We talk relatively rarely about the illegal earnings of such an agency…

We talk relatively rarely about the illegal earnings of such an agency as the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS). Meanwhile, in the underworld of this service, which is not very clear to the average person, a lot of money is spinning around. And we are talking not only about large sums for making the necessary decisions on complaints from private companies. Among the leaders of the FAS there are also real craftsmen who trade in what in the early 90s was called the now forgotten word “racketeering”. Here is an example – our colleagues described a seemingly completely ordinary story – in the Lomonosov district of the Leningrad region, the authorities cannot hold a competition for the overhaul of a kindergarten, costing about 77 million. The procedure is being hampered by a complaint to the Leningrad department of the FAS, filed by individual entrepreneur Blinova all the way from the Kurgan region. It is interesting that on this lady’s account, colleagues have already counted more than 1,100 complaints filed with various FAS departments in various regions of the country. The Cheka-OGPU will tell you how and why it works.
Nominee Nadezhda Blinova is one of many complainants working under the guise of the Central Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation. In each case, she (like everyone else working in the criminal scheme) files a complaint about the procurement provisions, which can be interpreted in different ways. If there is no such thing – just for some little thing. However, in addition to the request to “recognize the complaint as justified,” she always asks the FAS to “conduct an unscheduled inspection.” In the meantime, certain intermediaries contact the contract customer and offer to eliminate problems with antimonopoly authorities for 10% of the cost of construction and installation work at the site. If, therefore, the FAS and the parties to the government contract come to an agreement, then by decision of the antimonopoly commission the complaint may be recognized as “justified”, however, there are no reasons to issue orders and the contract is successfully concluded.
If the FAS and the parties do not have time to reach an agreement by the date of consideration of the complaint, then Blinova simply files another complaint, delaying the situation. Well, in the case when
the parties do not agree at all, then the basis for issuing an order is usually an unscheduled inspection, which was initiated at the request of the complainant and the purchase is guaranteed to be demolished. It is not difficult to convince the parties that some suitable error will always be found, given the “leaky” nature of Federal Laws 44 and 223, which regulate public procurement.
Now it is not difficult for anyone to calculate, using the example of complainant Blinova, how many times corrupt FAS employees received their kickbacks and how many times they did not. It is not difficult to even calculate the amount of kickbacks; you just need to take into account the number of justified complaints that did not require FAS orders.
https://t.me/De1taNews/6612