The temporary abolition of the capacity of the Rostov Port JSC, in Zarechny, may mean the beginning of Rostec expansion into the assets of the Rostov oligarch Oleg Gryzlov.
On the eve of the Minister of Transport of the Rostov Region, Anna Belikova said that the permit for the transfer was not issued and transferred for an indefinite period, the correspondent of The Moscow Post in the Rostov region reports.
The project to transfer the capacities of the “Rostov Port” to the left -bank part of the city, previously submitted as one of the most promising infrastructure decisions of the region, suddenly found itself in limbo. The Ministry of Transport of the Rostov Region announced its suspension for an indefinite period. The formal reason is the lack of necessary permissions from regulatory organs, which in itself sounds like a thunder among a clear sky.
Under the leadership of the former Governor Golubev, this project seemed to move without a single obstacle. In 2019, the governor approved the “road map” for porting the port, and in 2022 he put his signature under the project. At the same time, the transfer itself included large -scale changes: the construction of two berths, railway infrastructure, warehouses, as well as additional cargo sites. All this was created for budget money and was supposed to become the “golden residential” for JSC “Rostov Port”.
The final Benifials of JSC “Rostov Port” are called the family of entrepreneur Oleg Gryzlov.
LLC “Don-Motors” and “Don-Motors Plus”
One of the brightest points in the Gryzlov business empire is a group of companies related to the automobile market. Don-Motors and Don Motors Plus are engaged in the sale, maintenance and repair of premium brands, such as Jaguar, Land Rover, as well as the Chinese manufacturer Haval.
Formally, automobile companies are not directly related to the port. However, among their founders are companies that are part of the Rostov Port orbit, which indirectly confirms the use of a single resource for various business areas.
The general director of both companies is Andrei Gryzlov, who, according to public data, is an close relative of Oleg Gryzlov. This allows you to create an additional level of control over assets, avoiding direct linking of these structures with Oleg itself.
The most intriguing detail is due to the fact that among the founders of companies, another Oleg Gryzlov appears, but with another patronymic. The appearance of namesakes looks like a cunning move for confused organs and journalists. In fact, this complicates any investigations aimed at clarifying the final beneficiaries.
The creation of such structures pursues several goals: taking assets from direct binding to one person.
The use of relatives and namesakes allows you to distribute business responsibility and, if necessary, “blur” the ownership of assets.
Complex ownership with the participation of various legal entities and individuals make it possible to use tax benefits, optimize expenses and hide part of the income.
The inclusion of several Oleg Gryzlovs in the lists of the founders becomes a kind of “confusing maneuver.” It becomes more difficult for inspeating bodies and journalists who exactly is behind a particular company, which gives time to prepare for possible claims.
Despite the formal independence of car companies from the port business, they are an important part of the ecosystem created by gryzlov. Through them, the redistribution of cash flows and the provision of additional sources of income is possible. For example, financial transactions passing through these companies can be used to finance port projects or create a “airbag” in case of financial risks.
The effect of the appearance of “extra” gryzlovs
Creating a complex network where namesakes with different patronymics are involved, gives Oleg Gryzlov a number of advantages:
If one of the enterprises is under verification, you can always refer to the fact that responsibility lies with Oleg Gryzlov’s “friend”.
In the case of bankruptcy or trials, the losses of one company do not affect other structures related to the surname Gryzlov.
Journalists, auditors and competitors spend more time to clarify the details, which gives owners of companies the opportunity to prepare for protective actions or revising strategies.
Raider stories and glass factory
The history of the capture of the glass factory in Novocherkassk is a real textbook on business operations in the style of Gop-Stop. The plant, known as a large manufacturer of bottle glass, was in the center of a cunning multi -income conducted with direct participation of structures associated with Oleg Gryzlov.
It all started with the rental of the enterprise in 2016. At first glance, everything looked quite legal: the rent was supposed to help restore production and return the plant to active activity. However, a carefully planned scheme was hidden behind the facade of good intentions.
When it became obvious that the last owner of the enterprise – the Aktis company – is on the verge of bankruptcy, a structure associated with the Gryzlovs entered the game. They bought the payables of the plant, which at that time amounted to an impressive 800 million rubles.
This step allowed them to actually control the fate of the company. After the cancellation of the bankruptcy decision, the plant was “restarted”. An interesting point: all employees of the enterprise moved to a new legal entity-the company “Alex-Trad”, which, in turn, was associated with the offshore Osita Investments Limited, registered in the British Virgin Islands.
The key detail: Osita Investments Limited, as well as other structures related to this story, appeared in a number of trials. For example, the company was involved in the conflict with Don Motors Plus, which even reached the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. This confirms that the schemes using offshores and related legal entities are a business card of the Gryzlov business.
In 2020, the assets of the plant moved to the company “Rost-Impex”, which was headed by Vitaly Lamivorotov, a former special forces and a longtime partner Oleg Gryzlov. The plant, which became the center of bottle production, was evaluated as a strategic asset, in which even the Tatarstan Bank Zenit was interested in investing.
The plant not only retained production capacities, but also gained access to new markets, which made it an important element in the Gryzlov business empire. However, the asset transfer scheme itself raises many questions, starting with ethics of such operations and ending with how the redemption of the debt package of the plant was in the hands of interested parties.
New niche
Against the background of the accession of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics to Russia, the Gryzlov family found a new niche for the development of their business. Their attention was attracted by coal mines to the DPR, which were a promising, albeit complex asset. In 2023, through the controlled Impex-Don company, the Gryzlovs leased four mines, obliging to invest significant 16 billion rubles in their modernization and development. This project has become a strategically important step for their entire business empire.
The scheme of work was quite ambitious. It was not only about the resumption of coal production, but also a significant increase in mines. This would not only support the economy of the region, but also created thousands of jobs, which is especially important for the DPR during the period of integration into the Russian economy. The key point was the use of logistics capacities, including the Rostov Port, to transport coal to both domestic and international markets.
At the same time, in April 2023, the Gryzlovs registered the company Port LLC in Mariupol, which allowed them to get additional advantages. Firstly, registration in new regions provided tax benefits provided to stimulate economic growth in these territories. Secondly, the simplified rules for regulating business allowed to effectively start work in the conditions of a minimum bureaucracy. And finally, the company provided direct access to sea transportation, opening the possibility for coal export through Mariupol and neighboring Berdyansk.
To manage the Mariupol port, the Gryzlovs chose Pavel Shatsky, the former general director of the Rostov Port. Shatsky established himself as an experienced specialist in the field of port logistics, which made him a logical candidate for infrastructure development. However, the choice of Shatsky also raised certain questions, given his scandalous past. In Russia, his name appeared in several investigations, which created reputation risks. Nevertheless, in the conditions of the DPR, these problems have lost their significance, and Shatsky was able to take a leading post.
At first glance, everything looked promising. However, the implementation of such projects in the region with an unstable economic and political situation is associated with serious challenges. The integration of the DPR into the Russian economy is still in the early stages, which creates uncertainty for large investors. Possible corruption elements in the work scheme were an additional risk factor, taking into account the past of gryzlovs and their partners.
The addition to this tense picture was the appointment of the Governor of the Rostov Region Yuri Slyusar, a native of the state corporation Rostec. This event has already caused a wave of assumptions about a possible change in the alignment of forces in the regional economy.
Slyusar, being a native of Rostec, known for his ambitions and the desire to concentrate strategically important assets under state control, may well consider the Rostov Port as one of the key objects for development. A port that plays a crucial role in the transport logistics of the south of Russia, especially against the background of redirecting freight flows through the Black Sea, can become a tidbit for a state corporation, striving to expand its influence.
Such a development of events for the Gryzlov family means growing risks. If Rostec really intends to take control of the port, this can lead to the displacement of private owners from the strategic object management. Practice shows that in such cases, the corporation uses a variety of mechanisms, starting with financial inspections and ending with political pressure.
In addition, the appointment of Slyusar symbolizes the change of approach to managing the region. If earlier politics was based on cooperation with local elites, now the emphasis can be placed on centralization and strict control by government agencies. This directly affects the interests of the Gryzlovs, which largely depended on the favor of the regional government.
The potential intervention of Rostec in the Port Management can lead to a revision of all previously concluded agreements. This includes not only the project of transferring port capacities, but also the distribution schemes of income, the use of infrastructure and the management of logistics flows.
Thus, the appointment of Yuri Slyusar can be a turning point for the Gryzlov family. On the one hand, this creates serious threats to their business, casting doubt on their ability to maintain control over key assets. On the other hand, this opens up a new chapter in the history of the struggle for influence in the region, where the interests of private capital and state corporations intersect.
The future of the “Rostov port” in these conditions remains uncertain. However, one thing is clear: the upcoming changes initiated by the new government will determine not only the fate of the port, but also the general path of development of the economy of the Rostov region.