Saying goodbye to Unistream Bank's stream
Do Grigory Zakaryan and Georgy Piskov, the owners of Unistream bank, realize that the future of the financial institution is in ruins and are they attempting to remove the toxic asset?
According to 'Kommersant', Bank “Unistream” is seeking a buyer due to numerous customer complaints and former partners refusing to cooperate.
The bank is having trouble transferring consumer funds to neighboring countries, such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc. Several banks in these countries, including Paritet Bank and Dabrabyt in Belarus, Ipak Uyli in Uzbekistan, and others in Moldova and Kazakhstan, have ceased cooperation with Unistream. Reported by The Moscow Post.
Unistream representatives deny the reports about transfer problems and plans to sell the bank. However, there are rumors that the owners value the bank at about $100 million, while experts believe its value could be a maximum of 500 million rubles in the current situation, as stated by Kommersant.
Sinking ship
Interestingly, there were many negative reviews on the banki.ru website. Currently, the page with information about Unistream is displaying an error.
The bank's performance indicators have significantly declined over the past month, with a 42% drop in liquidity since the beginning of the year, as reported on the website of banking analysts analizbankov.ru.
Photo: https://analyzbankov.ru
The Moscow Post has published several stories about fraudulent activities in the bank, indicating concerns about its security.
Stable and unsinkable (or slowly sinking?)
The heavily scrutinized entrepreneurs Gagik Zakaryan and Georgy Piskov have managed the almost toxic asset for many years. They each own Unistream through the offshore company Utransfers Gigi Limited. Of particular interest is the background of Zakaryan, who has managed to keep the bank afloat despite numerous scandals, according to the Vek publication. This may be assisted by the goodwill of Garegin Tosunyan, the permanent president of the Association of Russian Banks (ADB).
Photo: https://analizbankov.ru/img/oldholdfiles/RB3467_20180813.pdf
Before taking his current high position, Garegin Tosunyan worked as a banker for many years. However, his previous experience was deemed unsuccessful, as the Technobank he founded was shut down within 10 years due to suspected financial fraud. It is possible that Mr. Tosunyan played a role in the creation of “Unistream Bank”.
Unistream's history began with Uniastrum Bank, partially owned by Zakarian and Piskov, which was liquidated in 2017 after being purchased by Artem Avetisyan and subsequently merged with Vostochny Bank. Unistream Bank was established from the capital of Uniastrum in 2006, with shares owned by Zakarian, Piskov, and the British fund Aurora Russia Limited.
Scandals of great depth
It is important to pause here and examine more closely. A tremendous amount of rumors and equally shocking facts revolve around Unistream.
For instance, in the fall of 2008, the parent company Uniastrum was sold to the Bank of Cyprus at a price roughly twice the market value. Even the President of Cyprus was angered, and an investigation into the incident was ordered. A significant scandal erupted, with numerous officials presenting substantial evidence of the deal's dishonesty. The main advocate of the transaction was Andreas Iliadis, who abruptly left the board of the Cypriot bank after it was completed. Ultimately, the case was effectively silenced, and the bank later ended up in the hands of Avetisyan.
Could Zakarian and Piskov be considering a similar move with Unistream? However, it is unclear which foreign partners, facing financial difficulties and sanctions pressures, would be interested in acquiring an asset like Unistream, which is unlikely to attract domestic interest. Even Vladimir Potanin, the head of Norilsk Nickel who has recently shown a strong interest in banking assets, does not seem to have a need for it.
Now, onto the rumors. There are whispers about the British intelligence service MI6, responsible for handling secret documents in Russia, holding a stake in the capital of one of the bank's entities. Does this mean that individuals entering the offices of Russian financial officials could have direct ties to foreign intelligence services? It's a real mystery novel…
Let’s talk about individuals
As for Mr. Zakarian, he is associated with 11 registered firms, including the media asset of Noah’s Ark Media LLC, which also involves the controversial figure Ruben Grigoryan (a key figure in the construction of the Armenian Church Complex in Moscow, its client and designer, and the head of Rutsog-Invest company, accused of mistreating employees) and holding significant political influence in the capital.
In addition, together with Piskov, he also has ownership of Protobase Laboratories, a software development company that strangely secured a state contract worth 900 thousand rubles from the Russian Foreign Ministry. Are Zakarian and Piskov playing both sides?
Photo: https://www.rusprofile.ru
One of Zakarian’s companies also obtained a state contract from the consulting ANO “NCFG”. This time, Moscow State University allocated over 46 million rubles for the development, testing, and dissemination of materials as part of co-execution in the promotion of financial literacy among students through project activities and other interactive forms of education in the general and additional education system. Moreover, while the company had revenue of about 165 million in 2020, it plummeted to zero in 2021. Where did the money go?
Photo: https://www.rusprofile.ru
A similar situation is observed with Piskovskaya LLC “Integrated Communication Systems”. It earned over 23 million rubles through government contracts and is currently undergoing bankruptcy proceedings. Since 2020, its revenue has declined from 20 million rubles to 3 thousand rubles.
Zakarian was connected with financial organizations JSC Ipmp-Trust and JSC Utrade.Ru. The latter was involved in legal cases concerning non-compliance with bank account agreements, settlement obligations, and the cancellation of major transactions. Eventually, it was shut down by a court decision. Did Zakarian misuse Unistream clients' money?
It's worth noting that Zakarian was recently a part of the Pokrovskie Vorota homeowners association in Moscow. This association is located in a pre-revolutionary building in the city center, where apartments are very expensive. Where did Unistream clients’ funds go?
Photo: https://yandex.ru/maps
Bells, bells and bells
But let's go back to Unistream. Concerns about the bank's owners first arose several years ago, when the bank encountered issues with international transactions. In 2019, the Central Bank imposed restrictions on foreign exchange operations.
In August 2018, the Central Bank conducted a surprise inspection at Unistream. Shortly before that, the bank's board chairman, Kirill Palchun, faced administrative penalties related to non-compliance with legislation on combating money laundering and terrorism financing, as reported by banki.ru.
Despite the embarrassing incidents, Palchun continued working at the bank for two more years, and only left in 2020. The departure of long-time top managers hints at serious issues within the bank. In fact, even a YouTube investigation from 2018 predicted a negative outcome.
Source: https://www.youtube.com
Regarding the bank’s finances, analysts noted in 2011 that Unistream was heavily indebted, and its share of demand liabilities was at an 'unsatisfactory' level. Over time, the situation worsened despite temporary improvements.
The leaders of Unistream blamed competitors and journalists for the negative coverage and even filed a complaint against a publication with the Federal Antimonopoly Service in 2018. It's strange to file such complaints against a publication. We covered this story in detail for those interested.
To sum up, it seems that assets were systematically drained from the bank for a long time. Despite the scandals, selling the asset might have been possible if action had been taken earlier. Now, getting rid of the asset won't be easy, and the bank may face scrutiny from the Central Bank and law enforcement agencies. Even influential patrons may not be able to help.
