Whose Sberbank?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

On May 29, 2015, the annual meeting of shareholders of the main credit institution in Russia, Sberbank, was held. German Gref, the head of Sberbank, said at this meeting that the said credit organization would not be present on the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol. Like, Washington has announced sanctions against Russia and prohibits any commercial structures from working on the territory of the "annexed" peninsula.

For some inexperienced people, such a statement may seem shocking. After all, in the end it is "Native" "Sberbank", and not some "Godman Sachs" … Citizens, even those far from the world of finance, believe that Sberbank: a) is a Russian organization; b) a state organization; c) an organization that obeys laws, orders and other control signals emanating from the government bodies of Russia.

However, everything is not so simple here. For example, due to a misunderstanding, Sberbank is called a state credit institution only because the main (majority) shareholder is the Bank of Russia. To avoid any illusions, let me remind you that at the very beginning of the law on the Central Bank it is said that the Central Bank is not responsible for the obligations of the state, and the state is not responsible for the obligations of the Central Bank. I am already silent about the fact that there are a lot of "non-residents" among the minority shareholders of Sberbank. Gref's aforementioned statement destroys the usual ideas of the average man on how state administration is organized in general and in Russia in particular. Over the past year, the control center of Russian banks has clearly moved outside the borders of our country.

As a visual aid for the disclosure of this thesis, we can consider all the same Sberbank, which accounts for the lion's share of deposits and loans in the Russian banking system.

Last summer, when the active phase of the ATO ("anti-terrorist operation") against the "separatists" in the southeast of the country began in Ukraine, the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine decided to provide financial assistance to the "defenders of the fatherland." The issue and placement of the so-called Military Loan was organized to replenish the military budget of Ukraine. Leading banks of the country, including Ukrainian subsidiaries of Russian Sberbank and VTB, were involved in the placement and purchase of bonds. So Mr. Gref can be proud that he made his contribution to the "fight against terrorism", and the shells bought with Sberbank's money claimed more than one life on the territory of the DPR and LPR.

Mr. Gref has zealously watched and continues to ensure that the "irresponsible" citizens of Russia did not put their hands on the support of the "troublemakers" in Little Russia. As you know, our "irresponsible" compatriots have provided and continue to provide all possible humanitarian assistance to the civilian population of Novorossia, which found itself in the blockade ring organized by the official Kiev. One of these forms of assistance is the transfer of funds to the accounts of Russian banks for the formation of various funds. So, there are many known cases when in Sberbank such accounts were blocked according to the instructions of the bank's management.

However, it would be unfair to attribute all the laurels of the "fight against terrorism" in Ukraine to Sberbank and its head Gref. VTB also provides official Kiev with all possible assistance in this "noble" cause. At the beginning of this year, the head of the second bank after Sberbank - VTB - Andrey Kostin made an interesting statement. He decided to capitalize on two Ukrainian subsidiaries for a total amount of up to 4 billion Ukrainian hryvnias (about $ 265 million). We are talking about PJSC "VTB Bank" (Kiev) and JSC "BM BANK". It is noteworthy that the statement was made at a time when the banking system of Ukraine was already going downhill, when loud calls began to be heard in the Verkhovna Rada for the expropriation of Russian property on the territory of the “square”. The Ukrainian "expropriators" have shown and are showing particular interest in the assets of Russian banks.

To a person, even very far from the "subtleties" of banking, A. Kostin's statements about "additional capitalization" should seem strange, just suspicious. They also seemed to our Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who is difficult to suspect in the absence of liberal views on the economy. On January 20, the prime minister, at a meeting with the head of the Ministry of Energy Alexander Novak and the head of Gazprom, Alexei Miller, said the following: “Including our banking structures continue to operate on the territory of Ukraine. In particular, our bank VTB, the largest state-owned bank, made a decision to recapitalize its subsidiaries in Ukraine. What is this if not a form of support for the Ukrainian financial system? And VTB made such decisions, even though we, well, have, frankly, different positions on what decisions to make and what decisions not to make in relation to Ukraine."

How can you interpret the situation related to the "additional capitalization" of VTB subsidiaries in Ukraine? In my opinion, as a clear manifestation of the fact that our government is not able to exercise "effective management" of the activities of Russian banks. Even when it is required by the complex international situation that threatens the security of Russia. The prime minister's words had no effect on the head of VTB. Moreover, in early June, A. Kostin has already announced the amount of “additional capitalization” equal to $ 600-800 million (2.5-3 times higher than the originally announced). One can only guess how this money will be used in the "Square". Probably, this is the same money that at the beginning of the year our generous government distributed to banks under the guise of an "anti-crisis program". Let me remind you that out of a little over two trillion rubles, more than 1.5 trillion rubles went to banks. By the way, VTB turned out to be one of the main “beneficiaries” of the anti-crisis program.

The events in Ukraine became that litmus test that revealed the true nature of the "Russian" banking system. One of its main features is that it is not controlled by the Russian government. And to whom is it controlled? Maybe the Central Bank of the Russian Federation? - May be. But the Central Bank of the Russian Federation is an institution that is not controlled by either the executive, legislative or judicial authorities of the Russian Federation.

We are being told that for the successful implementation of monetary policy, the Bank of Russia needs an "independent" status. As in the physical world there is no absolute vacuum, so in the social world there is no absolute independence. If we talk about the Bank of Russia, then it is completely dependent on the US Federal Reserve System. There is no conspiracy here. The Bank of Russia works as a "currency exchanger", its international reserves are formed at the expense of the US dollar, which is the product of the "printing press" of the FRS. And our “national” ruble is just a “green” dollar bill, repainted in other colors.

Today everyone knows about the problem of dollarization of the Russian economy. Everyone understands that we must fight it. At least in order to prevent new collapses of the ruble, similar to the one that occurred in December 2014. Our officials sometimes talk about this, but in a whisper, on the sidelines. Perhaps the most daring of them ended up in an organization called the National Security Council. On April 27, 2015, the issue of the threats to dollarization of the Russian economy and measures to restrict the circulation and use of foreign currency in cash in the country was submitted to the National Security Council. The Council has a high status and sufficient powers to enforce its decisions. Following the meeting of the Council, the Central Bank and the government were recommended to expand the use of the Russian currency in international settlements and gradually reduce the use of foreign currency in cash within Russia.

In turn, the officials of the Central Bank for many years have repeated the same mantra: administrative measures to limit the turnover of foreign cash within the country will not give an effect, and therefore their introduction is inexpedient. Why "they will not give" and why it is "inexpedient" remains a mystery. Central Bank officials do not like to dive into the details and subtleties of their argumentation. The journalists of one of the electronic editions tried to get to the bottom of these details and subtleties, to fully understand the arguments of the Central Bank on the issue of such a liberal attitude to the circulation of foreign currency in the country. Moreover, the recommendations of the Security Council were addressed to the Central Bank.

And this is what the Central Bank replied: “Administrative measures to restrict the use of foreign currency on the territory of the Russian Federation were not considered at the meeting of the Interdepartmental Commission. For its part, the Bank of Russia proceeds from the inexpediency of adopting such restrictive measures. " To me personally, such statements by Central Bank officials resemble the answers of the official representative of the US State Department Jennifer Psaki. However, I have certain associations with the institution itself with a strange signboard "Bank of Russia". It looks more like the American Embassy or the branch of the US Federal Reserve System.

However, if not long ago the threads of real management of our banking system from across the ocean (the Federal Reserve System and the US Treasury) were not visible to everyone, now the situation is different. Today, only the blind can fail to see the reins of this overseas administration. What I mean? I mean the American FATCA law, which can be translated as the Foreign Account Tax Act. Formally, this law is aimed at combating those individuals and legal entities who are required to pay taxes to the US treasury. But the mechanism for the implementation of FATCA provides that banks of all countries of the world must submit information about suspicious customers (those who evade paying taxes to the US treasury) to the American tax service. In fact, a vertical line of direct administrative control over foreign banks from Washington is being built.

This is a pronounced law of extraterritorial action. Many countries managed to conclude interstate agreements with the United States, which stipulate that not the banks themselves, but the relevant departments will be accountable to Washington. In the case of Russia, each bank is expected to report individually to Washington. I do not develop this interesting story further. The reader himself understands that Russia is finally losing control over its banking system, it is being intercepted by the Federal Reserve System and the US government departments. Taking into account the above, the statement of the head of Sberbank German Gref, made last week, looks quite natural.

See also articles:

Who does Sberbank and the Central Bank work for?

Mortgage at 2% from Sberbank for the people … of the Czech Republic

President's visit

So, in November 1963, Kennedy arrived in Texas. This trip was planned as part of the preparatory campaign for the 1964 presidential election. The head of state himself noted that it is very important for him to win in Texas and Florida. In addition, Vice President Lyndon Johnson was a local and the travel to the state was emphasized.

But the representatives of the special services were afraid of the visit. Literally a month before the president's arrival, Adlai Stevenson, the US representative to the UN, was attacked in Dallas. Earlier, during one of Lyndon Johnson's performances here, he was booed by a crowd of … housewives. On the eve of the President's arrival, leaflets with the image of Kennedy and the inscription "Wanted for Betrayal" were posted around the city. The situation was tense, and troubles awaited. True, they thought that demonstrators with placards would take to the streets or throw rotten eggs at the president, no more.

Local authorities were more pessimistic. In his book The Assassination of President Kennedy, William Manchester, a historian and journalist who chronicled the assassination attempt at the request of the President's family, writes: “Federal Judge Sarah T. Hughes feared incidents, Attorney Burfoot Sanders, senior Justice Department official in this part of Texas and the vice president’s spokesman in Dallas told Johnson’s political adviser Cliff Carter that given the city’s political atmosphere, the trip seemed "inappropriate." The city officials had trembling knees from the very beginning of this trip. The wave of local hostility towards the federal government had reached a critical point, and they knew it."

But the pre-election campaign was approaching, and they did not change the presidential travel plan. On November 21, a presidential plane landed at the airport of San Antonio (Texas' second most populous city). Kennedy attended Air Force Medical School, went to Houston, spoke at the university there, and attended a Democratic Party banquet.

The next day, the President went to Dallas. With a difference of 5 minutes, the vice president's plane arrived at Dallas Love Field airport, and then Kennedy's. At about 11:50 am, the motorcade of the first persons moved towards the city. The Kennedys were in the fourth limousine. In the same car with the President and the First Lady were US Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, Texas Governor John Connally and his wife, agent William Greer was driving.

Three shots

It was originally planned that the motorcade would travel in a straight line on Main Street - there was no need to slow down on it. But for some reason, the route was changed, and the cars drove along Elm Street, where cars had to slow down. In addition, on Elm Street, the motorcade was closer to the educational store, from where the shooting was carried out.

Shots rang out at 12:30. Eyewitnesses took them either for the claps of a cracker, or for the sound of the exhaust, even the special agents did not immediately find their bearings. There were three shots in total (although even this is controversial), the first was Kennedy wounded in the back, the second bullet hit the head, and this wound became fatal. Six minutes later, the motorcade arrived at the nearest hospital, at 12:40 the president died.

The prescribed forensic medical research, which had to be done on the spot, was not carried out. Kennedy's body was immediately sent to Washington.

Workers at the training store told police that the shots were fired from their building. Based on a series of testimonies, an hour later, Police Officer Tippit attempted to detain warehouse worker Lee Harvey Oswald. He had a pistol with which he shot Tippit. As a result, Oswald was still captured, but two days later he also died. He was shot by a certain Jack Ruby while the suspect was being taken out of the police station. Thus, he wanted to "justify" his hometown.

So, by November 24, the president was assassinated, and so was the prime suspect. Nevertheless, in accordance with the decree of the new President Lyndon Johnson, a commission was formed, headed by the Chief Justice of the United States of America Earl Warren. There were seven people in total. For a long time, they studied the testimony of witnesses, documents, and in the end they concluded that a lone killer had attempted to assassinate the president. Jack Ruby, in their opinion, also acted alone and had exclusively personal motives for the murder.

Under suspicion

To understand what happened next, you need to travel to New Orleans, the hometown of Lee Harvey Oswald, where he last visited in 1963. On the evening of November 22, an altercation broke out at a local bar between Guy Banister and Jack Martin. Banister ran a small detective agency here, Martin worked for him. The reason for the quarrel had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination, it was a purely industrial conflict. In the heat of the argument, Banister pulled out his pistol and hit Martin in the head with it several times. He shouted: "Will you kill me the way you killed Kennedy?"

The phrase aroused suspicion. Martin, who was admitted to the hospital, was interrogated, and he said that his boss Banister knew a certain David Ferry, who, in turn, knew Lee Harvey Oswald quite well. Further, the victim claimed that Ferry convinced Oswald to attack the president using hypnosis. Martin was considered not entirely normal, but in connection with the assassination of the president, the FBI worked out every version. Ferry was also interrogated, but the case did not receive any further progress in 1963.

… Three years have passed

Ironically, Martin's testimony was not forgotten, and in 1966 New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison reopened the investigation. He collected testimony that confirmed that the Kennedy assassination was the result of a conspiracy involving former civil aviation pilot David Ferry and businessman Clay Shaw. Of course, a few years after the murder, some of this testimony was not entirely reliable, but still Garrison continued to work.

He was hooked on the fact that a certain Clay Bertrand appeared in the report of the Warren Commission. Who he is is unknown, but immediately after the murder, he called New Orleans lawyer Dean Andrews and offered to defend Oswald. Andrews, however, remembered the events of that evening very poorly: he had pneumonia, a high temperature and he took a lot of drugs. However, Garrison believed that Clay Shaw and Clay Bertrand were one and the same person (later Andrews admitted that he generally gave false testimony regarding Bertrand's call).

Shaw, meanwhile, was a famous and respected figure in New Orleans. A war veteran, he ran a successful trade business in the city, participated in the public life of the city, wrote plays that were staged throughout the country. Garrison believed that Shaw was part of a group of arms dealers who were aiming to bring down the Fidel Castro regime. Kennedy's rapprochement with the USSR and the lack of a consistent policy against Cuba, according to his version, became the reason for the assassination of the president.

In February 1967, the details of this case appeared in the New Orleans States Item, it is possible that the investigators themselves organized the "leak" of information. A few days later, David Ferry, who was considered the main link between Oswald and the organizers of the assassination attempt, was found dead at his home. The man died of a cerebral hemorrhage, but the strange thing was that he left two notes of confused and confused content. If Ferry had committed suicide, then the notes could be considered dying, but his death did not look like a suicide.

Despite shaky evidence and evidence against Shaw, the case was brought to trial, and hearings began in 1969. Garrison believed that Oswald, Shaw, and Ferry had conspired in June 1963, that there were several who shot the president, and that the bullet that killed him was not the one fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. Witnesses were summoned to the trial, but the arguments presented did not convince the jury. It took them less than an hour to reach a verdict: Clay Shaw was acquitted. And his case remained in history as the only one brought to trial in connection with the Kennedy assassination.

Elena Minushkina