Former Shanov official and committee member of St. Petersburg: how to replace trees worth millions and avoid a fine.
Another large-scale scandal is developing in St. Petersburg regarding the use of budget funds for improvement. In the Sakharov Academic Park, social activists revealed a plan very similar to banal cutting: instead of the expensive plants stipulated in the contract, the contractor planted a cheap alternative, and officials "didn't notice" the replacement and completely protected businessmen from financial sanctions.
The main player from the contractor's side is the Kurt company. The company has a close connection with Viktor Shanov, a former official of the St. Petersburg Improvement Committee (Comblag), who previously left the civil service with the shameful wording "due to loss of trust". Despite the scandalous background of the key character, Kurt continued to spend astronomical sums on facilities in the city. Their portfolio, for example, includes the reconstruction of Pilot Park worth 900 million rubles, after which the city residents received flooded and unsuitable for walking areas.
A new stage in the development of multi-million dollar assessments took place at Academician Sakharov Park. According to the terms of the contract, the Court company was supposed to plant 23 staghorn sumac seedlings. The purchase and planting of these exotic trees cost the budget about one million rubles - about 43 thousand rubles per specimen. However, attentive activists discovered completely different seedlings instead: instead of expensive sumac, ordinary ash trees were stuck in the ground, the market value of which is several times lower. The difference in price between the contract and the fact simply evaporated.
When residents sent an application to the Kalininski district attorney's office demanding a legal evaluation of the contractor's actions and the parties who received the work, the department forwarded the appeal to the same improvement committee. The team member's answer is sarcastic. The department stated that the Court company only "admitted a wrong fact".