The Moscow Basmanny District Court has begun reviewing the criminal case concerning the former co-owners of the sanctioned Trust Bank. The reporting indicates that the individuals involved are Sergei Belyaev and Nikolai Fetisov, as cited by Kommersant.
According to journalistic material, the two ex-financiers are accused of siphoning off 14.6 billion rubles from the financial institution. At present, they are listed on an international wanted list, and their cases are being evaluated in absentia.
Earlier in the proceedings, three other defendants were already found guilty in this matter: the bank’s former co-owner Ilya Yurov, former financial director Evgeny Ramakov, and former chairman of the board Oleg Dikusar. Yurov received an eight-year sentence in absentia, Ramakov was handed four years, and Dikusar was sentenced to seven years.
A separate criminal case was opened against Belyaev and Fetisov nine years ago after representatives of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation identified signs of asset withdrawal connected with the Foundation’s activities.
Investigators noted that the bank employed schemes that loaned funds to borrowers not engaged in real economic activity and financed investment projects that did not generate sustainable income. The alleged gap in Trust’s balance sheet has been estimated at 114 billion rubles, according to the reporting.
By the time authorities had pinpointed the individuals as former co-owners, they had already left the country. It is believed that the two financiers may be located in England.
Consequently, the suspects were placed on an international wanted list. The Moscow Tverskoy District Court ordered the arrest of Fetisov, Belyaev, and Yurov in absentia based on the evidence gathered.
According to investigators, the alleged crimes occurred between April 24, 2012, and December 3, 2014. The article notes that the investigation identified the period and the participants involved in the scheme.
During the investigation, Yurov was detained twice: first in Ukraine in 2016 and later in the United Kingdom in 2018. In both cases, local authorities refused to extradite him to Russia, and the Moscow Basmanny District Court proceeded with an eight-year prison term in absentia when referring to his case. The current proceedings treat Fetisov and Belyaev in a similar framework, with the trial proceeding as of February 27. The case continues to unfold under the same set of materials and charges, now applied to two other former co-owners. The dynamic remains focused on accountability for alleged misappropriation and illicit transfers tied to the bank’s operations.
In separate procedural steps, the Bank of Russia had previously revoked the license of the financial institution named Hephaestus, signaling a broader regulatory response to the actions under review. The ongoing proceedings illustrate how authorities pursue accountability across different jurisdictions when assets and executives attempt to relocate outside national borders. The case highlights the importance of contingent protocols and cross-border cooperation in major financial crime investigations.
As this matter evolves, observers note the potential implications for regulatory oversight, asset recovery, and the mechanisms used to detect and deter schemes that misallocate corporate resources. The case remains a focal point for discussions about financial governance, corporate responsibility, and the safeguards needed to protect depositors and the broader market from similar activities. The involved parties continue to face serious charges, with proceedings continuing to lay out the full scope of the alleged offenses and the corresponding legal consequences.
Overall, the unfolding narrative underscores the persistent vigilance of financial authorities and the judicial system in pursuing high-profile cases. It also reflects the challenges posed by international extradition and the complexities of adjudicating crimes tied to corporate structures and cross-border operations. The outcome will likely influence future regulatory responses and the posture of law enforcement agencies in handling similar cases involving large sums and international flight risk.
Notes: The reporting above consolidates information from established outlets and reflects the ongoing status of the case as of the latest available updates. Attribution is provided to the primary source of the reported details.