The city court of St. Petersburg declined to put Diana Kaledina, the founder and leader of the Baltic Industrial Company (BPK), in prison despite being on house arrest for nearly two months.
She is accused of committing a large-scale fraud: investigators claim that Mrs. Kaledina’s company provided Chinese machine tools instead of Russian ones to a defense enterprise in St. Petersburg, and at an inflated price. The court session was based on the appeal presentation of the prosecutor’s office, which argued that the chosen preventive measure by the district court for the businesswoman was too lenient. Ms. Kaledina denies any guilt, considering the investigation's claims to be exaggerated and baseless.
The city court session in St. Petersburg, led by Yulia Safonova, who was assigned to consider the prosecutor’s appeal, started late and didn't last long. The reason for the appeal was the prosecutor’s office deeming the house arrest chosen by Diana Kaledina by the Oktyabrsky Court of St. Petersburg before the New Year to be too lenient. The businesswoman was detained during a business trip to Moscow by employees of the FSB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. She was then taken to St. Petersburg after a brief interrogation.
The criminal case on large-scale fraud being conducted by investigators of the St. Petersburg police is connected to a contract signed by the Baltic Industrial Company in 2016 with JSC “Scientific and Production Enterprise”, which is included in the “defense” register of the Ministry of Industry and Trade Signal “, controlled by Rostec. The milling machining center of the FORT brand had to be of Russian origin as it was purchased under the federal target program “Development of the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation for 2011-2020.” 15 million rubles were allocated from the state budget for this.
Investigators claim that “Signal” was supplied with a Chinese-made machine with Russian markings and falsified documents about its origin. Diana Kaledina insists that the transaction was transparent and fully compliant with the law.
Despite the serious charge, investigators initially insisted on imprisonment in a pre-trial detention center for Ms. Kaledina. However, the court showed leniency by placing her under house arrest. People close to her believe that her popularity and weak arguments from the investigation may have played a role. The defense team was able to refute the investigation's arguments, pointing out discrepancies between their statements and the real facts. They also mentioned that the acts attributed to their client are related to business activities, which the law prohibits arresting for.
At the meeting of the appellate court, the traditional grounds for placing the accused in a pre-trial detention center were again repeated and again refuted by the defense lawyers.
As a result, Judge Yulia Safonova recognized the decision of the Oktyabrsky Court as justified and refused to satisfy the submission of the prosecutor’s office.
