were also waiting for support, said Maxim Parshin: "And I defended these two billion for development." The main part of the funds eventually went to support the OZP, and the mentioned 2 billion rubles - a separate track to support projects for the development of domestic IT solutions.

It was necessary to hold this separate competition for development, including "politically," the former deputy minister is sure: if all the money allocated for support were given only to large companies, and the smaller IT players did not get anything, "then trust would be destroyed."

Maxim Parshin told the court that he was dissatisfied with how the RFRIT competitive selection procedure was organized and the level of expertise when evaluating applications. He had questions about what kind of examination it was, who acted as experts, what qualifications they had, and so on. The former official said that against this background, he initiated the creation of thematic commissions with the participation of representatives of the ICC - for an additional procedure for evaluating applications for the competition, "so that those who really should be given money," from the point of view of the demand for solutions from business. Thematic commissions were established on October 31, 2022.

From the court declared by Maxim Parshin, it follows that he was personally dissatisfied with the work of the general director of RFRIT Alexander Pavlov, had a desire to change the general director of RFRIT within the framework of the established procedure and even looked after a suitable candidate for this. In particular, the candidacy of deputy director Aleksei Popov, deputy director of the development department of the IT Ministry of Digital Development industry was proposed. Maxim Parshin considers him a good specialist.

According to the defendant, he was also dissatisfied with the work of Ilya Kostunov. Since April 2022, he served as deputy general director of RFRIT. Maxim Parshin claims that he offered Alexander Pavlov instead of Ilya Kostunov to appoint another person in charge of the competition, but this did not happen. And, in his opinion, including this moment indicates the independence of the RFRIT from the Ministry of Digital Development in its decisions both de jure and de facto. Moreover, now he believes that it was still wrong: "If you manage, then manage," "we did not manage," and it was necessary to "enter into the charter of the RFRIT...."

Also, the ex-deputy minister refutes that he himself somehow allegedly slowed down the timing of consideration of applications for grant committees in 2022. The main support track was associated with the OZP, and it was impossible to distribute money in isolation from it, Maxim Parshin explained to the court. In addition, he refutes that he allegedly gave any instructions or instructions related to the impact on the outcome of the competitive selection. He told the court that, including Alexander Pavlov, he "did not give instructions, did not try."

In addition, Maxim Parshin presented in court his version of the relationship with Alexander Monosov. He is familiar to him for at least 10 years, and the former deputy minister communicated with him as an expert, periodically consulted with him on various issues.

Alexander Monosov was familiar to me for many years - at least 10 years before that. I know him as a professional and appreciate him in two hypostases: as a serious entrepreneur, participant and head of a number of companies, and as a technological expert. We met with him plus or minus weekly, when it turned out, on Wednesdays, in the same place, at the same table for several years, - said Maxim Parshin.

He told the court that he did not remember Alexander Monosov providing him with a list of projects, but did not deny that they discussed it. According to Maxim Parshin, there were several examples of projects from Alexander Monosov, which could simply be watched at a time when there was a lot of incomprehensible in the process of competitive selection: "For me, it's like lighthouse projects. I want to understand how the RFRIT procedure works on the example of companies that you know as worthy companies. "

The continuation of the interrogation of Maxim Parshin is scheduled for March 10.

Not the amount of a bribe, but "features of business accounting." Scientists from the PRUE named after G.V. Plekhanov were involved in the defense in the criminal case of Maxim Parshin

On February 24, 2025, in a meeting in the criminal case of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin and the ex-general director of BFT Alexander Monosov in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, where TAdviser visited, the defense filed a number of petitions. One of them was associated with the amount of 31.5 million rubles, which appears as a bribe in the indictment announced in one of the court hearings earlier.

Denis Saushkin, the lawyer of Alexander Monosov, presented the court with an explanation of where this amount came from. It was found in one of the tables in the file, which was contained in a laptop seized from Alexander Monosov. Among other things, this file contains information about 5 companies that appear in the charge as companies from the so-called "Monosov list," which received grants following a competitive selection in 2022. The table in relation to these companies contains, among other things, notes with these percentages (5%, 10%), the specified amount of the grant, etc. And in the column "Total" an amount of 31.5 million rubles is indicated.

According to the defense, this is not the amount of a bribe, but "the peculiarities of business accounting for the feasibility of the project." And so that the words in court were not unfounded, the lawyer appealed in advance to the REU named after G.V. Plekhanova, where he received the conclusion of two specialists. Both of them are candidates of economic sciences, associate professors, and for each of them the defender gave the court a whole list of facts indicating their high qualifications and competence.

The defense side presented in court the opinion of experts from the PRUE named after G.V. Plekhanov

The experts were asked questions related mainly to the methodology of the weighted sales funnel and the inverse weighted sales funnel, as well as their applicability for managing and predicting sales of Russian IT projects, including taking into account a number of conditions. The essence of the experts' answers given in court is as follows: the 5% and 10% noted in the table relate to the principle of business planning and are related to the question of the likelihood of the implementation of these projects to the end. The lower the percentage, the lower the risk of loss for the grant recipient.

The lawyer petitioned for the inclusion of this expert opinion in the materials of the criminal case. And the state prosecutor objected to this, since, as he explained his position, the specialists who gave the conclusion are not related to the case in question, and the conclusion itself is also not directly related to the case. The experts had at their disposal only a table torn from the entire volume of case materials that the court has at its disposal. Accordingly, the expert was deprived of the opportunity to give an objective assessment of this evidence.

However, the court nevertheless granted this request of the lawyer, and after him another one - to interrogate one of the experts who issued the indicated conclusion, who appeared in court. Specialist REU named after G.V. Plekhanova, answering questions in the court session, noted that, looking at the table presented, "we understand that this is really some kind of sales-related analytics," that the method of inverse weighted funnel of sales is applied to it and a percentage is put in the form of risks of customer losses and revenue.

At the same time, the expert confirmed, answering the question of the state prosecutor, that he did not know the circumstances of the criminal case, where the table came from, who compiled it, and so on. In his assessment, he approached questions from the point of view of theory.

Among the petitions announced on February 24 by the defense side was one concerning a blue plastic folder with funds in the amount of 3.75 million rubles, which, according to investigators, Alexander Monosov handed over to Maxim Parshin during a meeting at the Voronezh restaurant on July 12, 2023. At the time of his arrest, Maxim Parshin said that he did not know the contents of this folder.

According to the protection version, the blue folders in the office of Alexander Monosov were initially two of the same, he just took the wrong folder to a meeting with Maxim Parshin - he confused. One of them contained money that Alexander Monosov prepared for personal use, and the other documents that he was going to take to meet with Maxim Parshin.

The lawyer asked the court to attach to the case file the protocol of the inspection in the office of Alexander Monosov, carried out after the investigation closed and sealed it after the search. The inspection was carried out in the presence of a notary on behalf of Alexander Monosov himself in July 2024, who indicated exactly where the same folder with documents lies in his office, Denis Saushkin said.

The state prosecutor objected to the introduction of this inspection protocol, referring to the fact that the compilation of inspection protocols is provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and is enshrined in law, therefore, the inspection protocol of a certain room for detecting a certain folder there cannot be considered legally obtained. And the reliability of the information received during this event cannot be verified, since there were no witnesses, he told the court. In addition, the investigator's permission to open this room was not submitted to the court.

As a result, the court refused to satisfy the petition, since the court did not submit evidence of the investigator's permission to lift restrictions on the use of the specified office of Alexander Monosov. Denis Saushkin said that this permission exists, and he will provide it to the court.

The lawyer drew the court's attention to the fact that before the said inspection, Alexander Monosov had previously applied for a seizure in his office, but this was refused to him, and asked the court for permission to announce that decision refusing to satisfy the petition. The court allowed him to do this.

At the hearing on February 24, the interrogation of Maxim Parshin also started, the continuation of which is scheduled for March 10. What the former deputy minister has already managed to tell the court is in the next TAdviser article, which will be published in the near future.

In the criminal case of Maxim Parshin, the general director of Korus Consulting Alexander Semenov was interrogated

On February 24, 2025, the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow continued to consider the criminal case of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin and the ex-general director of BFTAlexander Monosov. This time, another witness of the defense, Alexander Semyonov, was interrogated at the hearing, the TAdviser correspondent reports from the courthouse.

The witness is the general director of the Korus Consulting Group of Companies. One of the group's companies, Korus Consulting SRM, participated in the competitive selection of RFRIT in 2022 and received a grant as a result.

General Director of Korus Consulting Alexander Semenov

In a number of startups, Alexander Semenov is the founder: for example, in the companies "Financier" and "Innovations in Human Resources Management" (HRlink). Both of them also applied for participation in the same competitive selection.

The witness told the court that both defendants knew him personally. With Alexander Monosov, in particular, he has known for a very long time - about 28 years. During this time, Alexander Monosov was for him an example of the "deepest expert" and a good manager. Alexander Semyonov is unknown about any role of Alexander Monosov in the competitive selection for grants in 2022.

As the witness recalled about the course of the competitive selection, then the impression was that there was some kind of confusion, "fuss around this whole process." Moreover, Alexander Semenov himself did not participate then in communication with representatives of the RFRIT. There is a special department that deals with competitive applications in the company. Who this department headed at the time of selection in 2022, he could not remember. The above impression of the competition was based on feedback from the team.

In addition, understanding the company's products requires expertise, and according to the information that came from employees involved in the competitive selection, the expertise on the part of RFRIT seemed to be somewhat lacking, the witness recalled, answering questions from the defense.

Receiving a grant for the company was not critical, Alexander Semenov also specified.

The interrogation of Alexander Semyonov was completed. Also, in addition, at the court hearing on February 24, the defense filed a number of petitions, and the interrogation of Maxim Parshin himself began. Read more about this in the following TAdviser materials.

In the criminal case of Maxim Parshin, top managers of HRlink, Napoleon IT and First Form were questioned

On February 17, 2025, the consideration of the criminal case of Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow continued. This time, three more witnesses of the defense were questioned - representatives of companies from the so-called "Monosov list."

One of the witnesses is the Danila Morogin executive director at, Innovation in Human Resources Management LLC which is developing the platform. HRlink It is one of the companies that entered the grant competition in RFRIT 2022.

The witness has been with the company since 2021. He said that Alexander Monosov was personally familiar to him: "Alexander is a man known in the market. We've crossed paths at various events before.' Danila Morogin learned about the charge brought against Alexander Monosov from the media.

At the same time, the witness, answering questions, noted that Alexander Monosov personally did not assist him at the competition, but whether he provided the company's shareholders, he is not aware. And the services of external consultants were not involved in the competition in 2022.

The work of one of the experts in protecting projects within the framework of the competitive selection seemed strange to the witness - as if he was not in the subject area of ​ ​ HR technologies.

The selection result for the grant for the company was negative. The selection procedure seemed then to Danila Morogin opaque, "foggy."

The second witness is Konstantin Price, CEO of Napoleon IT. Previously at the company, he served as commercial director. Both defendants are not familiar to him.

At the time of the competitive selection of RFRIT for grants in 2022, Pavel Podkorytov was the general director of Napoleon IT. And Konstantin Price defended the company's application for a grant committee.

The company had an agreement with an external consulting company that helped to correctly draw up the tender documentation. The witness found it difficult to assess the work of the RFRIT as part of the competitive selection, but believes that the refusal to grant was unfair. Then the assessment of experts on the company's project came from RFRIT, and it seemed opaque to the witness.

The third witness was Denis Seleznev, the long-term general director and co-founder of the First Form company (1Forma LLC), the developer of the low-code/no-code platform.

Denis Seleznev, CEO and co-founder of First Form

The witness is not familiar with Parshin, but crossed paths with Monosov twice in his life. Answering questions from the defense, Denis Seleznev noted that neither he nor his employees turned to Monosov for help related to participation in the RFRIT competition for grants in 2022.

Like the previous two companies, First Form also took part in the RFRIT grant competition in 2022. In the end, the company did not receive a grant. Moreover, only more than six months later, the company received an official refusal to issue a grant through Public services, he recalls.

The witness said that he lacked clarity, efficiency and transparency on the part of persons from RFRIT, with whom the company interacted in the framework of competitive selection in 2022.

At this, the interrogation of three more witnesses was completed. But that's not all the defence side wants to question. In this regard, lawyer Denis Saushkin petitioned the court to announce the testimony of witnesses who had not appeared at the meeting, which had already been recorded during the investigation. But the state prosecutor objected: he believes that their testimony does not refute or confirm the circumstances set out in the indictment. And the court rejected the lawyer's request.

Then Denis Saushkin asked the court to call these witnesses again, again sending them summons. The state prosecutor noted to this that the consideration of this criminal case is taking on a protracted nature, and objected to the deposition of the court session for interrogation of witnesses who had not previously appeared. He believes that it is necessary to start interrogating the accused themselves.

However, the court decided to again assist the defense in calling witnesses. The interrogation should continue on February 24.

In the criminal case of Maxim Parshin, the general director of Logic of Business was interrogated. The rest of the witnesses will need the help of the court to appear

On February 3, 2025, the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow continued to consider the criminal case of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin and the ex-general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov. This time there was an interrogation of the witness of the defense, - Igor Kasimov. He turned out to be the only one of more than a dozen witnesses whom the defense side wants to interrogate and tried to call for this.

Igor Kasimov at the time of interrogation is the general director of Logia Business LLC and has a stake in it through AiTi Management Company JSC. The latter also owned Boss Personnel Systems by 70% until 2023, when an investment deal with Softline took place.

Both of these companies appear in the so-called "Monosov list." They participated in the competitive selection for grants for software development, which was conducted by RFRIT in 2022, and were among the winners.

Igor Kasimov, CEO of Logic Business

Igor Kasimov told the court that he was personally unfamiliar and had never met Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov. Also, he did not submit documents for the competition in 2022 and did not directly interact with the RFRIT, a special team was engaged in this, she also transmitted him information about the progress of the competition.

At the same time, "Logic of Business" participated in the competitive selection and earlier, in 2020. Then everything went more clearly, recalls Igor Kasimov. And in 2022, the competition procedure was rebuilt more than once and adjusted "on the go," there were incomprehensible moments. Igor Kasimov noted that in general there was "an element of indignation strong enough" in the process, "they grabbed their heads."

There were, among other things, questions to the experts of the RFRIT: according to the witness, it was not always clear what they requested from the companies that applied for the competition, and what it had to do with the subject area.

When asked by the defense whether any help was felt during the competition, the witness answered in the negative. He also did not have a feeling of any favorability to Logic of Business and Boss Personnel Systems at the competition.

Also during the interrogation, he noted that the company was not attracted to anyone from outside to help prepare documents for the competition: "We have enough specialists."

The witness also does not have any versions about the situation with the accusation brought against Alexander Monosov. No remuneration was supposed to anyone in the event of receiving grants by Logic of Business and Boss of Personnel Systems, he confirmed, answering questions from a lawyer.

The development within the framework of the projects for which grants were received was completed on time, which the companies reported to RFRIT, Igor Kasimov told the court.

The interrogation of Igor Kasimov is completed. The defense told the court that over the past week it had made attempts to independently ensure that representatives of other companies appeared in court as witnesses. In the previous meeting, in particular, it was about interrogation in court a total of 16 more people. However, as the lawyer Denis Saushkin said, some witnesses referred to the fact that they are on vacation, others - that they have a business trip. And some people refused to communicate at all, fearing fraudsters, and are not ready to talk without an official subpoena. In this regard, the lawyer asked the court to assist in bringing witnesses and send them summons for February 17. The court decided to do so.

The defense also petitioned for a demonstration in court of material evidence - fragments of video recordings from the meetings of the grant committee received on a flash drive from RFRIT. This is necessary to show the court that the grant committee was not managed by someone - it acted independently, and that at the request of companies from the so-called "Monosov list" battles were fought on the grant committees, the defense explained. The court granted this petition.

The defense side reminded the court that of the 16 companies that, according to the investigation, advanced at the competition in a special order, in fact, only five companies received grants, some did not even reach the 2nd stage of the competition. Among the demonstrated fragments of the records were, among other things, the discussion by the grant committee of applications from companies from the "Monosov list" that did not receive grants. The lawyer stressed that of all these companies, one way or another, only two belong to Alexander Monosov himself - "Innovations in Human Resources Management" and "Financier." They did not receive grants. How the grant committee considered their applications in December 2022 was also shown to the court in the record.

Among the moments heard in the notes was also an explanation by the chairman of the grant committee Oleg Fomichev about how the current competition at that time, within which 2 billion rubles are distributed in the form of grants, correlates with the selection of particularly significant projects, to which, at the initiative of the government in 2022, it was decided to send the bulk of funding within the framework of grant support.

The next court hearing in the case is scheduled for February 17.

In the case of Maxim Parshin, the deputy of Ilya Massukh was interrogated. The lawyer suddenly asked to call another 16 witnesses

On January 27, 2025, the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow continued to consider the criminal case of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin and the ex-general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov. In the court session, which was attended by the TAdviser correspondent, another witness in the case was interrogated - Boris Yudin, deputy director of the ANO CKIT. Also, the meeting continued to study the written evidence of the defense.

Boris Yudin was a member of the RFRIT grant committee for several years . He became the last witness on the list to be questioned in court.

Answering questions from the defense, Boris Yudin, like other witnesses earlier, spoke in detail about the progress of the competitive selection of projects for grants in 2022. He recalled, among other things, that at a certain stage and members of the grant committee were given the opportunity to propose projects for further consideration at the competition on a general basis. After that, there were several wishes to add projects: "It was from Rosatom, if I'm not mistaken, from Rostelecom," the witness added. He could not recall the specific names of the members of the grant committee from whom these options came.

Boris Yudin also recalled the new criteria for evaluating applications for grants proposed by the ANO CKIT, which other witnesses had already told about earlier during interrogations, including the director of the ANO CKIT Ilya Massukh, who was interrogated in the previous meeting. Boris Yudin also confirmed that these criteria were not mandatory for members of the grant committee.

Before Boris Yudin, the court has already questioned several witnesses

The witness also told the court that he himself was personally dissatisfied with the organization of competitive selection in 2022, in connection with which he drew up a special opinion at the end of the year. It is attached to the case file. Boris Yudin believed that "the work was organized unsatisfactory," and that in the end, at the last stage of the competitive selection, the main criterion for the distribution of grants was the speed of preparation of a package of all the necessary documents, because there was very little time left. Some of the applicants did not receive money only because they did not have time to do this, he expressed his opinion in court.

Denis Saushkin, the lawyer of Alexander Monosov, pointed out that, based on the charges brought, including against his client, we are talking about allegedly giving a bribe so that a list of 14 companies (the so-called "Monosov list") received some priority when considered by the grant committee - when considering applications from these companies. And, according to the prosecution, only five companies on that list eventually received grants. But if we analyze the charge well, then the list of 14 companies that is periodically mentioned is actually a list of 16 companies that were present in different tables.

And also, according to the defense, it is extremely important whether the tender documentation was observed in terms of deadlines in 2022: "This issue is extremely important for the charge, because the defense intends to prove in the future that the deadlines provided for by the tender documentation were in no way fulfilled, which was the need to simply help RFRIT," Denis Saushkin explained to the court.

And in order to make it more convenient to perceive what is connected with certain milestones of the competitive selection in accordance with the tender documentation of the RFRIT - how it should have been and how the RFRIT actually came out, the defense asked the court to attach the visualized tables specially prepared by it to the case file. The defense side distributed these tables to the participants in the process. Moreover, the state prosecutor objected to their involvement in the case file, but the court nevertheless granted the request of the lawyers.

Going through the chronology of competitive selection, the defense side drew the court's attention to the fact that, according to materials received from RFRIT, both before and after submitting applications from companies that Monos allegedly promoted and which received grants, many more other companies applied and also received grants.

As of January 27, all documents that the defense side wanted to investigate were examined. At the same time, the defense side filed a petition to request additional documents from the RFRIT. Since the announcement of competitive selection in 2022, the competitive documentation has changed several times. For example, the provision on thematic commissions was not immediately introduced, it appeared later. The case file does not contain competitive documentation and a provision on thematic commissions, a provision on the grant committee in those editions to which changes were made several times. There is also no appendix to the tender documentation, which is directly related to the procedure for actions related to the submission of applications and the powers of the members of the grant committee.

In this regard, Denis Saushkin petitioned the RFRIT to seek certified copies of the tender documentation in those editions that were at the time of the amendments, or the RFRIT decision to amend the tender documentation, so that it could be understood what was and what became.

Denis Saushkin filed another petition: to summon representatives of all 16 companies, applications from which were allegedly promoted by his client, regardless of the fact that five companies won at the end. These representatives have previously been interrogated during the preliminary investigation, the lawyer said. Their appearance in court is now necessary in order, based on the charges brought against Alexander Monosov, to find out "the circumstances, how, Monosov allegedly participated in their interests, on the basis of which" and so on.

The state prosecutor objected to both petitions. As for the request for additional documents: the defense side has the right to independently request and submit to the court the documents of interest on the tender documentation, he substantiated his objection. And regarding the summoning of witnesses who are not included in the list: the defense was not deprived of the right to bring witnesses of interest to the court on its own, and even then the court would have decided to interrogate them. The court agreed with the state prosecutor and refused to satisfy both applications.

Based on this, the defense party began to petition for the postponement of the court session for the possibility of delivering these witnesses next time, and, depending on how much they can be brought, again apply for their interrogation. The court granted this petition.

The next court hearing in the case is scheduled for February 3.

Maxim Parshin was not released from the pre-trial detention center under house arrest, although he very much asked

On January 27, 2025, the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow continued to consider the criminal case of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin. At the court session, where the TAdviser correspondent visited, the state prosecutor filed a petition to extend the term of detention of Maxim Parshin in a pre-trial detention center for 3 months as a preventive measure. The court granted this petition, extending the former deputy minister's detention in the pre-trial detention center until May 12, 2025.

The current term of detention of Maxim Parshin expires on February 12. According to the prosecution, the circumstances that served as the basis for the election and extension of just such a preventive measure for him had not changed or disappeared. The state prosecutor voiced fears that if the defendant is released, he may, for example, hide from the court, including using his financial resources, or put pressure on participants in criminal proceedings.

In turn, the defense objected to the extension of the term of detention in the pre-trial detention center and asked to change Maxim Parshin's preventive measure to a milder one - to house arrest. Under house arrest, he would be in a house owned by his mother, located in the Moscow region, 60 km from Moscow.

Earlier, the ex-deputy minister of digital development was already kept under house arrest and at the same time did not put pressure on witnesses, did not try to hide from the court, etc., said Darya Shulgina, lawyer for Maxim Parshin. She considers the justification for extending the "most severe preventive measure" unfounded and not based on the materials of the criminal case.

And Maxim Parshin himself, when he was given the floor, reminded the court that he had been in jail for a year and a half. From the very beginning, it was not clear to him why he was here, especially since at first the Basmanny Court sent him under house arrest, and then the prosecutor's office appealed against this measure of restraint.

The ex-deputy minister pointed out that "from time to time he repeats himself about some financial resources" that he has been arrested, "all accounts": "Including, my relatives have nothing to live on literally." He also denied that he could hide from the court and put pressure on witnesses.

I do not see a single reason to keep me in custody, your honor. Taking into account the fact, again, that all the witnesses were interrogated, the evidence was presented, the trial was announced, - Maxim Parshin appealed to the court.

And if you extend the preventive measure on the basis of only the severity of the accusation, then this is only "so that there are fewer people who want to work in the public service, because then, despite all the objective circumstances, you should sit," the former deputy minister believes.

The court, however, after hearing and analyzing all the arguments, eventually considered it expedient to leave the preventive measure in the form of detention.

At the hearing on January 27, a witness in the criminal case, Boris Yudin, deputy director of the ANO CKIT, was also interrogated. In addition, a study of the written evidence of the defense continued.

Ilya Massukh did not remember anything compromising Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov. Detailed readings

On January 20, 2025, Ilya Massukh, director of the ANO Center for Import Substitution in ICT (ANO TsKIT), in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, as a first-person witness in the criminal case of Maxim Parshin, shed light on some points in connection with which he was repeatedly mentioned by other witnesses during interrogations. For example, the court has repeatedly heard information that during the competitive selection period in 2022, Ilya Massukh proposed additional criteria for evaluating applications from companies applying for grants to members of the RFRIT grant committee. The new criteria were not enshrined in the officially approved rules of competitive selection, and their application was not mandatory.

Ilya Massukh, who was a member of the RFRIT Supervisory Board at the time of the events in question, told the court what these were additional criteria, and how they appeared. Due to the fact that the number of applications for grants received by the RFRIT in 2022 significantly exceeded the volume of available state financing, following the meetings, the deputy minister in the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development decided that the ANO CKIT would develop criteria that the RFRIT grant committee could apply when evaluating applications. These criteria were developed at the end of November 2022.

One of the moments voiced at the trial from the testimony of Ilya Massukh: back in 2021, the RFRIT appealed to the ANO CKIT with a request to become an expert organization for grants and provide employees of the ANO CKIT as experts and members of the grant committee. There is a contract between the organizations. And in 2022, during the competitive selection for grants, Ilya Massukh took part in various meetings, including with the participation of Deputy Minister Maxim Parshin and RFRIT General Director Alexander Pavlov.

Ilya Massukh has long known Maxim Parshin

The state prosecutor clarified from Ilya Massukh who exactly was the initiator of the development of additional criteria - from whom exactly such a proposal followed at the meeting. But Ilya Massukh could not remember. He noted that this was a meeting "not under the protocol": "Yes, good, let the CKIT develop." "Here, who said it?," The state prosecutor asked the question. "Pavlov, and Parshin, and... could say this," Ilya Massukh replied. "And do you not remember?," - asked the state prosecutor. "I don't remember," confirmed Ilya Massukh.

In accordance with the criteria for prioritizing companies, which Ilya Massukh eventually proposed to the grant committee, some projects should not have been prioritized. He himself told the court that the first criterion is not to prioritize applications for grants from state-owned companies: "It is strange to help state-owned companies for state money. It's like shifting from one pocket to the next. " The second criterion is not to prioritize software products that already have several analogues. We are talking, for example, about class systems, ERP HRM. Another criterion is not to prioritize projects in which we are talking only about switching to the Russian technology stack without any functional additions.

Ilya Massukh then reported these criteria to the grant committee, he did this on the Aerospace Forces during one of the meetings of the grant committee. At the same time, not everyone positively perceived the proposed. Among the members of the grant committee were representatives of state-owned companies, Ilya Massukh explained. They were against their projects being prioritised.

Denis Saushkin, lawyer for Alexander Monosov, drew the court's attention to the fact that the ranked list submitted on November 17, 2022 to the grant committee for consideration for transferring applications to the second stage of the competition contained applications from two companies from the list declared to the grant committee as recommended by the Ministry of Digital Ministry of Digital Development, which, according to the criteria proposed by the ANO CKIT, should not have been prioritized. We are talking about the companies "Boss Human Resources Systems" and "Innovations in Human Resources Management" with HRM projects. Ilya Massukh confirmed that if we were guided by the proposed criteria, these projects should not have been prioritized.

Also, according to the memoirs of Ilya Massukh, he received a request from Pavlov to see the list of companies and expert note which projects meet the proposed criteria and which do not, which, in fact, he did. From whom this initiative initially came, Ilya Massukh is not aware, and did not try to clarify at that time.

The state prosecutor raised the issue at the trial, in connection with which Ilya Massukh, not being a member of the grant committee, took part in the meeting of the grant committee and voiced the criteria developed by the ANO CKIT, while one of his employees - Deputy Director of the CKIT Boris Yudin - was a member of the RFRIT grant committee. Ilya Massukh explained that Yudin in the grant committee was an expert as an individual, and did not perform the function of an employee of the ANO CKIT there: "I could not give him such instructions." And, moreover, he was not a member of the RFRIT supervisory board.

The state prosecutor was also interested in whether Maxim Parshin ever asked Ilya Massukha in 2022 to contact Alexander Monosov on the prioritization of certain projects. Ilya Massukh replied that on the issue of prioritization - "hardly," but in general it was such that he asked to contact on other issues. "And what, have you contacted Monosov?," - said the state prosecutor. "Contacted," confirmed Ilya Massukh.

According to him, there were conversations with Alexander Monosov mainly about software and about various projects that were not related to competitive selection for grants. Monosov headed a large company that was a software manufacturer for various sectors of the economy, Ilya Massukh explained. In particular, they discussed open source software with him: "This was one of the import substitution trends in 2022, so they discussed these points."

The state prosecutor also asked whether Alexander Monosov asked Ilya Massukh to make some kind of adjustment to the list of projects with applications. Ilya Massukh said that he did not remember the discussion with Alexander Monosov of the list, which means that he hardly asked.

And, answering questions from the defense side, Ilya Massukh noted that Alexander Monosov understands the IT industry, in the creation, implementation and sales of software, in particular. And he agreed that in this part anyone could turn to Alexander Monosov as an expert for advice, including Maxim Parshin. Also in the court session, he positively described Maxim Parshin as a leader both before his work in the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development and while working there.

The interrogation of Ilya Massukh on January 20 was completed. In the next court session, it is planned to interrogate the above-mentioned Boris Yudin.

Ilya Massukh and Rostelecom vice president Boris Glazkov questioned in court

On January 20, 2025, the Khamovnichesky District Court Moscow continued the interrogation of witnesses in the criminal case. Maxim Parshin This time, questions were asked to the Boris Glazkov senior vice president for innovative development, "" Rostelecom who in 2022 was a member of the grant committee, and RFRIT is still one. In addition to him, on the same day the court interrogated the director (ANO ANO "Competence Center for Import Substitution in the Field of ICT" CKIT), Ilya Massukha who was a member of the RFRIT Supervisory Board, according to a correspondent from TAdviser the courthouse.

Ilya Massukh, Director of ANO "Competence Center for Import Substitution in ICT"

Boris Glazkov partially spoke about how the selection of projects for grants took place in 2022 at a previous interrogation a week ago. Here, he mostly repeated what other witnesses had previously voiced.

From the previously described, he, among other things, confirmed that at the first stage of the competitive selection in 2022, members of the grant committee came to consider projects only with a high ranking. The latter, we recall, was assigned based on the results of ranking by experts who were attracted by RFRIT. This decision was due to the fact that the amount of funds for grants was very limited.

And among the new points that Boris Glazkov noted at the trial on January 20 is the fact that there is not a single document regulating whether it is possible or impossible to add projects to the table of ranked grant applications after forming this table in the RFRIT. That is, it is not prohibited.

Moreover, if some member of the grant committee would propose specific projects for consideration, then a clear understanding of why he does it would be required. Whether in fact one of the members proposed projects, Boris Glazkov found it difficult to remember.

However, Maxim Parshin's lawyer Darya Shulgina in court from a laptop showed a video from a meeting of the grant committee dated November 22, 2022, where, as it turned out, Boris Glazkov himself invited members of the grant committee to watch one company - NTR ("New Telecom Decisions"). It develops domestic software for base stations. Earlier, including, this company as part of the so-called "Monosov list" was mentioned by the state prosecutor, presenting in court the version of the prosecution in a criminal case.

Boris Glazkov explained both immediately at the grant committee and in court that he knew this company. The development it is conducting also applies to Rostelecom projects. And when the chairman of the grant committee Oleg Fomichev at the meeting asked all members if there were any projects that should be additionally looked at, Boris Glazkov pointed to the NTR.

Boris Glazkov found it difficult to remember which companies received grants as a result of the competitive selection.

After him, Ilya Massukh was interrogated. Both defendants are familiar to him. Parshin, in particular, has known since about 2008.

The witnesses interrogated earlier in connection with Ilya Massukh and the ANO CKIT mentioned the appearance during the competitive selection of additional criteria for evaluating applications that were not in the officially approved rules of the competitive selection of the RFRIT. Ilya Massukh at a court hearing explained where these criteria came from.

Thus, the number of applications exceeded the amount of available funds for grants, a narrowing of the list was required, and therefore, following discussions at meetings in Ministry of Digital Development, it was proposed to develop criteria for prioritizing projects. Maxim Parshin, as a member of the RFRIT Supervisory Board, also took part in their discussion. There was a proposal that it was ANO CKIT that would develop these additional criteria for selection, Ilya Massukh said, answering questions from the state prosecutor. But from whom exactly this proposal came, he does not remember.

At the same time, the criteria were not a directive story, Ilya Massukh emphasized. Probably, the members of the grant committee took them into account, he believes. To the members of the grant committee, he read out these criteria for the Aerospace Forces at one of the meetings.

At the court session on January 20, Ilya Massukh voiced some other interesting points related to the criminal case. For example, which projects, according to the new criteria, were proposed not to be prioritized, and about which he himself contacted Alexander Monosov during the period when the competitive selection was in 2022. This is later in a separate TAdviser article.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for January 27. It is planned to interrogate another witness in it.

In the criminal case of Maxim Parshin, the ex-chairman of the grant committee of the RFRIT Oleg Fomichev was interrogated

On January 13, 2025, the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow continued to consider the criminal case of ex-Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin and former general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov. Four witnesses appeared in court, but only one of them, the former chairman of the grant committee of RFRITOlega Fomichev, managed to interrogate in full during the allotted time.

Questions were asked by both the defense and the state prosecutor. According to Oleg Fomichev, he personally knew Maxim Parshin for a long time - "we worked with him for probably a year since 2010." At that time, the witness worked at the Ministry of Economic Development, where in 2010 he took the post of deputy minister. And Oleg Fomichev is not familiar with Alexander Monosov.

During the period of events related to the criminal case, Oleg Fomichev was the chairman of the RFRIT grant committee

During the interrogation, Oleg Fomichev's answers mainly confirmed the information that other witnesses had previously voiced in court in one form or another. For example, the fact that on December 2, 2022, in the general chat of the grant committee in Telegram, the "list of the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development" appeared for the first time, which included 14 candidate projects for grants. It was posted there by the deputy director of the department for the development of the IT MintsifryAleksey Popov industry .

These 14 applications were part of a larger overall list that had previously gone before the grant committee; projects in it were present in a ranked form, their ranking was carried out on the basis of assessments of independent experts, whom the RFRIT attracted, and thematic commissions. Due to the fact that there were a lot of applications, the grant committee decided not to consider applications with low points from the list. And, as Oleg Fomichev was able to recall, in this ranked list, projects from the "list of the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development" just had a not very high score following the examination:... "did not score enough points to have a chance of receiving grant funding."

According to the memoirs of Oleg Fomichev, the Ministry of Digital Development asked to see this list of 14 projects additionally. It was precisely a request, a recommendation that was not binding. And, according to him, the members of the grant committee reacted normally to look at the list of projects provided to them at the request of the industry regulator.

I do not consider it anything criminal that the Ministry of Digital Development expressed its positions on certain projects, since this was not an indication or a requirement, but an expert opinion. The Ministry of Digital Development is a body authorized in matters of state policy in this area, and it also provided, was responsible to the government as a whole for state support in the field of IT. And I think it is right that they had their own position, and they conveyed it in the form in which the legislation allowed, "Oleg Fomichev explained to the court.

At the same time, as a result, all applications from the "list of the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development" were considered in general order. Oleg Fomichev claims that the grant committee and the Ministry of Digital Development sought to distribute as efficiently as possible 2 billion rubles allocated for grants.

During the interrogation, such a moment "surfaced" again that in 2022 the first meeting of the grant committee took place quite late - only in November, while the competitive selection for grants was announced back in April. Oleg Fomichev noted that he did not know why this happened, it did not depend on the grant committee itself, a signal of readiness to conduct it came from the RFRIT. At the same time, answering the question of the state prosecutor, he noted that this situation was not the first time: according to the memoirs of Oleg Fomichev, it had previously happened that the first meetings of the grant committee were held late. The witness referred in this to the way the process was built inside the RFRIT.

In addition, Oleg Fomichev told the court that at the time of the events in question he himself had a conflict of interest related to one of the companies participating in the competitive selection for a grant in 2022. We are talking about the company "Vist" (a subsidiary of the GC "Zyfra"), whose board of directors included Oleg Fomichev, "which I have always publicly stated at all meetings of the grant committee, when the relevant materials on this company were considered, asked me to exclude from the list of discussing."

The interrogation of Oleg Fomichev is completed. Several more witnesses are to be questioned in court. One of them is Boris Glazkov, Senior Vice President for Innovative Development of Rostelecom, who is currently a member of the RFRIT grant committee. Actually, his interrogation had already begun on January 13 after the interrogation of Oleg Fomichev, but in the allotted time they did not have time to complete it.

One of the important points that Boris Glazkov managed to highlight at the trial is his vision of how the members of the grant committee accepted the proposal to additionally consider the list of 14 projects. Since the ministry is an influential structure - both the regulator and the manager of budgetary funds, including grant support, the members of the grant committee perceived this proposal "as a rather influential, convincing request." The specific reasons for the companies getting on this selected list did not reach the grant committee.

Also on the list of witnesses who have yet to be questioned is Ilya Massukh, director of the ANO Center for Import Substitution in ICT (ANO CKIT). He arrived in court on January 13 along with a well-known lawyer Alexei Kirsanov. The latter is currently also representing in the courts in another criminal case the interests of the former Chief information officer of the Russian Post, Sergei Emelchenkov.

The next court session, where the interrogation of witnesses will continue, is scheduled for January 20.

2024

Four witnesses in the criminal case of Maxim Parshin did not appear for interrogation in court

On December 16, 2024, the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow planned to continue consideration of the criminal case of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin and the ex-general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov. However, it did not take place, since none of the witnesses whom the defense hoped to interrogate appeared in court.

It seems that the absence of witnesses turned out to be a surprise to everyone, including lawyers Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov. The information voiced by the defense in court indicates that within one day it was planned to interrogate 4 witnesses.

In connection with their failure to appear, lawyer Denis Saushkin asked the court to postpone the hearing until January 13, 2025. He explained that for the time available before this date, the defense will try to directly contact the witnesses and find out from them the circumstances why they did not appear at this court hearing. Also, for their part, the lawyers will try to ensure that witnesses appear on January 13.

Denis Saushkin added that the defense "does not have many questions" for witnesses.

In turn, the state prosecutor drew the court's attention to the fact that the postponement of consideration until January 13 leads to "delaying the consideration of this criminal case." The defense today, for example, was not deprived of the right to submit written evidence to the court in the case, he noted, expressing bewilderment that they did not do so.

In addition, the interrogation of the defendants is also provided if they wish to testify. The state prosecutor believes that this could also be done in the current court session or a week later, on December 23.

Denis Saushkin noted that now the defense is not ready for interrogation of the defendants, and recalled that at first the defense planned to investigate the interrogations of witnesses and the case materials, and then begin to interrogate the defendants.

He also drew the court's attention to the fact that to date RFRIT not a single member of the grant committee has been interrogated. And their testimony is very important, because the grant committee is the RFRIT body that decided both to transfer applications to grants the second stage and to issue grants. And since in the witnesses to be interrogated, members of the grant committee, the defense asked to leave the order that they had hoped for earlier.

As a result, the court decided to postpone the consideration of the case until January 13, 2025.

Consideration of the criminal case of Maxim Parshin moved to a new stage

On December 9, 2024, in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, in the criminal case of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin and the former general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov, the consideration of written evidence continued. For almost 3 hours, out of fifteen volumes of the case, they were represented by the state prosecutor. He voiced the data contained in the descriptions of recordings from CCTV cameras, seizure protocols based on the results of searches, protocols for inspecting seized items, etc.

Searches were carried out in July 2023 at home and at work with Maxim Parshin, Alexander Monosov, as well as at work with a number of persons who are witnesses in the case, including the deputy director of the IT industry development department Ministry of Digital Development Aleksei Popov and director (ANO "Competence Center for Import Substitution in the Field of ICT" ANO TsKIT). Ilya Massukha During a search at the ANO TsKIT, in particular, they seized various documents related to this organization, a laptop, a monoblock and Ilya Massukh's mobile phone.

According to the state prosecutor, during the search of the house from Maxim Parshin, among other things, money in the amount of 11 million 795 thousand rubles, $16 thousand was seized. And among those found on a mobile phone is the Bybit app, a Dubai crypto exchange that became an attractive alternative for Russian users after Binance left Russia, as well as wallets.

Court hearings in the case of Maxim Parshin are held on Mondays in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow

According to the certificate, the data from which was read out by the state prosecutor, in 2022 the total income of the Deputy Minister of Digital Development amounted to about 11.3 million rubles.

A fairly voluminous part of the written evidence voiced in court by the prosecution is excerpts from dialogues between Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov related to discussing the progress of the competitive selection of projects applying for grants, including projects from a separate list.

At the end of the court session, the state prosecutor said that at the moment the prosecution has completed the presentation of evidence. At the same time, earlier it was said that the prosecution would interrogate several more witnesses, but the state prosecutor clarified that there would be no more witnesses yet. However, if necessary, they can be interrogated later - in addition to the stages of presenting evidence of the prosecution and defense, there will be another stage of additions, he recalled.

Denis Saushkin, the lawyer of Alexander Monosov, explained to the court that there are currently 10 more people on the list of witnesses from the prosecution. Lawyers will petition for interrogation of 4 of them at the stage of presenting evidence to the defense, including Ilya Massukh and the chairman of the grant committee RFRIT Oleg Fomichev. After that, the defense plans to present its witnesses, who are not in the indictment, after which the interrogation of the defendants will begin.

In addition, a second appearance of Alexander Pavlov may be needed, who has already been interrogated in court as a witness on the part of the prosecution, as previously mentioned by the defense.

Minister Maksut Shadayev warned Maxim Parshin: "You will finish the game"

On November 25, 2024, the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow continued to consider the criminal case of the ex-Deputy Minister of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media Maxim Parshin and the former general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov. This time there was no interrogation of witnesses, but the written materials of the case, which were presented by the state prosecutor, were investigated.

We are talking about reports, written descriptions of video and audio materials received from different devices in different places during operational-search activities, and so on. The case took into account, among other things, records from a technical device that was issued for some time to the general director of RFRITAlexander Pavlov as part of operational-search measures.

The court began a study of the written materials of the criminal case of Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov

The information presented by the state prosecutor indicates that Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov met more than once in the restaurant, Voronezh"" located on the street Prechistenka v. To Moscow There they discussed, including, issues related to the competition for grants for projects for the development of domestic IT solutions, including questions on projects from the "Monosov list," which, according to the prosecution and on some testimony of already interrogated witnesses, Parshin promoted.

Restaurant "Voronezh," we recall, the very place that appears in the materials of the criminal case as the place of transfer of money to Maxim Parshin. The circumstances of this were also given in detail on November 25 at the meeting. They were recorded, among other things, in the protocol for inspecting the scene of the incident, drawn up on July 12, 2023 in the presence of witnesses. According to the protocol, when asked by the operative about the purpose of being in the restaurant, Alexander Monosov then replied that this was a "friendly breakfast" with Maxim Parshin, whom he had known for a long time. When asked about the existence of a commercial connection with the deputy minister, he answered negatively.

In turn, Maxim Parshin then replied to the detective that Alexander Monosov had handed him the folder, but that he did not know what was in it. The deputy minister's bag was opened in the same place, on the spot, and among the personal belongings in it they found an opaque blue folder in which the funds were found. When asked about their number and origin, neither Maxim Parshin nor Alexander Monosov could explain anything, the state prosecutor said at a court hearing. As a result of the recalculation, it turned out that the total amount of money is 3 million 750 thousand rubles.

Restaurant "Voronezh" is mentioned many times in the case file

The case file also documents a meeting between Alexander Pavlov and Alexander Monosov at the Uryuk restaurant on Presnenskaya embankment in Moscow on December 13, 2022, where it was discussed "how Parshin managed to ensure the promotion of applications in the competitive selection." And the next day, at a meeting in the Voronezh restaurant, Parshin and Monosov discussed "how they managed to ensure the promotion of the necessary applications in the competitive selection."

One of the notable points in the materials of the criminal case is, perhaps, a documented conversation between Maxim Parshin and the Minister of Digital Development Maksut Shadayev, from which it followed that the latter was extremely dissatisfied with how the competitive selection of projects for the development of domestic IT solutions was organized. In a conversation on December 23, 2022, the minister told his deputy that he would "finish the game." Maxim Parshin asked: "What does' play out 'mean? I'm playing something, or what?. "

There are two points. I tell everyone that we only give money to large customers, because we cannot evaluate anything else. You started this whole story with two billion, which you left separately, while you did not build a procedure for it. Do you understand? - read out part of the dialogue, an explanation of Maksut Shadayev, at a meeting on November 25, the state prosecutor.

As can be assumed, with regard to large customers, we can talk about the fact that in May 2022, state support measures at the initiative of the government were reoriented to support particularly significant projects (OZP): within this track, grants were issued for projects to introduce IT solutions to large enterprises.

Among other noteworthy points - a telephone conversation documented in November 2022 by Maxim Parshin, from which it follows that the deputy minister was worried about how the public would perceive projects from the list of "supported" if they passed the competitive selection - the presence of explicit justifications was required:... "it is necessary to have clear explanations under which the grant committee will sign...."

The materials also reflect a meeting in Ministry of Digital Development dated December 22, 2022, which was attended, among other things, by Maxim Parshin, Ilya Massukh, Alexander Pavlov, Director of the IT Industry Development Department Ministry of Digital Development Dmitry Nikitin and his deputy Aleksei Popov. There were discussed issues related to the passage of projects of grant committees. The state prosecutor in court quoted the words of Ilya Massukh from that meeting about... "poor management of the grant committee," but at the same time positively describing the chairman of the grant committee Fomichev, to which Alexander Pavlov then noted that "no one has the right to manage the grant committee."

It is noteworthy that a little earlier, on December 20, 2022, a conversation took place between Maxim Parshin and Dmitry Nikitin, during which the deputy minister voiced the idea of ​ ​ appointing Aleksei Popov as the general director of RFRIT instead of Alexander Pavlov, follows from the case file. And on December 28, 2022, a conversation was recorded between Maxim Parshin and Ilya Massukh, during which the deputy minister again expressed the opinion that "Sasha needs to be changed," but the question is for whom.

The continuation of the study of written materials of the criminal case in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow is scheduled for December 9, 2024. Recall that the prosecution had also previously stated six witnesses for interrogation in court. Of these, three have yet to be interrogated, and three have already been interrogated earlier. For more information on this, see the blocks of the article below.

Witness in the criminal case of ex-Deputy Minister Parshin: "The behavior of individual comrades began to raise questions"

On October 28, 2024, the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow continued to consider the criminal case of Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov. This time, the third key witness of the prosecution, Ilya Kostunov, was interrogated. He first worked as the director of the department of the grant committee of RFRIT, and since April 2022 he served as deputy general director of RFRIT. At the same time, he was not a member of the grant committee, but participated in meetings as an invited person.

Ilya Kostunov left the RFRIT in March 2023, now he works as deputy head of the organizational and analytical department in the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights. He knows Maxim Parshin personally - "they emphasized to me the exceptional role of Maxim Viktorovich Parshin as a person who determines the fate of the fund," Ilya Kostunov noted. At the same time, the witness practically did not have direct communications with him as part of the competitive selection for grants in 2022. And Ilya Kostunov is familiar with Alexander Monosov only from the materials of the criminal case.

The competition for grants for projects to develop domestic IT solutions, which subsequently "shot" a high-profile criminal case, was announced in April 2022. As the witness recalled in court, the acceptance of applications for this competition in November was suspended. The volume of applications for grants by that time was already "tens of times" higher than the available volumes of support funds.

Ilya Kostunov was interrogated in court as a witness

Already in May, the first applications for grants were formed, ready for submission to the grant committee following the results of the first stage of the competition, said Ilya Kostunov. But the grant committees did not meet. At that time, there was a reorientation of support measures to particularly significant projects (OZP). Actually, this was mentioned by the previous two witnesses who had already been questioned in court.

When it came to holding meetings of grant committees, at first "everything went cheerfully," because RFRIT "experienced public pressure from the community." But then there was some braking, as the witness recalls - on the initiative of the Ministry of Digital Development.

The teamwork of Ministry of Digital Development and RFRIT was precisely aimed at selecting the best projects, and as soon as possible. But not everyone was part of this team, I mean Ministry of Digital Development: at some point, the behavior of individual comrades began to raise questions, "the witness said at the trial.

He explained that, first of all, he means here the Aleks ei Popov, who at that time was a colleague of Maxim Parshin in Ministry of Digital Development (see the blocks below for details of the interrogation of Aleksei Popov in court). Through the Ministry of Digital Development line, the witness during the competitive selection mainly communicated with the Aleksei Popov.

On November 17, according to Ilya Kostunov, projects worth about 4 billion rubles were selected at the grant committee, but since there was no Ministry of Digital Development, no one was allowed to the second stage of the competition without the position of the department that day. And on November 22, Aleksei Popov spoke that the grant committee needed to look at the projects, but it was not about admission to the second stage, and, according to Ilya Kostunov, "everyone understood" that there was no excuse from the Ministry of Digital Development leadership to skip the projects further.

In a special Telegram channel of the grant committee, there were discussions outside the meetings, and, as the witness recalled, at some point Aleksei Popov posted a certain table with projects there. Ilya Kostunov later at a meeting of the grant committee was interested in what kind of table it was and, according to him, Aleksei Popov explained that this was the opinion of various departments of the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development. This explanation satisfied the members of the grant committee. At the same time, subsequently there were already several tables, they changed and came from different persons.

In the list of 14 projects (the so-called "Monosov list" - approx. TAdviser) 6 projects had a not particularly high rating. Ilya Kostunov did not receive detailed justifications from the Ministry of Digital Development why certain projects from the list are considered good.

Collectively, according to the witness, 73 projects were allowed before the second stage of the competitive selection. And then went "technical work," which of them is worthy of support. For example, the assistant Aleksei Popov sent Ilya Kostunov a plate, where 31 projects were marked as promising for support. The projects recommended for support were "colored."

On December 15, at the grant committee for the second, final stage of the competition, two projects were supported from the "colored" ones - "Adeptic Plus" and "Test AI," according to the memoirs of Ilya Kostunov. And on December 22, 22 projects were ready for the conclusion of agreements on grant support and then only 6 projects from "colored" were supported. The rest of the "colored" projects were postponed further, but did not reject. And on December 26, "they sat until late in the evening," and then some projects from "non-color" were supported to "form a cash register," but "waited until the last." Some of the "color" projects were postponed to next year, according to Ilya Kostunov.

All meetings of the grant committee were recorded on video. The witness on a number of issues has repeatedly made references to this - that you can turn to the video and check this or that moment.

The next court hearing in the criminal case is scheduled for November 11.

The role of Ilya Massukh in the selection of projects for grants in 2022 - what is known from interrogations and materials in the criminal case of Maxim Parshin

In the course of consideration in the court of a criminal case on the distribution of grants, more and more information appears about the activities of the director, ANO CKIT a member of the supervisory board RFRIT Ilya Massukh in the process of competitive selection of candidate projects for grants in 2022. Earlier, during interrogation in court, Ilya Massukha already mentioned one of the key witnesses - the general director of RFRIT. And Alexander Pavlov on October 21, 2024, as part of the next open meeting in the Khamovnichesky District Court of the city in the Moscow case where another witness, the deputy director of the IT industry development department, was interrogated, Ministry of Digital Development Aleksei Popov some new information related to this was announced.

As Aleksei Popov recalled at the trial, in mid-December 2022, when the competitive selection of projects for the development of IT solutions applying for grants went to the finish line, Ilya Massukh invited members of the RFRIT Supervisory Board to use 5-6 new criteria for evaluating projects. Popov said that he himself first learned about these criteria at a meeting with Maxim Parshin, where he discussed how to make decisions on all projects admitted to the second stage of competitive selection. At that time, there were more than 70 such projects, and collectively they requested funding more than the limit allocated for grants under this competition.

And in order to somehow make decisions on these projects, Ilya Issovich proposed such criteria, - Aleksei Popov told the court.

Ilya Massukh was mentioned a lot during the interrogation of Aleksei Popov in court on October 21

Subsequently, the new criteria were brought to the grant committee, including a table with projects marked with color and a special symbol that fit the criteria of Ilya Massukh was posted in the chat of the grant committee. According to Aleksei Popov, this table was posted on the chat on behalf of Maxim Parshin. The witness could not remember whether all 14 projects from the "Monosov list" met the criteria proposed by Ilya Massukh.

In the case, thus, a table of about 70 projects appears, which includes all projects that have reached the second stage of the competitive selection, in which those that meet the new proposed criteria were highlighted in color. According to Aleksei Popov, the table was made by RFRIT together with ANO CKIT. And then the grant committee made a decision on projects in general order.

Recall that from the information voiced at this and other court hearings in the case, it follows that the "Monosov list" was only part of the list of projects declared to the grant committee as a list of "recommended by the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development." For more information on this, see the blocks below.

The application of any new criteria in making decisions on projects was not provided for by the tender documentation. They were proposed by Ilya Massukh "simply as an additional recommendation for decision-making" and in the advisory status adopted by the minutes of the meeting of the RFRIT Supervisory Board, the witness said. But such a recommendation "does not contradict anything," the criteria were not binding.

At the same time, the members of the grant committee perceived the criteria proposed by Ilya Massukh ambiguously, some of them seemed controversial, said Aleksei Popov: for example, there were criteria because of which projects on personnel systems could not be supported.

Denis Saushkin, lawyer for Alexander Monosov, pointed out that one of the projects on the Monosov list was the HRLink project of Innovations in Human Resources Management. Thus, the criteria proposed by Ilya Massukh excluded the possibility of receiving a grant from one of the companies on this list, the lawyer concluded.

Not all companies met the criteria proposed by Ilya Massukh, and, according to Aleksei Popov, Parshin suggested that ANO CKIT prepare comments on all projects with a justification for why one or another project can be supported and added to the second stage of the competition. The prepared comments were advisory, optional.

At the request of the state prosecutor, at a meeting on October 21, the case materials were still examined - the protocol for inspecting the mobile phone and computers of the Aleksei Popov seized during the search. The questions of the state prosecutor to Popov during interrogation in court on these materials were associated, among other things, with his correspondence with Maxim Parshin and Ilya Massukh. So, for example, in one of Popov's outgoing messages to Parshin dated December 15, 2022, it is indicated that Ilya Massukh voiced recommendations for the grant committee at the meeting when prioritizing projects, and Popov asked Parshin to clarify with Massukh whether to voice recommendations "now at the meeting," noting that "there on two points almost all draft lists two fly out."

And on December 22, 2022, Popov received a message from Massukh with the following content: "This is what prevented them from adjusting this incomprehensible independent examination to 'painted'." As the state prosecutor read out at the meeting, in a message to Massukh on the same day, Popov wrote: "Yeah, and formally raise it in the ranking."

On the same day, Aleksei Popov received a message from Ilya Massukh with the text: "Do not drag the Parshin's pluses - they will blow them apart," the state prosecutor read out, putting the stress in the word "drag" on the letter "I."

And on December 24 (Saturday), a message came from Massuch: "I look, in general, our recommendations are ignored." On the same day, Popov wrote messages to Parshin: "We can not wait for the results of the examination physically," "We need to make decisions on all projects that are ready, otherwise we will not make a cash register." And Massukhu Popov sent the same message: "We need to make decisions on all projects that are ready, otherwise we will not make a cash register." Parshin replied: "Reschedule for Monday." And on the heels of that he added: "Partly supportive now and the rest on Mon at 7pm."

As Aleksei Popov explained at the trial regarding the correspondence of December 24, due to the pressing deadlines for competitive selection, the meeting of the grant committee was then held on a day off.

Massukh also joined this grant committee, and he was unhappy that the projects recommended taking into account his recommendations were not supported on the grant committee, Aleksei Popov told the court.

And on Monday, the consideration of part of the projects was postponed, because not all projects from the "priority list" managed to pass the examination, the witness added.

The interrogation of Aleksei Popov on October 21 was completed, but Maxim Parshin's lawyer believes that it will still be necessary to summon this witness to court when the turn comes to present evidence from the defense in court. In addition to Aleksei Popov, the court is expected to interrogate five more witnesses of the prosecution. The next court hearing is scheduled for October 28.

In a criminal case of corruption in the distribution of grants, a key witness was interrogated - an official of the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development

On October 21, 2024, the Khamovnichesky District Court of the city Moscow continued to consider the criminal case Maxim Parshin and. Alexandra Monosova As the correspondent reports from TAdviser the courthouse, at the meeting they interrogated the second key witness of the prosecution - ex-colleague Maxim Parshin, Aleksei Popov who works as deputy director of the industry development department. IT Ministry of Digital Development

During the events considered in the criminal case, Popov held the same position as now, and, among other things, coordinated work on grant support measures, was a member of the grant committee. And Maxim Parshin oversaw the work of the IT industry development department in the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development.

Aleksei Popov recalled that in 2022 two competitions were announced - for grants for projects to develop IT solutions for development companies and for implementation projects for customers. A competition for grants for development projects was announced in April. At the same time, in May, state support measures at the initiative of the government were reoriented to support particularly significant projects (OZP), first of all, and had to wait until the list of OZPs was formed. It was held as part of the second competition - for grants for implementation projects, where it was about major support, in the amount of over a billion rubles.

The competition for grants for the development of IT solutions was held in two stages. According to the results of the first stage, for which the applicant companies applied for a competition at the RFRIT with a minimum set of documents, and after passing the examination of the fund, the grant committee made decisions on the transfer of projects to the second stage, where a large package of documents was already being prepared. At the second stage, independent experts were also included in the work, without the assessment of which final decisions on the approval of the project or rejection and refusal of the grant could not be made. Applications at the meetings of the grant committee were considered "in portions," decisions "for" or "against" were taken on each project by a majority of votes. At the same time, according to the results of the examination of the fund at the first stage, each project was assigned a certain number of points for which the ranking was compiled. And in accordance with this ranking, the applications were on the agenda of the grant committee and unfolded, the witness explained.

According to Aleksei Popov, the list of projects that moved to the second stage of competitive selection included, among other things, projects "recommended Ministry of Digital Development Russia." Aleksei Popov said that at the end of November 2022 he first learned about the presence of "recommended projects." This happened at one of the operational meetings, where, among other things, Maxim Parshin, Director of the IT Industry Development Department of the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development Dmitry Nikitin and his deputies, RFRIT General Director Alexander Pavlov were present. The latter at that meeting announced information about the availability of a list of projects "recommended by the Ministry of Digital Development" with the message that they should be "supported at the second stage," the witness says.

As Popov was able to recall, there were about 30 such projects in the end (later, a demonstration of the list from lawyer Saushkin's laptop showed that there were 34 such projects in particular). Of these, 14 companies are from Alexander Monosov. At the request of Maxim Parshin, Aleksei Popov posted a list of these 14 projects in the general chat of the grant committee on Telegram, writing that these are projects "recommended by the Ministry of Digital Development."

According to Popov, he then declared his unwillingness to do this, not understanding how good these projects are, and what their rating is according to the results of the first stage. But I received an answer from Parshin that these are projects "recommended by the Ministry of Digital Development," and you can simply post them in a chat.

Later, the rating of these projects became known to Aleksei Popov. He recalls that they were "not the best" by rating.

After posting projects in Telegram chat, the grant committee considered the full list of projects for the second stage. Popov at a meeting of the grant committee announced that 14 projects are "projects recommended Ministry of Digital Development Russia." The witness added that at the same time, projects from the "recommended" list were considered on general terms by members of the grant committee.

The state prosecutor asked Popov why he, not knowing how these projects are good, nevertheless voiced them at a meeting of the grant committee. To which Popov replied that it was directly the instruction of the head - Maxim Parshin. And for clarification from the state prosecutor about the validity of this instruction, Popov said: "Why not, if the deputy minister coordinating this direction says that these projects are good." At the same time, he also clarified that this happened for the first time and was not common practice.

Some of the lawyers' questions to Aleksei Popov were aimed at indicating that those projects from the list of "recommended" that eventually received grants are good and received grants on a general basis. In addition, lawyer Saushkin demonstrated to the court on material docks that in the final list considered by the grant committee, two companies from the "Monosov list" were not even marked as "recommended by the Ministry of Digital Development."

Aleksei Popov at the meeting also reported that any member of the grant committee had the opportunity to propose projects that could be included in the list for the second stage of competitive selection.

In November, at one of the meetings, realizing that not all projects had time to complete the procedures for the first stage for inclusion in the second stage, an agreement was reached that any member of the committee could simply recommend that projects be included in the list of projects of the second stage. Probably, the majority of the committee members took advantage of this. We had a chat created by RFRIT, which was called the "Grant Committee," and there the members of the grant committee wrote a list of projects that recommend transferring to the second stage in order to be considered in the future, "Alexey Popov said at a court session.

From April to November 2022, there were few meetings of the grant committee in connection with the reorientation of support measures to OZP. But when the question settled with them, at the end of 2022 it reached the meetings of the grant committee as part of a competition for grants for projects to develop IT solutions. The witness confirmed one of the moments that were previously voiced in court by the general director of RFRITAlexander Pavlov - that at the initiative of Maxim Parshin, meetings of the grant committee were postponed, which consider projects applying for grants. This happened in the final selection period at the end of 2022.

According to Popov, the main reason for postponing the meetings was that the projects from the "Monosov list" did not have time to submit all the necessary documents on time, and he received instructions that it was necessary to postpone the meetings only from Maxim Parshin.

The witness also said that he had previously seen Alexander Monosov only once. He met him in the office of Maxim Parshin at a meeting in the fall of 2022. They discussed in general the selection of projects and called Popov to tell how this happens.

And in December 2022, according to Popov, Maxim Parshin "let slip" that the "recommended list" contains projects from Monosov. Plus, once Parshin sent a message to Telegram from Monosov with the latter's comments to the work of the fund's expert on one of the applications from his list: Monosov wrote to Parshin that the expert's comments were allegedly incorrect.

At the same time, according to Popov, Parshin never substantiated his interest in projects from the "Monosov list," and he himself did not ask about it. Popov also said at a court session that as a member of the grant committee, he himself voted "against" on a number of projects from the "Monosov list," without reporting this to Parshin, who, in fact, did not ask about it.

At the court session on October 21, the state prosecutor, among other things, read out part of the correspondence between Aleksei Popov and Maxim Parshin and the director of the ANO TsKITIlya Massukh, from which it follows that the latter was actively involved, including at the final stage of the competitive selection. Read more about the content of the correspondence and other details of the interrogation of Aleksei Popov in the next TAdviser publication.

"Let's not have a circus in court." The interrogation of the general director of RFRIT in the criminal case of Maxim Parshin has ended

On October 14, a regular meeting was held in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow in the criminal case of Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov, at which the interrogation of one of the key witnesses of the prosecution, the general director of RFRITAlexander Pavlov, continued . This time he was asked questions by the defense, the number of which was thinned out: Alexander Monosov said that he refused the services of one of his lawyers, Danila Parshikov, and in the future only lawyer Denis Saushkin will defend him.

The defenders clarified many details related to the competitive selection of applications for grants in 2022, including dates, conditions of tender documentation and responsibility for their violation, details of the stages of the procedure for selecting applications, rules for ranking applications and much more. Alexander Pavlov found it difficult to recall a lot of details about which the defense asked at the meeting: for example, related to the exact timing of the stages of competitive selection, the exact date of the suspension of the RFRIT of accepting applications for grants in November 2022, etc.

The defense at the trial filed a petition for research and presentation of material evidence to the witness from the materials of the criminal case - a flash card, which, according to lawyer Denis Saushkin, contains detailed information from the RFRIT itself about what is associated with applications for the competition, including their number, ranking, etc. This data is important for questioning a witness, the lawyer added.

However, the state prosecutor opposed the satisfaction of this petition, referring to the fact that, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution first presents the evidence, and after that - the defense. Accordingly, she will be able to present her material evidence for research when her legal turn comes to do so. As a result, Judge Olga Zhelyazkova dismissed this petition of the defense as prematurely declared.

In the photo from left to right - Alexander Monosov and lawyers Denis Saushkin and Darya Shulgina

According to Darya Shulgina, lawyer Maxim Parshin, there is a violation of the right to defense, since it is deprived of the opportunity to specify the issue and present the witness with material evidence, which in any case will be investigated.

In total, according to Alexander Pavlov, 1269 applications were received for competitive selection in 2022. The first meeting of the grant committee took place in November 2022. Maxim Parshin's lawyer asked about the list, which in November entered the first meeting of the grant committee, including the number of companies. Alexander Pavlov was able to recall the approximate number of projects that were at that time in the ranked list - more than 400, and it was difficult to name the date when the list of companies from Monosov was added.

On some issues of defense, the state prosecutor stated that earlier the witness had already answered them, or noted that the question was asked not specifically. And Alexander Pavlov himself also repeatedly asked to specify a particular question, but in terms of questions he pointed out that he had already answered them earlier.

The defense had to reformulate and clarify some questions several times, and against this background, at some point, the emotional degree of interrogation increased. For example, several times Alexander Pavlov was asked who is responsible for the failure of the RFRIT to comply with the deadlines specified in the tender documentation for the competitive selection of projects for the development of Russian IT solutions approved by RFRIT in 2022. And after the 3rd time it was not possible to receive a specific answer and a new request from Alexander Pavlov to clarify the question, lawyer Denis Saushkin urged the witness not to arrange a "circus in court."

Also, the defense side from several visits tried to clarify, for example, the reasons for the repeated postponement of the meetings of the grant committee to consider projects at the end of 2022. Alexander Pavlov said that the significant and significant reasons for the transfer were only the delay on the part of Maxim Parshin and his subordinate Aleksei Popov. The final question was the witness about the presence of RFRIT at the moment of claims against companies from the "Monosov list" that have received grants. Alexander Pavlov replied that he had no information about any claims against them.

After that, the judge raised the question of the end of the interrogation of the witness. No one objected. At the same time, Parshin's lawyer Darya Shulgina drew attention to the fact that at the moment the defense is deprived of the opportunity to ask a question with the presentation of documents. And this, in her opinion, is essential to confirm or refute the position of the prosecution. In this regard, it is necessary to repeat the call of this witness at the defense stage, she believes.

The interrogation of six more witnesses of the prosecution is ahead. Who will follow immediately after Alexander Pavlov was not voiced at the meeting. The next court session is scheduled for October 21.

Following the trial, Alexander Pavlov, in a conversation with TAdviser, noted that, in his opinion, in questions to him from the defense, there was a quest mode "what would happen if," and many of them did not relate to the case under consideration.

There was, among other things, an excursion on the charter of the RFRIT, which is approved by a regulatory act of the government of the Russian Federation, there were issues related to the powers of the ministry, the presidential administration, and even on the details of the functioning of the register of Russian software. What does this have to do with the consideration of the case is a big question. In addition, some questions were multi-part in a paragraph, which made it difficult to perceive their essence, increased the time of the meeting and forced to repeatedly repeat what had been said. I would like more clarity, - says the general director of RFRIT.

Alexander Pavlov added that despite the interrogation completed for him in court, he will follow further updates on the case and the testimony of other witnesses of the prosecution.

Maxim Parshin asks for SVO

In September 2024, Maxim Parshin, who is being tried in a criminal corruption case, expressed a desire to take part in a special operation in Ukraine and has already written the statement necessary for this, a source familiar with him told TAdviser (more here).

The prosecutor presented the results of wiretapping and video surveillance in the criminal case of Maxim Parshin

In the corruption criminal case of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin, a court session was held on September 23, at which the state prosecutor presented the evidence collected by the investigation. The TAdviser correspondent, who visited the court, reports that the interrogation of the witness, General Director of RFRITAlexander Pavlov, continued at the last meeting. The court was presented with the results of operational-search activities (ORD), which was started after submitting a witness statement to the police. The correspondence of the witness in Telegram and the tables handed over to them, containing materials on the company from the "Monosov list," were also studied.

The evidence of the guilt of Maxim Parshin, collected by the investigation, was considered

The defenders of the accused tried to transfer the hearings to a closed regime, since, in their opinion, the announcement of the case materials could harm third companies, but the state prosecutor, prosecutor Tretyakov, said that he did not see any classified information in the information that he was going to announce. Judge Zhelyazkova agreed with his arguments, and the case continued to be considered in open mode.

The state prosecutor presented excerpts from the description of the evidence in the case - audio recordings and recordings from CCTV cameras, which were held in the Uryuk restaurant, where the former general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov and Alexander Pavlov discussed opportunities to promote some list of companies, which is conditionally called the "Monosov list." These companies have already been registered for the RFRIT competition and received registration numbers. Applications were considered not by the names of companies, but by these numbers, so in the dialogue they were called "numbers."

Next, several fragments of transcripts of audio recordings were presented, which were made as part of the ORD in the offices of the Ministry of Digital Development at the time of discussion and final decision-making on financing projects in December 2022. In these dialogues between Alexander Pavlov, Aleksei Popov and other organizers of the competition, the best way to distinguish companies from the "Monosov list" in the materials of the competition was discussed: either simply in color or as recommended by the Ministry of Digital Development.

In addition, correspondence was given in the Telegram messenger between Maxim Parshin, Aleksei Popov and Alexander Pavlov. In particular, in this correspondence there were two table files, which the witness (Pavlov) called a list of companies that were lobbied by Alexander Monosov. Although the witness initially spoke of 12-13 companies on the list, there were 14 and 15 of them in the tables.

The prosecutor also presented an excerpt from a list of 73 companies that were listed in a file on a flash drive transmitted to witness Ilya Massukh, director of the ANO CKIT. There, all companies from the "Monosov list" were marked as recommended for consideration by the ANO CKIT. However, when considering the full table in detail (as it turned out, the prosecutor voiced only an excerpt) of such "recommended CKIT" turned out to be 34 companies, which is much more than the "Monosov list."

These materials, according to the investigation, must prove the lobbying of companies from the "Monosov list" by Maxim Parshin. However, the defenders of the accused at the next meeting plan to ask the witness their questions and present their own point of view on the evidence presented by the investigation.

RFRIT General Director Alexander Pavlov witnessed by the state prosecutor in the criminal case of ex-Deputy Minister Parshin

On September 9, 2024, a regular court session was held in the criminal case of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin. The TAdviser correspondent, who visited the court, reports that at the meeting this time the testimony of Alexander Pavlov, the general director of RFRIT, was heard . Grants to support import substitution were distributed through the Russian Information Technology Development Fund, which eventually became the backdrop for a high-profile criminal case in which Pavlov is a witness.

The general director of RFRIT in court confirmed the previously put forward version of the accusation that there was lobbying on the part of Maxim Parshin for the interests of companies, the list of which was allegedly provided to him first by the former general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov, and then Maxim Parshin himself. In total, there were more than ten companies on the original list.

Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov with lawyers

Alexander Pavlov said that when the list of projects was prepared for the meeting of the grant committee, the companies promoted by Alexander Monosov should not have been submitted to the grant commission for consideration. However, according to him, at one of the meetings, Ilya Massukh, director of the ANO CKIT, prepared new criteria for evaluating projects, which Pavlov was instructed to bring to the grant committee, although he saw such serious changes as a violation of the competitive procedure.

According to the witness, it was these new criteria that allegedly made it possible to include Alexander Monosov's companies in the list of applications and prioritize them for consideration by the grant committee. As a result, all names from the "Monosov list" were included in the final list for consideration from 73 companies. Some of the projects of these companies received grant funding in 2022, and some were postponed to the next budget cycle, that is, for consideration in 2023.

Pavlov confirmed that Maxim Parshin put pressure on the grant committee with the participation of his subordinate Aleksei Popov due to the assertion that the allegedly indicated companies are supported by the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development department and their proposals should be considered as a priority. The pressure, according to the witness, was due to the fact that all participants in the grant committee were appointed by the supervisory board of the RFRIT, the powers of the chairman of which were exercised by Maxim Parshin, and Ilya Massukh was its member.

Alexander Pavlov considered such pressure a violation of the competitive procedure and appealed to law enforcement agencies with a statement about the possible fact of corruption conspiracy.

At the same time, the witness explained that both the new selection criteria proposed by Ilya Massukh and the recommendations of the Ministry of Digital Development department, which the Aleksei Popov voiced, are not binding on the members of the grant committee, although there were representatives of the Ministry of Digital Development and representatives of the ANO CKIT. In addition, any of the members of the grant committee could submit their recommendations during the discussion process, Alexander Pavlov is not aware of other lists.

Maxim Parshin himself had questions about the independent examination procedure, which was carried out by expert companies commissioned by RFRIT. The questions were as follows: how and who chose the companies to conduct it and how accurately the deadlines for preparing expert opinions were observed, without which the assessment of projects and further selection of the best were impossible. He asked them at a court hearing, but the prosecution asked the judge to dismiss them as irrelevant.

Alexander Pavlov only explained that the experts were selected according to the competitive procedure, and several expert organizations were involved in evaluating the projects. The witness did not name information about what organizations they were and by what criteria their examination was assessed.

The position of the prosecution in the criminal case of ex-Deputy Minister Parshin was announced. It "lit up" the companies "Logic of Business," BSS, "Rustek" and others

On September 2, 2024, during the first court session as part of the consideration of the merits of the criminal case on corruption, in which Maxim Parshin and the former general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov are defendants, the state prosecutor, prosecutor Evdokimova, announced the indictment. The TAdviser correspondent attended the open meeting.

The indictment, which was read out by the prosecutor, states that Maxim Parshin , when he was Deputy Head of the Ministry of Digital Development, ensured the coordination of the implementation of the Digital Technologies fedproject of the Digital Economy of the Russian Federation national program, coordinated the work of the IT Industry Development Department and the International Cooperation Department, and ensured the participation of Ministry of Digital Development in the activities of the RFRIT Supervisory Board .

Through the RFRIT, in particular, subsidies were issued from the budget as part of the implementation of state support measures aimed at the development and implementation of Russian software. Parshin ensured the implementation of these state support measures and coordinated the activities of RFRIT. According to the prosecution, being a member of the RFRIT supervisory board, Parshin had the opportunity to influence the activities of the fund and its governing bodies, including the supervisory board, board and general director.

Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov before the start of the court session on September 2

In April 2022, RFRIT launched an open competition for the issuance of grants at the expense of subsidies, in which any Russian legal entity that submitted an application in accordance with the tender documentation, except for government agencies, could take part. As part of the competitive selection, the RFRIT grant committee is authorized to consider the materials of applications, examinations and other materials, determine the winners of competitive selection, and approve the list of recipients of grants.

According to the prosecution, no later than 14.10.2022, Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov reached an agreement between themselves that that Parshin, by virtue of his official position, for facilitating the receipt by a number of organizations of RFRIT grants by using the significance and authority of his position to influence other officials of the ministry, RFRIT, members of the grant committee will receive a bribe from Monosov in the form of money in the amount of 5% to 10% of the amount of grants provided to organizations after such decisions are made by the grant committee.

Monosov no later than 14.10.2022 year provided Parshin with a list of a number of legal entities in whose victory in the competitive selection he was interested. Monosov, on behalf of Parshin, on November 9, 2022, using Telegram, sent a list of application numbers for participation in the competitive selection received from these organizations to the general director of RFRIT Alexander Pavlov, and on November 18, 2022 sent Pavlov an adjusted list of application numbers and the corresponding names of legal entities and projects submitted to the competition. It included Banks Soft Systems (BSS), Business Logic, Boss Personnel Systems, Information Systems and Strategies, Inspark, Polimatika Rus, 1Forma, Rustek, New Telecom Solutions and a number of others.

Then Parshin, according to the prosecution, during the competitive selection period no later than December 16, 2022, "repeatedly demanded" that the director general of RFRIT Alexander Pavlov, who was unaware of his intentions, organizing the competitive selection, provide support for projects submitted for the competition, companies in the list provided by the Monosov and their priority consideration by the grant committee when determining the recipients of grants.

Parshin also gave instructions to the uninformed about his intentions as Deputy Director of the IT Industry Development Department of the Ministry of Digital Development, a member of the grant committee Aleksei Popov consider the projects of the above organizations as "priority and approved by the Ministry of Digital Development of Russia" during the competitive selection, Communicate this information to other members of the grant committee and make a proposal for additional consideration of applications for participation in the competitive selection, received from organizations submitted by Monosov, thereby ensuring their consideration at a committee meeting as "priority and recommended Ministry of Digital Development of Russia."

Later, during the competition, Parshin repeatedly gave such instructions to Popov, the prosecutor added.

The instructions were executed. Popov, on behalf of Parshin, ensured the preferential consideration of the above projects at a meeting of the grant committee when making decisions on the approval or rejection of applications for grants.

At the same time, in December 2022, during the competition, Parshin, knowing the unavailability of all the necessary documents provided for in the tender documentation and the results of independent examinations of applications submitted by Monosov to the tender participants, in order to prevent the distribution of grant support funds among other legal entities, instructed Popov and Pavlov to postpone the adoption of decisions on granting grants at the upcoming meetings of the grant committee.

At the same time, not all companies declared in the "Monosov list" received grants. They went to several legal entities. They were allocated grants in the amount of 70 million to 100 million rubles.

In accordance with the previously reached agreement, taking into account the grants received by a number of organizations, the total amount of the bribe was calculated in the amount of 31.5 million rubles, which consists of 5-10% of the amount of grants issued. On July 12, 2023, part of this bribe in the form of money 3.75 million rubles in the amount of Monosov personally handed over to Parshin at the Voronezh restaurant in Moscow, the prosecutor said.

Monosov and Parshin do not admit guilt under the articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation imputed to them. Monosov said that he would give detailed explanations in the future during the interrogation. Parshin will also give detailed testimony and answer all questions at the stage of providing evidence to the defense.

The former deputy minister added that "the entire annual result of the investigation boils down to a biased and distorted interpretation of individual facts." In his opinion, certain facts and the results of operational-search measures are "adjusted" to "the decision that there should be a bribe."

I am ready to declare that all my actions at the end of 2022 were aimed solely at correcting the catastrophic situation with the competitive selection of applications for grants. If I had not intervened then, then many worthy projects in the field of information technology, which are implemented in the interests of Russian citizens, organizations, state bodies under sanctions, simply would not have reached the stage of meaningful consideration and would not have had a chance to be supported, - said Maxim Parshin at the trial.

He added that he could have cited plenty of evidence to support this and would certainly do so later.

Maybe at some point I went beyond my own formal powers - I don't know that. But at that moment I could not do otherwise. I was responsible for the development of the IT industry in the country as a whole, was responsible for import substitution of software, including at critical information infrastructure facilities and could not allow the inefficient use of public funds and the ineffective use of state support measures. As we now see, the result of my actions is extremely positive: there is no damage, there are no victims, no victims, there are no civil lawsuits, but there are projects that have been successfully implemented without exception, IT products have been created and are working on the market that successfully replace the best foreign solutions. And budget money is eventually returned to the budget in the form of taxes.

The former official expressed the hope that "the court will figure it out and make a fair decision."

The first court session was held with the participation of Maxim Parshin

On September 2, 2024, a trial in a criminal corruption case was launched, in which the defendants are the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media Maxim Parshin and the ex-general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov. In the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, the first meeting was held with the presence of Parshin on it. Earlier, he was not twice taken from the pre-trial detention center to the planned court session.

Maxim Parshin at a court session

The meeting was attended, among other things, by the TAdviser correspondent. Parshin's lawyer first filed a motion to hold a closed session due to the fact that it is planned to announce at trial information related to the state of health of his relatives, which is not subject to disclosure. However, the court refused this without seeing the grounds for derogating from the principle of publicity.

And the state prosecutor - prosecutor Evdokimova - said at the meeting a petition to extend the term of detention of Maxim Parshin for six months, until February 12. Prior to that, Parshin was last extended in custody until October 12, 2024. Parshin's lawyer objected and stated that there were no arguments for further detention of her client, asked to soften the preventive measure and transfer him to house arrest. The court, however, did not grant the lawyer's request and extended Parshin's detention, as requested by a representative of the prosecutor's office.

At the last meeting, the state prosecutor presented an indictment. Briefly, the essence of the accusation is that, according to the investigation, Parshin, by agreement with Monosov, contributed to the priority consideration of applications for grants RFRIT from a number of companies and their victory in the competitive selection. At the same time, the general director of RFRIT, Alexander Pavlov, was not aware of the agreements between Parshin and Monosov, it follows from the voiced position of the prosecutor's office.

According to the investigation, there was an agreement on a bribe in the amount of 31.5 million, and in the rubles restaurant "" the Voronezh Monosov personally transferred only part of it to Parshin.

Parshin and Monosov do not admit their guilt in the crime imputed to them. Both will give detailed testimony later, at the stage of presenting evidence to the defense in court.

Parshin said that all his actions were aimed at correcting the "catastrophic situation" with the competitive selection of applications for grants.

The case has been adjourned. Maxim Parshin was again not taken to court, although everyone was waiting

On August 26, 2024, the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow postponed for the second time the consideration of the merits of the criminal case of corruption against the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media Maxim Parshin and the ex-general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov. The reason is the same as last time: Maxim Parshin was not taken to court from the pre-trial detention center, according to a TAdviser correspondent who visited the Khamovnichesky District Court.

I must say that it happens infrequently when the defendant, whom everyone is waiting for the hearing in court, is not delivered more than once in a row. What this is connected with in the case of Maxim Parshin is unknown. Those who were present in court, from whom TAdviser tried to find out the possible reasons, were not aware.

Alexander Monosov (pictured second from left) and lawyers in the courtroom

At the same time, Alexander Monosov arrived at the Khamovnichesky District Court, as expected, who, unlike the ex-deputy minister, has not been detained since July. Two of his lawyers were present with him.

One of Monosov's defenders, Denis Saushkin (pictured third from left), is an expert under the office of the Presidential Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs and was awarded the gold medal of the Ministry of Justice of Russia "For Assistance." Maxim Parshin's lawyer, Darya Shulgina, works at the same law office as Denis Saushkin, ZKS.

The judge announced to the audience that the meeting was postponed to September 2.

Exit from SIZO Alexander Monosov

On July 12, 2024, the term of detention of Alexander Monosov as a preventive measure expires, while the request of the investigation to extend his detention in the pre-trial detention center was not registered in the database of the courts of general jurisdiction of Moscow for the previous days, TAdviser found. Thus, there are no more grounds to continue to keep Monosov in the pre-trial detention center. The law allows, for example, that in such a case, the investigator can release him on recognizance not to leave.

The Moscow City Court told TAdviser that the detention of Maxim Parshin, who is being held in the same criminal case, was extended on July 8. Moreover, on July 10, his appeal on this matter was already considered with the result not in his favor. The new appointed term in the pre-trial detention center for Maxim Parshin expires on October 12. Earlier, Parshin and Monosov extended the term of detention in the pre-trial detention center at the same time.

It is noteworthy that in early July - shortly before the expiration of the July term in the pre-trial detention center, the investigator asked the Basmanny Court of Moscow to change the measure of restraint from detention to a ban on certain actions, but the court refused this. And the prosecutor who was present at the consideration said then that the investigator's petition was illegal and unfounded.

When resolving the investigator's petition on July 4, the judge took into account that Alexander Monosov, in addition to Russian citizenship, has a passport of an Israeli citizen, according to operational information, has real estate in the EU countries, as well as bank accounts in foreign financial organizations, according to a published decision of the Basmanny Court. In addition, he is accused of committing a particularly serious crime, for which the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for punishment in the form of imprisonment from 8 to 15 years, in connection with which the court in early July came to the conclusion that, that changing the accused Monosov's preventive measure from detention to another milder one may entail risks as the fact that he, for example, can hide.

The same document says that the term of the preliminary investigation in the criminal case has been extended until October 12, 2024. By July 12, it is not possible to complete the investigation, since in the criminal case it is necessary to continue familiarizing Monosov and his defenders with the materials of the criminal case.

Extension of the term in the pre-trial detention center

On July 8, 2024, Maxim Parshin was extended the term of detention in the pre-trial detention center as a preventive measure. He will remain in custody until October 12.

The completion of the investigation of the criminal case

On June 30, 2024, it became known that the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia (GSU TFR) completed the investigation of the criminal case against the former deputy head of the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development Maxim Parshin. He is accused of receiving a bribe in the amount of 3.75 million rubles from the ex-general director of Budget and Financial Technologies (BFT) Alexander Monosov for assistance in allocating a grant to the Russian Fund for the Development of Information Technologies (RFRIT).

According to the Kommersant newspaper, the 47-year-old Parshin case is slightly more than 15 volumes, and the investigation lasted less than a year. As of the end of June 2024, the man is in remand prison No. 1 ("Sailor Silence") of the Office of the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN of Russia) in the city of Moscow.

The case against Parshin was initiated under Part 6 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (taking a bribe on an especially large scale) on the basis of materials from the operational-search activities of the FSB. Informed persons reported that the investigation was based on the results of wiretapping Parshin's telephone conversations, including with Monosov, who was accused of giving a bribe (part 5 of article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The defendants in the case do not admit their guilt. At the same time, the businessman's lawyer Denis Saushkin says that Parshin did not transfer money to his client for lobbying for the interests of BFT. The events that occurred, according to the defense, are a "coincidence of circumstances."

Partners Parshina and Monosova emphasize that the deputy head of the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development could not single-handedly manage the fund's money with all his desire. According to them, the official only recommends one or another draft commission consisting of invited specialized experts, but his own voice "remains only deliberative." Saushkin also points out that there may be inconsistencies in the case: the fact is that the BFT grant was issued in December 2022, and the transfer of a bribe, according to investigators, took place only six months after that.^[1]

Extension of the term in the pre-trial detention center, familiarization with the materials of the criminal case

As TAdviser discovered, on June 10, 2024, the Basmanny Court of Moscow, at the request of the investigation, extended the detention of ex-Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin and ex-general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov. They will remain in jail for another month, until July 12, and by that time they will spend almost a year in custody pending the completion of the investigation in the criminal case.

The court ruling, published on the website of the courts of general jurisdiction of Moscow, states that the preliminary investigation in the case reached the finish line: Parshin and Monosov, as well as six of their defenders, were notified of the end of the investigative actions and on May 24 began to familiarize themselves with the materials of the criminal case, the volume of which is 20 volumes plus material evidence.

To familiarize yourself, an additional period of at least one month will be required, which is reasonable and reasonable, the investigation believes.

As before, on May 10, the defense of the accused asked the court to soften their measure of restraint, changing it to house arrest. However, the court refused to satisfy these petitions. According to the court, there is sufficient reason to believe that, while at large, in order to avoid a possible punishment in the form of imprisonment for a long time, the accused can hide from the preliminary investigation and trial. The arguments of the defense that earlier, being under house arrest, Parshin and Monosov did not violate it, had no effect.

In the case of Alexander Monosov, the fact that after the arrest he gave the investigator not only his foreign passport of the Russian Federation, but also the passport of an Israeli citizen, to which one of his lawyers drew the attention of the court, follows from the decision of the Basmanny court.

Extension of the pre-trial detention center until June 12

As TAdviser found out, on April 10, the lawyers of ex-Deputy Minister Maxim Parshin and ex-general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov will again try to challenge the preventive measure chosen by their clients. They have been asked more than once to be transferred from the pre-trial detention center to house arrest pending the completion of the investigation and trial in a criminal corruption case.

According to information published in the database of courts of general jurisdiction of Moscow, the last time the measure of restraint was extended to Parshin and Monosov in March, leaving them in custody until June 12, 2024. The lawyers asked to be returned back to house arrest, which they were under for a short time last year immediately after their arrest, but the court refused to grant the applications.

Investigative actions in the criminal case have not yet been completed and the collection of evidence continues, which, the investigator believes, Parshin and Monosov, being at large, can destroy. The court agreed with the arguments that there were sufficient grounds to believe that, being at large, Parshin and Monosov could hide from the preliminary investigation authorities, as well as otherwise prevent the proceedings in the criminal case^[2].

In the applications for the extension of detention submitted to the court in March, the investigator indicated that it was still necessary: to familiarize the accused and their defenders with the conclusions of 8 phonoscopic forensic examinations; after familiarization with the conclusions of experts, if the accused agree to testify, additionally interrogate them; complete interrogations of witnesses and inspections of items, including electronic media seized during the investigation; to bring the final charge against Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov; perform other investigative and procedural actions.

If the preventive measure cannot be challenged now, then Parshin and Monosov will collectively spend almost a year in the pre-trial detention center.

Maxim Parshin found cryptocurrency and financial assets abroad

In February 2024, the Moscow City Court considered the appeals of the lawyers of ex-Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin and co-owner, ex-general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov, in which they asked to appoint their clients a milder preventive measure instead of detention. The court again decided to leave them in jail.

At the same time, in the resolution of the Moscow City Court, published on the portal of the courts of general jurisdiction of Moscow, the previously not mentioned factor "surfaced, which, among others, influenced the decision not to release Maxim Parshin from the pre-trial detention center:" Parshin M.V. has financial assets abroad, as well as assets in digital cryptocurrency "Material^[3]. What kind of assets are we talking about, the document does not specify.

After being detained in July 2023, Maxim Parshin was first sent under house arrest, but then transferred to custody

According to the 273-FZ "On Combating Corruption," persons holding the positions of deputy heads of the Federal Investment Fund, including those who are prohibited from opening and having accounts/deposits, keeping cash and valuables in banks outside the Russian Federation, owning and using foreign financial instruments.

As for Alexander Monosov, deciding on the measure of restraint, the Moscow City Court took into account, among other things, that he had a second citizenship. Earlier, open court documents included information that we are talking about Israeli citizenship.

The last time the preventive measure in the form of detention was extended to the defendants until March 12. It is possible that there may be a further extension, since the court in the appeal ruling states that the criminal case under investigation is distinguished by "a large volume and special complexity."

Details of the investigation in the case of ex-Deputy Minister of Digital Development Parshin revealed

The decision of the Basmanny Court to extend the term of detention until March 12, 2024 of Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov, published on the website of the courts of general jurisdiction of Moscow, contains some details of the progress of the investigation in the case.

The document says that the materials presented to the court indicate that there are sufficient grounds to believe that the suspicions of the involvement of Monosov and Parshin in the alleged act are justified, and this is confirmed by the totality of evidence.

In particular, it is indicated in the decision of the Basmanny Court, in the materials of operational-search activities, the fact of the transfer of Monosov funds to Parshin was recorded^[4]. The money that Monosov handed over was found in a bag at a meeting of the accused in a restaurant of Russian provincial cuisine Voronezh"," located To Moscow in 4 Prechistenka Street.

Also in the materials of operational-search activities there are testimony of witnesses, protocols of searches, inspections of objects and other evidence.

Since the previous extension, the accused has taken preventive measures in the form of detention in a criminal case: partially completed the planned investigative actions, including inspections of items and documents seized during searches; Items of importance for the criminal case are attached as material evidence; inspections of carriers on which the results of operational-search activities are presented were carried out. According to the results of examinations, 7 phonoscopic forensic examinations were appointed.

In addition, witnesses were questioned and additional measures were taken to establish property that could be seized. In, the Ministry of Digital Development Russia tax authorities requested documents that are important for the criminal case. Other investigative and procedural actions were also carried out.

The term of the preliminary investigation in the criminal case in December was extended until March 12, 2024. The investigation will have to continue interrogating witnesses and examining items, including electronic media seized during the investigation, as well as media on which the results of operational-search activities are provided.

Also, for example, it is still necessary to obtain the conclusions of the appointed phonoscopic forensic examinations. Phonoscopic examination is one of the types of examination in forensic science, which is carried out to identify and determine the identity by voice and speech recorded on audio media, identify editing or other changes made to the recording, and study a person's voice.

The accused and their defense asked to change their measure of restraint to a milder one - house arrest, citing, among other things, family circumstances. But the court did not see the grounds for this.

According to the court, there is sufficient reason to believe that, being at large, Alexander Monosov and Maxim Parshin can hide from the preliminary investigation and trial authorities, threaten witnesses, as well as otherwise obstruct the proceedings in the criminal case.

2023

Extension of detention

On December 5, 2023, the Basmanny District Court of Moscow granted the request of the investigation and extended the term of detention of the former Deputy Minister of Digital Development of the Russian Federation Maxim Parshin and General Director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov for a period of 3 months, until March 12, 2024.

It's a matter of particular complexity. The court refused to transfer Maxim Parshin from the pre-trial detention center to house arrest

Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov made an attempt to challenge the decision of the Basmanny Court in the Moscow City Court to extend his detention until December 12. This follows from the appeal decision of the Moscow City Court, published in early October 2023 on the website of the courts of general jurisdiction of Moscow. ^[5] of the ^[6]

Maxim Parshin, we recall, passes in a criminal case accused under Part 6 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (receiving a bribe on an especially large scale), and Alexander Monosov - under Part 5 of Art. 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ( giving a bribe on an especially large scale). At first, they were placed under house arrest during the investigation, but then they changed the measure of restraint at the pre-trial detention center.

The lawyers of the accused consider the decision of the Basmanny Court illegal and unreasonable and asked to apply a milder measure to their clients, not related to isolation from society.

Parshin's defenders, in particular, referred to the fact that the materials submitted to the court lacked evidence indicating the need to apply an exceptional preventive measure to him in the form of detention. There is no information that Parshin intends to hide from the preliminary investigation and court bodies to prevent the preliminary investigation, the defense believes.

The Moscow City Court, however, pointed out that Maxim Parshin and Alexander Monosov are accused of committing crimes, the commission of which is punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than 3 years.

In a criminal case, a significant amount of investigative and procedural actions must be carried out, what is the reason for the special complexity of the criminal case, and the grounds for changing the preventive measure to another, not associated with isolation from society, there is no reason to believe, that, being at large, Parshin M.V. and Monosov A.N. may hide from the preliminary investigation and court, as well as in another way to prevent the proceedings in a criminal case, - said in the appeal decision of the Moscow City Court.

The arguments of the defense about unjustified prosecution are subject to verification when considering a criminal case on the merits, according to the Moscow City Court. And at this stage of criminal proceedings, there are no grounds to consider that they are not involved in the commission of the acts incriminated to them.

As a result, the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of the Basmanny Court to extend the term of detention in the pre-trial detention center for both of them.

Earlier, in July, when considering the prosecutor's appeal against the court's decision on house arrest of Alexander Monosov, the prosecutor pointed out that Monosov had citizenship of the Russian Federation and Israel, "which could allow him to hide from the preliminary investigation and court"^[7]

And, solving the issue of the measure of restraint for Alexander Monosov, the Moscow City Court took into account, among other things, that he had a second citizenship. Earlier, open court documents already included information that we are talking about Israeli citizenship.

Extension of the term of detention in the pre-trial detention center

On September 7, 2023, the Basmanny Court of Moscow extended the former deputy head of the Ministry of Digital Science Maxim Parshin and the general director of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov the term of detention, which had previously been elected by him as a preventive measure in the framework of a criminal corruption case. This was announced by the official Telegram channel of the Moscow courts of general jurisdiction.

The court decided to extend the measure of restraint to the head of the IT company and the ex-deputy minister of digital development, communications and mass media in the form of detention until December 12, 2023, the published message says.

The consideration of the case on the extension of the period of detention took place behind closed doors. In open mode, there was only the announcement of the court's decision^[8].

Dismissal of Alexander Monosov from the post of general director of BFT

Since September 2023, Alexander Monosov has ceased to be the general director of BFT-Holding, this post was taken by Natalya Zeitenidi, who worked as his first deputy.

Transfer to SIZO

On July 26, 2023, the Moscow City Court canceled ex-Deputy Head of the Ministry of Digital Development Maxim Parshin of house arrest and sent him to a pre-trial detention center. This was reported by the press service of the Moscow courts of general jurisdiction.

The decision of the Basmanny Court of Moscow to change, to change the measure of restraint for the accused Parshin from house arrest to detention until September 12, the judge announced the decision.

Maxim Parshin was charged with receiving a particularly large bribe (part 6 of article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Maximum liability involves up to 15 years in prison with a fine of up to one hundred times the amount of a bribe and with deprivation to hold certain positions for up to 15 years.

At a meeting of the Moscow City Court, the judge read out the decision of the prosecutor's office, which said that Parshin "does not admit guilt and does not express remorse." At the meeting, according to TASS, the investigation said that Maxim Parshin could use his position "to influence witnesses, including threatening them." In addition, the arrest was insisted on in connection with Parshin's deposits in foreign banks issued for his brother, which he "may use to obstruct justice."

Lawyers in the process countered the arguments of the investigation and argued that Parshin had no intentions to hide or resist the course of the investigation.

The ex-Deputy Head of the Ministry of Digital Development himself said in the Moscow City Court that he was impressed, as a result, for a long time kept him "under the hood" and exercised total control over his life.

According to the investigation, the bribe was received from the head of Budget and Financial Technologies LLC (BFT) Alexander Monosov. On July 26, the Moscow City Court overturned the earlier decision of the Basmanny District Court of Moscow on house arrest against him, too, and ordered Monosov to be transferred to custody until September 12 as a preventive measure.

^[9]

Dismissal from the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development

Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin, who is being held in a criminal case on a bribe on an especially large scale, has been dismissed from his post. The corresponding decree was signed on July 18, 2023 by Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin.

To release Parshin Maxim Viktorovich from the post of Deputy Minister of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation at his request, - says the document published on July 21 on the official portal of regulatory legal acts.

Transfer of duties to Andrey Zarenin

Deputy Head of the Ministry of Digital Development Andrei Zarenin will act as another deputy minister of digital development, Maxim Parshin, who was previously arrested on charges of taking a bribe. This became known on July 20, 2023. Read more here.

Appeal of house arrest by the Prosecutor General's Office

The Prosecutor General's Office appealed against the court's decision on the house arrest of the deputy head of the Ministry of Ministry of Digital Development Maxim Parshin, accused of taking a bribe of 3.5 million rubles, and the general director and co-owner of BFT-Holding Alexander Monosov, who, according to the investigation, gave the official this bribe. This became known on July 18, 2023.

According to Kommersant, the investigation insisted on placing both accused in the pre-trial detention center, since, in his opinion, Parshin and Monosov "are highly likely" to destroy evidence in the case, threaten witnesses, obstruct the investigation in other ways or hide. The Prosecutor General's Office supported both applications for arrest. However, the Basmanny District Court, which issued the decision, did not find confirmation of the information of the prosecution about the attempts of Parshin and Monosov to put pressure on witnesses or hide.

In turn, the defenders of the defendants presented documents that confirmed the presence of dependent children, chronic diseases, awards and thanks. The judge sent the defendants in the case under house arrest for two months, until September 12, 2023. She forbade them to use mail, the Internet, the phone and contact witnesses in a criminal case.

According to the decisions of the Basmanny District Court, protested by the supervision, Alexander Monosov will be in his apartment, and Maxim Parshin will be in his mother's house in the elite cottage village "Knyazhye Ozero" in the Moscow region. Since the decision published on the court's website does not talk about restrictions on the constant stay of Deputy Head of the Ministry of Digital Development and walks, he can walk around the territory, the newspaper notes.

The Prosecutor General's Office appealed to the Moscow City Court, in which it declared the illegality and unreasonableness of the decisions made in the district court.^[10]

Detention in a bribe case

On July 13, 2023, it became known about the detention of the Deputy Minister of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation Maxim Parshin. He is accused of corruption.

According to Kommersant, the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (TFR) appealed to the Basmanny Court of Moscow with a petition to elect Maxim Parshin a preventive measure in the form of detention. He is charged with taking a bribe on an especially large scale (part 6 of article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). At the same time, the essence of the sane Deputy Head of the Ministry of Digital Development of act by 18:00 Moscow time on July 13, 2023 is not reported. A Kommersant source in the Russian government said that Parshin was taken red-handed when receiving a bribe.

State Duma deputy Alexander Khinshtein said in his tg-channel that Parshin was taken red-handed at the time of receiving a bribe of 3.5 million (currency is not specified - note TAdviser) in one of the capital's restaurants. The money, according to the preliminary version, was intended for assistance in the allocation of grants.

"The totality of objective evidence regarding Parshin does not raise doubts about the guilt of the official, which, I hope, will not cast a shadow over the entire department as a whole!," Hinstein added.

According to TAdviser in the Ministry of Digital Development, in connection with the investigation carried out against the deputy head of the department Maxim Parshin, the ministry provides all the necessary assistance to law enforcement agencies.^[11]

At about 22 o'clock in Moscow, information appeared on the website of the Moscow courts that the court issued a decision to refuse to satisfy the petition for Parshin's detention. Later, the Basmanny District Court reported that Parshin was elected a preventive measure in the form of house arrest for a period until September 12, 2023.

Also on July 13, the Basmanny Court of Moscow registered a case on the election of a preventive measure against Alexander Monosov in the form of detention. He is suspected of giving a bribe on an especially large scale. According to a TAdviser source familiar with Monosov, he was detained in the same case as Deputy Minister of Digital Development Maxim Parshin, who is suspected of taking a bribe.

At about 21 o'clock Moscow time, information appeared on the website of the Moscow courts that the court issued a decision to refuse to satisfy the petition for the detention of Monosov. Later, the Basmanny Court reported that Monosov was elected a preventive measure in the form of house arrest for a period until September 12, 2023.

Notes