This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/world/europe/economist-sergei-guriev-leaves-russia-abruptly.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Economist Leaves Russia After Questioning, Colleagues Say Economist Leaves Russia After Questioning, Colleagues Say
(about 3 hours later)
MOSCOW — A prominent and well-connected economist who has openly supported opposition figures has resigned from several posts and abruptly left Russia under mounting pressure from investigators, officials of the university he leads said on Wednesday. MOSCOW — A prominent liberal-minded economist has fled Russia under pressure from government investigators, as the Kremlin’s year-long crackdown moves beyond protesters and their leaders to elite power-brokers who are suspected of supporting them.
The economist, Sergei Guriev, has been questioned repeatedly in a case that stems from a report that he co-wrote that harshly criticized the treatment of Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, the imprisoned oil tycoon and one-time political rival to President Vladimir V. Putin. Investigators contend that the report’s authors were paid by Yukos, Mr. Khodorkovsky’s company. Sergei Guriev, who wielded significant influence under the presidency of Dmitri A. Medvedev, has been questioned repeatedly in a case that stems from a report that he co-wrote that harshly criticized the treatment of Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, the imprisoned oil tycoon and Putin rival.
A centrist figure who is at home among Russia’s power brokers, Mr. Guriev drew attention a year ago for publicly declaring his support for the anti-corruption blogger Aleksei Navalny. Mr. Guriev’s flight comes amid a series of probes that focus on Moscow insiders who, investigators believe, have offered support to the opposition movement.
“Am I not afraid to support an opposition politician?” he wrote at the time, adding that he and his wife had contributed a small amount to a fund to support Mr. Navalny’s anti-corruption effort. “No. I am a free person. I know that as long as I haven’t violated the law, no one can forbid me to say something or do something. Might I be misled? Of course.” Behind their suspicions lies an uncomfortable truth: Among the businessmen and technocrats who make up Moscow’s ruling class are many who hold relatively liberal views, and some who — whether they say so or not — are uncomfortable with the repressive, conservative course Mr. Putin has set since his return. But they have felt safe, for the most part, until now.
Mr. Guriev declined to comment on the reasons for his departure on Wednesday, and has said he left for a vacation in France, where his wife and children live. However, two close associates said he had left because he was unsettled by intensifying interest from investigators. “This means that no one has immunity,” said Aleksei V. Makarkin, an analyst at Moscow’s Center for Political Technologies. “If any representative of the elite enters into a relationship with the opposition, he takes a great risk.”
“He had reason to believe he could be deprived of his freedom,” and possibly prevented from leaving Russia, said one friend, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the case. Mr. Guriev would not comment on his decision, and has said he is vacationing with his wife and children in France. But a friend, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Guriev left Russia abruptly because “had reason to believe he could be deprived of his freedom.”
“He had visits from people. After those visits, he asked a number of influential people in Moscow who normally would protect him, and he was given advice that he was not safe,” the friend said. “He left in a hurry. We’re talking about a few days.” A series of recent probes have targeted government insiders, liberal elite who offered credible support to calls for government accountability, rule of law and democracy. Notably, investigators opened a criminal case against a top executive at the Skolkovo Foundation — the state-financed innovation hub that was Mr. Medvedev’s trademark project — alleging the payment of hefty speaker’s fees to the opposition leader Ilya V. Ponomaryov.
Mr. Guriev this week declined to seek re-election to the board of directors at Sberbank, the state-run consumer banking giant. At the New Economic School, where Mr. Guriev has been rector for a decade, officials said they were searching for his successor. One of the few political heavyweights affiliated with Mr. Medvedev, deputy prime minister, Vladislav Y. Surkov, resigned after publicly criticizing the investigation, amid reports he was forced out. Anonymous officials told journalists/CAN WE BE MORE TRANSPARENT HERE. TOLD WHAT REPORTERS? HOW DO WE KNOW THIS? /that Mr. Surkov, too, was suspected of supporting the opposition.
Dmitri S. Peskov, a spokesman for Mr. Putin, said that as far as he knew, Mr. Guriev had simply left Russia on vacation, and that he could not comment on the investigation. Mr. Guriev, the rector of the New Economic School, wrote speeches for Mr. Medvedev and sat on numerous advisory bodies. When Barack Obama visited Moscow in 2009, he chose Mr. Guriev’s university as the venue for a major speech.
“This is not our question — this has nothing to do with the Kremlin, nothing to do with the president,” he said. “The only thing I can tell you is that this is pure speculation. I have found only his words saying he had personal reasons to resign, and he has not left Moscow.” A centrist figure, on good terms with most of Moscow’s power brokers, Mr. Guriev took the unusual step last May of contributing $300 rubles to a fund supporting the anti-corruption efforts of Aleksei Navalny, an opposition leader.
However, if Mr. Guriev has left Russia because of a politically tinged prosecution, it is likely to make waves both in Russia and the West, because he is so well known. When President Obama visited Russia in 2009, he delivered an address at the New Economic School. Mr. Guriev wrote speeches for Mr. Medvedev when he was president, and was seen as closely affiliated with his government. In an essay about the decision, he said he did it because he believes Russia needs more political competition.
Aleksei V. Makarkin, an analyst at Moscow’s Center for Political Technologies, said the pressure on Mr. Guriev shows that law enforcement organs are increasingly confident in their moves against supporters of the political opposition, even if it comes at the cost of international prestige. “Am I not afraid?” he wrote “No. I am a free person. I know that as long as I haven’t violated the law, no one can forbid me to say something or do something. Might I be misled? Of course.”
He noted investigators’ recent scrutiny into whether Skolkovo, the government-financed innovation hub pioneered by Prime Minister Dmitri A. Medvedev, had funneled money to opposition politicians. Since then, Mr. Guriev has been questioned repeatedly in a case that stems from the 2011 report on Mr. Khodorovsky’s case. Investigators have scrutinized several experts, contending that they had been paid for their opinion by Yukos, Mr. Khodorkovsky’s company.
“Probably the siloviki have gotten carte blanche to carry out actions on people regardless of their standing,” he said, referring to the investigators. “There was some kind of an informal manifesto which does not exist now.” Mr. Guriev’s friend, who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to speak about the case, said that after the most recent round of questioning, Mr. Guriev “asked a number of influential people in Moscow who normally would protect him, and he was given advice that he was not safe.”
Mr. Guriev is one of a panel of experts who agreed to co-write a highly critical 2011 report on the Khodorkovsky verdict under the auspices of Mr. Medvedev’s human rights council. After Mr. Putin became president last spring, investigators opened an inquiry into whether Mr. Khodorkovsky had secretly paid the report’s authors. The friend added, “He left in a hurry, we’re talking about a few days.” Another friend and colleague, the economist Barry Ickes, cast Mr. Guriev’s decision as the result of a long deliberation. “It came to a point where he had to make a decision, because he was in limbo,” he said.
Another of the authors, Mikhail Subbotin, who heads the Center for Legal and Economic Research, said investigators had carried out numerous searches of the homes of his organization’s founders and co-workers, going so far as to search the home of one woman’s husband in Kazakhstan. He said they were searching for evidence that Yukos, the giant oil company Mr. Khodorkovsky headed, had given money to the organization in 2003, eight years before the report was published. Dmitri S. Peskov, a spokesman for Mr. Putin, said as far as he knew, Mr. Guriev had simply left Russia on vacation, and that he could not comment on the investigation.
“Unfortunately, the system works in such a way that it cannot go into reverse,” he said. “If something doesn’t work out, then the system has to push forward, to be more active and more aggressive, and put on even stronger pressure. And that’s what is going on right now.” “This is not our question. This has nothing to do with the Kremlin, nothing to do with the president,” he said. “The only thing I can tell you is that this is pure speculation. I find only his words saying he had personal reasons to resign.”
Mr. Guriev’s abrupt departure from Russia was the subject of furious discussion on social networking sites on Wednesday. A pro-Kremlin analyst, Sergei A. Markov, wrote that liberal-leaning institutions like the New Economic School and Skolkovo had been used to funnel money from “oligarchic groupings” to opposition demonstrators. Commenting on Mr. Guriev’s case on Wednesday, the pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei A. Markov wrote that institutions like Skolkovo and the New Economic School had been use to funnel funds to the “white-ribbon” demonstrators.
“The sudden departure of Guriev is connected to the attempt to keep out of the hands of investigators these secret channels, through which oligarchic and federal budgetary funds went to support the revolutionary anti-Putin opposition,” Mr. Markov said. “The goal was, of course, not direct revolution, but for Putin to give up his intentions to return for a third term.”“The sudden departure of Guriev is connected to the attempt to keep out of the hands of investigators these secret channels, through which oligarchic and federal budgetary funds went to support the revolutionary anti-Putin opposition,” Mr. Markov said. “The goal was, of course, not direct revolution, but for Putin to give up his intentions to return for a third term.”
But many observers said they were chilled by the news that even someone of Mr. Guriev’s stature could be targeted. Nikolai Petrov, a political analyst at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, said the balance between liberals and hard-liners in Mr. Putin’s government is “changing rapidly, and not in favor of liberals.” He said Mr. Guriev was one of the few people in Moscow who could straddle the worlds of officialdom and opposition activists. A year after Mr. Putin’s return, the balance between liberals and hard-liners in his government has changed rapidly, and a shadow of suspicion has fallen over much of Mr. Medvedev’s legacy. Mr. Medvedev’s team is now seen in the Kremlin as sympathetic toward the opposition, and draws even more suspicion than the protesters themselves, Mr. Makarkin said.
“The conflict between Putin and his regime and the most active part of society is widening,” he said. “Guriev is one of the few people who was well-accepted by both side for a while. The fact that he is out means the regime is losing the support of the intelligentsia.” Mr. Guriev was a rare figure who straddled the worlds of Moscow elites and opposition activists, which seemed to overlap momentarily when anti-Putin protests broke out in late 2011.
Erik Berglof, chairman of the New Economic School’s international advisory board, called Mr. Guriev’s departure “a big blow for the country.” Though his wife, herself a prominent economist,moved to France some time ago, Mr. Guriev remained in Russia. He threw his energy into persuading talented Western-educated Russian academics to return to Russia to teach, said Erik Berglof, chairman of the New Economic School’s international advisory board.
Though Mr. Guriev’s wife, also a leading economist, moved to France some time ago, he remained, and poured energy into convincing Rrussian economists to return after receiving their doctorates, he said. “He certainly was someone who believed that Russia could change,” Mr. Berglof said, adding that the board has begun searching for his successor. “He will be greatly missed, but the school existed before Sergei joined and will continue to develop after he has left.”
“He was certainly someone who believed that russia could change,” said Mr. Berglof, who is chief economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. “He will be greatly missed, but the school existed before Sergei joined and will also continue to develop after he has left.” Mr. Guriev has not offered any details of his interactions with investigators, but one of the other collaborators on the Khodorkovsky report — a team convened by Mr. Medvedev’s human rights council -- said investigators nearly picked apart his organization in search of evidence that it had received money from Mr. Khodorkovsky.
Barry Ickes, a member of the university’s board of directors, said he was headed to Moscow on Wednesday to help manage the transition. Mr. Ickes said that Mr. Guriev had long been weighing the decision of whether to step down because of the investigation. “It came to a point where he had to make a decision, because he was in limbo,” he said. Mikhail A. Subbotin, a legal expert, said beginning in September his accountants and co-workers were questioned for days. Investigators searched his home and office, confiscating computers and flash drives, and went so far as to comb though the home of one worker’s husband in Kazakhstan. To him, the charges seemed so flimsy that the probe would swiftly conclude, but he gradually realized otherwise.
“Sergei was a great rector, he did a great job for the school,” Mr. Ickes said. “It’s sad that he is leaving under these sudden circumstances.” “Unfortunately, the system works in such a way that it cannot go into reverse,” he said. “if something doesn’t work out, then the system has to push forward, to be more active, and more aggressive, and put on even stronger pressure. And that’s what is going on right now.”

Reporting contributed by Andrew Roth.

 Reporting contributed by Andrew Roth.