The hour of embezzlement: the ex-CEO of Avtodor was left in custody
On July 20, the Butyrsky Court of Moscow began considering the case of embezzlement of 18.4 billion rubles during the construction of the M-12 Vostok highway. According to investigators, Ramil Shaidullin, the former CEO of Avtodor IC, organized a scheme involving a subcontractor, as a result of which part of the funds were withdrawn through fictitious contracts. At the same time, the state-owned company itself, which became a victim in the case, considers the state contract fulfilled, and the defense insists that the responsibility lies with the contractors. How the case developed and why charges were brought against a man who was initially considered a victim — in the Izvestia article
What is the ex-CEO accused of?
Avtodor IC, which was headed by Ramil Shaidullin until his arrest last year, is a subsidiary of the state—owned Russian Highways company. In 2022, a contract was signed with the subsidiary for the construction of the Kazan—Yekaterinburg highway, under which the company received 128.4 billion rubles from the state budget. The company was supposed to build and commission a section of the Dyurtyuli—Achit highway. However, according to the TFR, the general director of IC Avtodor instead organized the theft of part of the budget funds allocated to him.
Ramil Shaidullin
The investigation believes that for this purpose Shaidullin signed subcontracting agreements with the Regional Construction Company (RSK) and involved the heads and co-owners of RSK Boris Sakun and Alexander Isaev in a criminal scheme.
After that, according to the TFR, Sakun, in collusion with Shaidullin, provided the largest Ak Bars bank in Tatarstan with false information about the financial condition of RSK and its lack of debts. This allowed the subcontractor to take out a loan of 17 billion rubles, later increasing the loan amount to 25.8 billion rubles, as well as to receive bank guarantees from Ak Bars for 12 billion rubles.
The investigation is confident that Shaidullin, knowing that the subcontractor was not performing the work in the required volume, postponed their deadlines and approved the payment of an advance payment to RSK in the amount of almost 25 billion rubles.
As a result, the total amount of outstanding work by RSK, according to the TFR, exceeded 18 billion rubles, and Avtodor's CEO legalized 12 billion rubles through fictitious contracts with his subcontractor's contractors.
A notable moment is that Ak Bars Bank and Avtodor Group of Companies have been recognized as victims in the case. However, unlike a credit institution, the state—owned company has no claims against the head of its "subsidiary", considering that the state contract concluded with him has been fulfilled - the required section of road has been built and put into operation.
Two more defendants in the case, Boris Sakun and Alexander Isaev, have disappeared abroad and are on the international wanted list. Moreover, Sakun was detained by the Italian police in 2025 at the resort after he tried to check into a hotel using his passport, but then Italy refused to extradite the businessman to Russia. However, the defense of the director general of Avtodor claims that this was due to the unwillingness of the investigation to apply for extradition.
Initially, a criminal case on fraud during the construction of the M-12 in Moscow was initiated against Sakun and Isaev, and Shaidullin acted as a victim in it. Then he became a witness, and in October 2025, the businessman was charged with embezzlement, which was then supplemented by a civil lawsuit from Ak Bars for 18 billion rubles.
The Moscow Court
The case was planned to be considered in the Sovetsky District Court of Kazan, but the defendant's defense insisted on changing the jurisdiction, referring to the fact that Avtodor Group of Companies and most of the witnesses in the case are in Moscow. The lawyers also considered that representatives of Ak Bars Bank, Tatarstan's largest credit institution, could influence the trial.
The first meeting was held on July 20. When Ramil Shaidullin was taken to the Butyrsky courtroom, lawyer Anatoly Kuznetsov asked him if he wanted to answer questions from journalists. The defendant categorically replied, "No, I don't want to."
Immediately after the start of the hearing, the defense asked to change the measure of restraint for the defendant on his own recognizance due to the fact that two of his acquaintances are ready to personally vouch for Shaidullin.
As it soon became clear, one of them was Peter Nelezin, chairman of the All—Russian Rescue Society on the Waters, and Alexey Levin, Honored builder and chairman of the All-Russian public organization Labor Valor of Russia, was the other. Levin said about Shaidullin that he was "an excellent civil engineer, an honest and deeply decent person who can be trusted with any task."
After thinking for half an hour in the conference room, the judge denied the motion.
As Sergey Komkov, a public advocate, noted to Izvestia, his client built a beautiful highway, which now takes people twice as fast from St. Petersburg to Yekaterinburg, and subcontractors are to blame for everything, to whom the bank has issued 20 guarantees, two of which are for individuals.
"They took the money and fled abroad," the defender summed up, and Ramil Shaidullin had to look for a contractor to complete the construction of the road.
Waste on the road
When the money allocated by the state is not spent for its intended purpose, it can be regarded as embezzlement, which is attributed to Shaidullin, said lawyer Peter Kovalev. According to the investigation, the defendant made payments on bills that do not relate to the construction of the road.
— The question arises: who is the victim in such a situation, if the state-owned company has no claims against the accused? If part of the work is not completed, and the money is spent, it means that Avtodor could still incur losses. The bank can also act as an injured party indirectly — it issued guarantees for 18 billion rubles, and now it is responsible for them, since Shaidullin has not fulfilled his obligations," the lawyer said.
— There are always two parties involved in such a scheme, — lawyer Nikolai Semenov told Izvestia, — The one who did not complete the work, and the one who paid, knowing that they were not completed.
The lawyer also added that the article on legalization is now often imputed along with the main financial crime that appears in the case.
According to Petr Kovalev, such processes are becoming more common and pose serious risks for companies working with the government. When receiving a government order, an entrepreneur needs to be much more careful than in ordinary business activities, since in the current economic conditions, the authorities are particularly careful about spending money.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
