While retired rear admiral Mikhail Motsak serves as an assistant to the plenipotentiary of the President of the Russian Federation in the Northwestern Federal District, while simultaneously heading the Council of Heroes Soviet Union and Russian Federation, his son Sergei manipulates with someone else's property in the waters of the Neva.

While retired rear admiral Mikhail Motsak serves as an assistant to the plenipotentiary

President of the Russian Federation in the Northwestern Federal District, at the same time heading the Council of Heroes of the Soviet Union

and the Russian Federation, his son Sergei manipulates other people's property

in the waters of the Neva.

Ironically, the ship, which carries out bunkering in the port of St. Petersburg with naval fuel oil, is called "Amur". Once upon a time, the future rear admiral began his officer career as an engineer in the laboratory of an aviation repair base Pacific Fleet, located, as it was possible to determine, not far from the Far Eastern river with the same name.

Then Mikhail Motsak became a submariner, earned orders and medals, and was awarded the most honorary title in the country. And the rear admiral retired in 2001, shortly after the order of the President of Russia on the release of the entire leadership of the Northern Fleet due to the death of the crew of the Kursk APRK.

Since then, he has been working on public service, coordinating in the North-West the activities of military command and control bodies, units of the Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies. But son Sergei chose a different path for himself. And, it seems, he did not lose.

Oil profits

The summer before last, one of the major St. Petersburg oil traders, OAO EKO Phoenix Holding, showed a strong list. The holding specialized in refueling ships with fuel, the so-called bunkering. St. Petersburg is a port city, bears the proud title of the Sea Capital of Russia, and therefore, for many years, “ECO “Phoenix” grew rich and prospered. But by 2009, the situation had changed radically, the bunkering company began to sell the most valuable thing it had - its own fleet. This happened with the ship "Amur", which was acquired by a certain OOO "EKOTek", owned, among other things, by Sergey Motsak. The new owner without delay registered the ownership of the vessel in the North-Western Department of the State Maritime and River Supervision and began to earn money on fuel oil.

However, two days before the sale of the motor ship Amur, on June 24, 2009, the owner of the holding had already decided to liquidate the OJSC, appointing Vitaly Osipov as the liquidator and terminating his powers as the general director. He conducted an inventory of the company and found out that the total value of the property is 626.31 million rubles, and the recognized claims of creditors are 704.05 million rubles. Then he began bankruptcy proceedings.

Already in October of the same year, the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region declared EKO Phoenix Holding OJSC bankrupt in case No. A56-53851 / 2009.

As part of the bankruptcy proceedings, the bankruptcy trustee, in accordance with applicable law, challenged the contract for the sale of the ship. And EKOTek LLC was ordered to return the disputed vessel to the ownership of ECO Phoenix Holding OJSC.

A little more jurisprudence. In April 2010, the highest judicial bodies of Russia clarified that if the decision provides for the return of real estate by one of the parties to the transaction, then this is the basis for restoring the record of ownership of this party to real estate in the state register. In our case, the holding was supposed to get Amur back. Moreover, in accordance with Article 187 of the APC of the Russian Federation - immediately.

It is unlikely that such a verdict suited EKOTek LLC. Probably, the sonorous name of the owner of the company caused representatives of the registration authority a real “caisson disease” that divers suffer from: due to a sharp decrease in blood pressure, gas bubbles form that block blood flow and can lead to paralysis.

In no hurry to return the ship back and Sergei Motsak. His lawyers began to challenge the court decision up to the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. Although the results of a long lawsuit are not in favor of EKOTek LLC, it continues to operate the ship with might and main.

According to the report No. 02/KP-1814 of 08.12.2011, the First Deputy Captain of the Big Port of St. Petersburg seaport for navigation safety Mikhail Kharyuzov, the Amur vessel still carries out bunkering of vessels almost daily.

It's strange, but for some reason the bailiff, having received the writ of execution, did not zealously return the ship to OAO EKO Phoenix Holding. And how to return it, "Cupid"? This is not equipment or a valuable thing that can be loaded into the trunk of a car ... And the obscure shadow of the Rear Admiral, which no, no, and even flashes in the window of the embassy, ​​does not have to be fussy in vain.

It would seem that the alignment is clear. While the bankrupt company filed for insolvency legally, one of its assets went “on the side” and has not yet been returned back, despite the court decision.

Are they sewing a case?

Time to turn to the materials of the criminal case No. 377353, initiated on April 22, 2011 by the Investigation Department at the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Kirovsky District of St. Petersburg

on the grounds of a crime under Art.30 h.3 and Art.159 h.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The initiator of the proceedings was general manager LLC "EKOTek" Dmitry Galdanov, who perfectly knew the true state of affairs.

Let's remember who coordinates the activities of law enforcement agencies in our area ...

The investigation established that on June 26, 2009 Vitaly Osipov, a representative of OAO ECO Phoenix Holding, sold the ship to OOO EKOTek for 11.00 million rubles. The fact that Amur was pledged to Rosbank under a mortgage agreement, and the newly minted liquidator of the seller company did not have the authority to complete this transaction, did not bother anyone. After the holding was officially declared bankrupt, the ship had, as we said earlier, to return back, and the unlucky buyer - to receive the money spent. But not immediately, but standing in a long queue of creditors.

How often have you seen admiral families line up with commoners?

Moreover, the bankrupt oil trader had fewer realizable assets than debts. Not wanting to put up with this state of affairs, EKOTek LLC accused an unidentified person of trying to seize ... the property of this company through deceit and abuse of trust. After all, even when it was included in the register of creditors, the probability of returning the money turned out to be too scanty.

Let's leave out the narrative of how Vitaly Osipov was summoned in the summer of 2009 to high offices, where the fate of the Amur ship was discussed. Let's not question the ridiculous figure for which the ship hastily changed owners. We will try not to see inconsistencies in the actions of the police investigation, which was initiated despite the entry into force of the judicial acts of the arbitration court and, in contradiction with them, handed over the ship (material evidence) for storage to EKOTek LLC.

"Amur" sailed ...

But the ship has another buyer. In the process of bankruptcy of OAO ECO Phoenix Holding, the bankruptcy trustee held an auction, publishing, as required, an advertisement in St. Petersburg newspapers. As a result, the disputed vessel was supposed to go to the Amur LLC company, specially created for bunkering in the port. The authorized capital of this buyer was minimal, so that in the event of a loss at the auction, the risks would be reduced to almost zero.

But since, on the basis of Article 167 and Article 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the ship did not leave the property of Eco Phoenix Holding OJSC, despite the absence of a restored entry in the state register, the inspired winner went for the Amur ... And stumbled upon "caisson disease" property registration officials.

In mid-November 2011, the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region considered the claim of Amur LLC against the North-Western Department of the State Maritime and River Registry, obliging the latter to cancel the entry in the State Ship Register on the ownership of EKOTek LLC to the disputed motor ship, to restore the right for OJSC "ECO Phoenix Holding" and register the property for the plaintiff.

Only LLC "Amur" cannot get its own ship even now. No matter how tragic the fate of the APRK "Kursk" befell him ...

Last night, an interview with the Chief of Staff of the Northern Fleet, Vice Admiral Mikhail Motsak, appeared on the website of the Izvestia newspaper. A high-ranking military man who personally supervised the exercises during which the nuclear submarine was lost, argues with reason: the Kursk was sunk by a foreign submarine.

The Vice Admiral reported a number of truly sensational details: remembering the story of the buoy that surfaced in the disaster area, he told why it was not taken aboard the ships of the Northern Fleet. Motsak told about the pursuit of the mysterious "second submarine", hastily leaving the training area. And, the most important sensation - someone with the call sign of the nuclear submarine "Kursk" got in touch until 1:30 am on August 12, that is, when the nuclear-powered ship, according to official data, had long been lying at the bottom with the first compartment torn apart.

The text of Izvestia is a full-fledged sensation. For the first time since the Kursk disaster, a high-ranking military man makes such categorical statements. PRAVDA.Ru gives an interview with Mikhail Motsak on its pages:

“- Mikhail Vasilyevich, one of the main accusations from the media against the command of the Navy and the Northern Fleet immediately after the Kursk disaster was that the fleet did not immediately take measures to save the crew. For example, the regular mode of communication during exercises is every four hours. The crash happened at 11:32 am. The search for the boat began only at 23.00. Three communication sessions were missed, and no one missed.

This is not entirely true. From the experience of conducting exercises, we know that there were cases when, due to an incorrect assessment of the tactical situation and maneuvering, the commander of a similar submarine missed a detachment of surface warships that passed through his area, and he continued to search for it. We stopped the exercises and began to look for this submarine, and despite the fact that we called it by underwater sound communication, dropped special signal explosive devices, they continued, sticking their heads like ostriches in the sand, to simulate a torpedo attack. By the time they surfaced, we were already on our heads from the fact that the boat seemed to be there, but there was no connection with it.

- Was there a similar situation with the Kursk?

Nearly. At the appointed time, the Kursk reported that it was ready for firing. And before that, in neighboring areas, two other submarines carried out the so-called prize firing. With such firing, the commander performs several torpedo attacks with a change of position, this process is very lengthy. Launched torpedoes float, scattered over a distance of up to 80 km, and anti-submarine aircraft, helicopters, torpedo bombers, and other ships are involved in their search. The commander of the Kursk, we thought, could well get confused in a situation where there are many other ships on the border of his area, and not find the target. Therefore, at first we thought that Lyachin would soon surface with a report that he had liberated the given area, and that the shooting at deadlines did not fulfill. Will sign, let's say, in the commander's impotence. We hoped so, not wanting to think about a catastrophe. And there was another important factor. "Kursk" had the call sign "Vintik". And starting from 18.30 and further at 19.30, at 20.30 and even at 1.30 at night, when we announced the alarm, an unknown correspondent appeared via VHF communication, who worked under this call sign. That is, even three hours before "Peter the Great" discovered the emergency submarine at 4.30, we still had false information that we had a connection with the "Kursk".

- What was it really?

We are still unable to install. We do not exclude either hooliganism of our own, or deliberate work on the air of "strangers". All this is recorded and is in the materials of the investigation.

Commanding Northern Fleet Admiral Popov announced the discovery of another submarine on the ground near the Kursk. Is there any evidence for this?

A lot of indirect signs of the presence in the immediate vicinity of the emergency "Kursk" of a second underwater object, also, possibly, an emergency one, were recorded. "Peter the Great" recorded this object by hydroacoustic means. This was recorded visually by people who were trying to pull emergency buoys out of the water ...

- Foreign?

Well, almost everyone has the same emergency coloring, and our buoy is still on the Kursk's hull.

- Why was the found buoy not raised? After all, it could be evidence of a collision.

The buoy was held by a cable-cable at a depth of about three meters. In fact, he seemed to be hanging at anchor. This anchor could be anything.

- Including another submarine?

Yes. And when the officer tried to pick up the buoy with a hook, he did not succeed. Unfortunately, further circumstances led to the loss of the buoy due to bad weather. By the evening of August 13, our pilots at a distance of about 18 miles to the north-west of the "Kursk" recorded fuel bubbles rising up. Then anti-submarine aircraft discovered a submarine leaving the Barents Sea. The same sortie was made the next day to confirm the location of this submarine, and on all channels the signal of our sonar buoys was accurately suppressed by the jamming system of "friends" from NATO.

Why was the discovered "underwater object" lost - moreover, by such ships as "Peter the Great", "Admiral Chabanenko", which are specially designed to search for submarines?

I, as the chief of staff of the fleet, admit that this is an oversight. "Peter the Great", when he discovered the sunken submarine and fixed the second underwater object, considered his main task to be aimed at the shortest time to the "Kursk" rescue forces. Maybe it was wrong. In this situation, it was necessary to perform both the task of salvation and the task of identifying the true cause of the disaster. Our main task was to deliver the carrier of the descent vehicles to the crash site. And to be able to dock the descent vehicles with the people in the boat who were knocking.

- By the way, there were statements that these were technical knocks.

Here the situation was complicated. At the initial detection, we recorded 2 sources of knocks: technical and manual. The technical ones disappeared after a while, and our stations still do not knock. And as for the manual ones, my personal opinion is that maybe 23 people in the 9th compartment died 8 hours after the disaster, already when the compartment was flooded. And in the 5th and 5 bis compartments, there could continue to be living sailors who continued to knock. And we heard the last knocks at 11.00 on August 14th.

- What do you think yourself: was a collision with a foreign submarine really the cause of the disaster?

I still do not have an official opinion on this matter, and even having a personal opinion, I cannot express it, being a member of the government commission.

Motsak Mikhail Vasilievich

Hero of the Russian Federation (1994), Vice Admiral (1996), submariner.

In 1972 he graduated with honors from the Black Sea Higher naval school named after P.S. Nakhimov. After graduating from college, he began serving as a senior engineer at the Pacific Fleet weapons base, then served on submarines. In 1974–1979 - commander of a combat unit, assistant commander, senior assistant commander of a nuclear submarine. In 1980 he graduated from the Higher Special Officer Classes of the Navy. In 1981–1985 - Commander of the nuclear submarine of the Northern Fleet, in 1985-1991. - Deputy commander of the division of submarines of the Northern Fleet.

In 1987 he graduated with a gold medal extramural Naval Academy named after A.A. Grechko.

Since 1993 - Chief of Staff of the 1st Flotilla of Nuclear Submarines, since 1994 - Commander of the 1st Flotilla of Nuclear Submarines.

By decree of the President of the Russian Federation of June 15, 1994, Rear Admiral M.V. Motsak was awarded the title Hero of the Russian Federation for his courage and heroism in the performance of his military duty.

In 1999–2001 - Chief of Staff - First Deputy Commander of the Northern Fleet. Honorary polar explorer of Russia. Member of 24 long trips, sailed a total of 390 thousand miles. In July-October 2001, he led a special expedition to recover the sunken nuclear submarine Kursk. In 2002, by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation, he was relieved of his post, and a little later he was appointed First Deputy authorized representative President of the Russian Federation in the Northwestern Federal District. Currently, M.V. Motsak - Assistant to the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the North-West Federal District. Supervises defense and law enforcement issues.

He was awarded the orders "For Merit to the Fatherland" 4th class, "For Personal Courage", the Red Star, "For Service to the Motherland in the USSR Armed Forces" 3rd class, 15 medals.

Varganov Yu.V. and etc. Naval Academy in the service of the Fatherland. Mozhaisk, 2001, p. 239.
Military sailors - heroes of the underwater depths (1938-2005) / T.V. Polukhina, I.A. Belova, S.V. Vlasyuk and others. M.-Kronstadt: Kuchkovo field, Sea newspaper, 2006, p. 210–213.
Marine collection. 1994. No. 7, p. ZZ.
Biographical marine dictionary. SPb., 2000.
Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti. 2002. January 24.
Spassky I.D. "Kursk". After August 12, 2002 M., 2003, p. 233.