The nine aggrieved elects

This story is quite exceptional. Hundreds of reports and evidence of electoral fraud were collected and published by civil activists and CSOs. Once or twice a year, a confession from an ordinary member of the precinct elections commission (PEC) used to appear. But we’ve never heard words of a witness of such high administrative rank and political status: the former vice-mayor of Voronezh, the city with a population of more than a million, a former head of administration of a district with a population of more than a quarter of a million, a member of the regional Political Council of the United Russia Party, ruling political organisation in the country, the Secretary of the district Political Council of the party and finally, a former KGB and FSB officer. Quite an informant!

The article initially appeared on a small regional website Abireg and later was cautiously republished by national mass media, like www.kommersant.ru. The reasons for such an unexpected confession are rooted in local petty politics and beyond our interest. What is interesting is the description of the internal mechanism of the political and pseudo-electoral system built in the era of late Putin.

As the reader will see, these mechanisms include:

• Control of the electoral results by the administration;
• The merger of the ruling political party and municipal administration into a single entity with united political objectives and goals;
• Interference of law-enforcement agencies into the nomination of candidates from the ruling party;
• Criminal methods of getting planned results (in this case: ballot swapping);
• Spoiler candidates, full namesakes of the actual politicians, to syphon off votes;
• Participation of observers from the Civil Chambers in electoral crimes;
• Involvement of members of the election commissions in electoral crimes;
• Business interests of entrepreneurs as the primary reason to be elected;
• Falsification of the ruling party primaries (in this case: with online voting);
• The prevalent corruption of the key election commission members, making money via bribes, underhand payments, and even the sale of the results at a predefined price;

Since you can find the full version in the original media in Russian, here at REM, we will focus only on the technicalities of the shady schemes typical for getting electoral results. Now, let’s listen to this unusual inside source from the Russian administrative machine. - REM

The regional and municipal parliamentary elections of 2020 [in Voronezh region - REM] are long gone, but unpleasant surprises still haunt their participants. And as a rule, the surprises come in the form of criminal prosecutions. One of the criminal cases was initiated in February 2021 against the former vice-mayor of Voronezh, previously head of administration of the Kominternovsky district, Yury Bavykin. The former official has categorically denied any involvement in the alleged crimes. So, he told the interviewer ( Abirag) his version of the events of that campaign, named the candidates involved in vote-buying and revealed the illegal schemes of electoral technologies which, according to him, had been invented by “the people’s elected representatives” many years ago.

At the beginning of his revelations, he described how the arrest actually took place: one early February morning, about 7 AM, he saw a group of people coming in the direction of his house.

...

- Did you recognise the identities of former colleagues?

- Of course, I did. I’ve been in the FSB (The Federal Security, former KGB, notorious and dreaded secret service – REM) long enough. I resigned in 2009 from the post of the department head and deputy chief of logistics. Before that, I was involved in operative and investigative operations and had some experience. In this regard, I know many people by their faces.

Investigator Brezhneva came up to me, introduced herself and started to read out my rights and duties from her smartphone. At first, I was a little shocked that they came to me, why they came to me. The investigator explained that it was because of the results of the 2020 election. Although mind you, the elections were in September, and they came to me almost six months later. Then, it turned out that Sergei Kudryavtsev (a City Councillor with a four-year suspended sentence for fraud - Abirag) wrote a statement against my former deputy, Svetlana Vaskova. He reported that she had cheated him by taking 400,000 roubles (about 6700 euro – REM) for the promise to organise at least 50% of the vote in his favour in the election. She failed to provide this number, so he reported a crime. At the time [of my detention – REM], the plaintiff himself was in the detention centre.

...

Then, in the interview, the former vice-mayor tells the story of his detention, accusation according to article 159 of the Criminal Code (fraud committed by a person using their official position or on a large scale) and subsequent home arrest. In his defence, he submitted materials that “went down the drain” – REM.

...

- What kind of materials are we talking about?

- The materials about the 2020 election campaign regarding those candidates, who, as I know, were involved in bribing voters through precinct electoral commissions, who suddenly became victims instead of being involved in criminal cases for violating the electoral law themselves. It is clear why Kudryavtsev claimed that he was a victim. He needed to get out [of the detention centre - REM], so he wrote a report on Vaskova. This report got him out of the detention centre on to house arrest. As a result, my case started to be pushed.

- Judging by the regional court’s ruling on the appeal against an extension of your house arrest, you have eight episodes under Article 159.

- The Kominternovsky district has a large area. Eight candidates from the United Russia party (the ruling political party in Russia – REM) got through the party primaries. All candidates for representatives, except Elena Gubina, have won the primaries not for the first time. They have already been acting representatives in the territory of the Kominternovsky district for 10-15 years. You see, they have been working in the district for three or four terms as representatives, whereas I got my post only in 2019. Do you think I could have made any adjustments to the electoral schemes they used for years?

- I think you had a year to get into the matters and learn how to operate the scheme.

- It was impossible to learn the scheme. Firstly, it was a challenging pandemic year. That’s the first aspect. The second aspect: yes, I was a member of the regional political council of the United Russia, the Secretary of the political council of the Kominternovsky district. Indeed, from the political point of view, deputies from the party, members of city or regional Dumas, whether they liked it or not, listened to my opinion regarding the district’s most basic tasks and problems. Of course, the United Russia’s single-mandate candidates had to get through primaries. After that, they came to me and said: “Let’s get on with the elections, switch your administrative resource on because I was approved at all levels [of party hierarchy - REM]”. You understand that all the candidates for and elected people’s representatives are far from being ordinary people. They are wealthy entrepreneurs.

- Who are we talking about?

- Take anybody on the list [of aggrieved parties - REM]. Apart from Kudryavtsev, they are Alexander Zhukov, Ivan Kandybin, Dmitry Lukinov, Elena Gubina, Vadim Klitsov, Andrey Prytykin, Dmitry Krutskikh, Alexander Chufinev. And we understand that the Kominternovsky district is rather protest-oriented, and the candidates are all wealthy people, so it was easier for them simply to pay than to engage in campaigning and meeting with voters.

- According to you, the candidates come to the administration and say, “let’s switch on the administrative resource”. What service do they pay for? What is the mechanism?

- To begin with, I will say that none of them paid me anything. This is proved by records of telephone conversations which I took. The audio records confirm that I did not take money from anyone or give it to anyone. In terms of office, the head of the municipality performs executive and administrative functions. The district administration is a structural subdivision of the city administration according to the Federal Law №131. What does the head of the district administration have the right to do? He can provide the vital functions of the district, particularly during the election campaign; he can provide security through the police, and provide uninterrupted food supply to the electoral system.

- Economic functions.

- Exactly. That’s what the job of the district head is all about. The deputy head of the administration for social issues (Svetlana Vaskova was in charge of this post - Abireg) prepares the so-called voters lists of those who live in the district and submits them to the district electoral commission (the DEC) of the Kominternovsky district. I have already said that the community is protest-oriented (i.e. with low support for the ruling party - REM). And what category of people is the most loyal to the authorities? The social sector (the citizens supported by the government social welfare system - REM). There are 36 thousand representatives of this sector on the district’s territory. Undoubtedly, the candidates needed to reach out to this category to secure victory. So I gathered the candidates and told them about it. Of course, I didn’t do anything illegal [it’s unlawful for an administration to interfere in the campaigning - REM], including my seniors, who were involved in the campaign activities. These seniors included representatives of the city and regional Duma and my direct boss, Mayor Vadim Kstenin. But the candidates were going to hear a plan to manipulate the social sector so that the most significant number of candidates from the United Russia would get elected.

- Did you hold the meeting as a head of the administration or as a United Russia party member?

- Not a member, but the Secretary of the Political Council of the United Russia. What was my job... The candidate Andrey Prytykin came to me and asked what we would do. The main thing for me was the United Russia’s victory, which was my primary indicator. So I said that we had to ensure that the United Russia won. To do that, we had to go around the district and campaign. And as I said, they had to focus on the social sector. If even half of this category voted, the victory would be yours. This is what electoral campaign technology is all about.

- Tell us about the scheme in more detail. How does it work?

- I’ll tell you. On his birthday’s last day of elections, September 13, Mr Kudryavtsev came to the local administration [where the DEC is usually located – REM] being “merry”, I think you know what I mean. He came, as they say, “to give in” (unclear meaning, possibly to hand in the undermentioned bribe – REM). In the evening, the vote count was in full swing. Precinct election commissions with ballots accompanied by police go to give protocols to the DEC. They tally votes, sign the protocols and with this document go to Mrs Vaskova. Then, she multiplies the number of votes by the specific price agreed upon and charges the total sum of money to the candidate.

- Further, this sum is divided into streams - to members of commissions, observers?

- Undoubtedly. People do it according to their own scheme. If we look at the actual voting, in some cases, the United Russia’s margin was only three to five votes. The CPRF [the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the main political rival of the United Russia – REM] was very close, and in some districts, they might even have won. But Kudryavtsev was not satisfied with the results; he said he could not believe that so few people had voted for him. After that, Maria Dorosheva (head of a department at the district administration - Abireg) brought him the actual ballots, taken from the ballot box and replaced with falsified votes, where even fewer votes had been cast for him.

- Were you aware that the ballot papers had been replaced with counterfeit ones?

- I wasn’t. Listen on. In constituency number 18, there are about 15 members in an average precinct election commission. There are up to 20 such commissions per district. [Voters’ - REM] lists are already prepared, and the electoral commissions know that they have to visit, say, 100 people from the social sector [who votes at their homes - REM]. One observer and one election commission member get into a car and drive off to pre-determined addresses. But the important thing is that in the boot of this car, there is already a ballot box stuffed with [falsified - REM] ballots. In fact, these are the votes for which the candidates pay. This switch-ballot scheme was invented by officials a hundred years ago. I have handed over all these substituted ballots to the appropriate [law-enforcement - REM] agencies.

- This scheme applies to door-to-door voting. Is it possible to do such a thing at a polling station itself?

- It is impossible because the ballot passes through KOIB [special scanner for electoral ballots], which scans and immediately sends the data to Moscow [the informant is wrong. The data is not sent to Moscow; it is stored inside the scanner. But he is right because it is hard to manipulate digitally stored data. - REM].

- It turns out that the people, who, for whatever reason, cannot leave their homes, ensure the victory of the United Russia candidates in the elections?

- Of course, they do.

Andrei Ryabov, the lawyer of Mr Bavykin, joins in: We did a little analysis of the results of the different election commissions. For example, the CPRF candidate - more than 30 votes, the United Russia plus one or two votes. In other words, the candidates come close. Then, thanks to home voting, about 300 more votes emerged in favour of the United Russia. The role of observers also raises many questions. The main thing for them is to be the first to occupy seats in the car so that observers from other parties cannot accompany the members of the commissions.

- How are observers paid?

- The price of observer cooperation is 2 thousand roubles per day per person (about 30-40 euro – REM). The amount is set by the Civic Chamber (pro-governmental institution imitating public oversight and control - REM).

- Who pays for the work of observers?

- Well, according to rules, the Civic Chamber. But given that no administrative department has any money, it is more reasonable if the candidates pay themselves because the figures will be fabricated for them.

- According to the investigation, Sergei Kudryavtsev handed over 400 thousand roubles for [the official result of] at least 50% of the votes. What activities in the election campaign did this money go to?

- Kudryavtsev won with more than 40% of the votes, falling short of 50%. What was going on? We said he could only get about a thousand votes. So, an extra thousand had to come from the social sector. There are canvassers who get paid for a certain number of people they managed to coerce to vote.

- So, these canvassers are the first direction of funding.

- This is the most significant share. Then an observer comes into play, who gets in the car and goes to voters with a PEC member with a decisive vote. They drive to the addresses that Vaskova has prepared. And they do not go to the protesting citizens but to those who will vote “in favour” [of the ruling party candidates - REM]. These people are the second direction. An observer is a person interested in the process but cannot do anything without a PEC representative.

- So the PEC representatives are entitled to payments, too?

- It is up to them to divide it; I did not stand there and did not dole out, but judging by audio recordings, yes. And the third direction is street committees, which give information about the approximate number of voters from the street. These are the three directions the money went to. Another question is that the precise sums are mentioned in the case materials, down to the rouble. Let us say 421 thousand roubles (7 thousand euro – REM) for a candidate, or, as in the case of the candidate Krutskikh, 1.43 million roubles (17.5 thousand euro – REM).

- A varying number.

- Yes, and it is the evidence that people paid for the number of votes at a specific price, so to speak.

- How much damage to the aggrieved deputies is the criminal case about?

- More than 6.5 million roubles (109 thousand euro – REM) from eight deputies.

- Are the schemes you described only used, according to you, by representatives of the United Russia party?

- Yes, the aggrieved people are all the candidates from the United Russia party.

(to be continued)

(The full version was published in Russian on Abireg.ru)