This alleged fraud highlights the difficulties Western companies and their executives face when trying to leave Russia.
Two senior executives of Carlsberg’s Russian unit, Baltika Breweries, which was seized, were arrested last week and will remain in custody until December 30 on suspicion of fraud, the Vyborg District Court said. in St. Petersburg.
The information highlights the difficulties faced by Western companies trying to leave Russia. Large-scale fraud in the country is punishable by up to ten years in prison.
Prosecutors say Denis Sherstennikov and Anton Rogachevsky, described on their LinkedIn profiles as Baltika’s CEO and vice president for legal matters, illegally transferred certain intellectual property rights to Carlsberg when Russia took control of the company. Company.
After the arrest of the two executives, the court granted Baltika’s request to hold the proceedings behind closed doors to protect commercial secrets, according to Russian news agencies.
Moscow took control of the Danish brewer’s stake in Baltika in July, placing the company under “temporary management.”
Carlsberg said Russia was now trying to justify its takeover by “targeting innocent employees”adding: “Allegations reported by Russian media are false”.
Carlsberg has removed licenses allowing Baltika to produce, market and sell all of the group’s products, including international and regional brands. Its CEO Jacob Aarup-Andersen said it would not enter into a deal that would give the seizure of Moscow the appearance of legitimacy.
But Baltika is suing Carlsberg in Russia for the right to continue using the group’s brands.
“Few options” for multinationals leaving Russia
Executives of other companies trying to leave Russia told Reuters that the impact on their local staff was one of their main concerns.
Ian Massey, head of enterprise intelligence for the Europe, Middle East and Africa region at global risk consultancy S-RM, said the arrests showed the little room for maneuver available to departing multinationals.
He added that “These companies had few options at their disposal: either withdraw, accepting as a price, very opaque processes and very reduced evaluations, or maintain increasingly difficult relations and face the threat of ‘seizure, considerable total write-downs and the inability to ensure the duty of care towards their staff.’
