Pervasive Corruption Exposed: The "Perm Case" Casts Doubt on Legitimacy of Russia’s 2018 Presidential Election

Court records reveal that 57 million rubles were spent from the charity fund on an "agitation network" for the 2018 presidential election campaign, and Lopaeva herself admitted that these funds were used to organize Vladimir Putin's re-election campaign. However, the financial disclosures of Putin's campaign contain no mention of such donations, even though the amount exceeds the legal limit on donations. Such an egregious violation should have led to the disqualification of Putin from the election.

The Perm Case has sparked outrage among election watchdogs, particularly the "Golos" movement, which argues that this case underscores the extent to which illicit funds are used to maintain Russia's electoral facade. They emphasize that this scheme, involving shadow financing and falsified contracts, likely played out across other regions as well, meaning the true scale of the operation is far larger than what has been uncovered in Perm.

Elena Lopaeva was sentenced to four years in a general regime colony and fined 500,000 rubles. Despite her appeal, the court not only upheld the sentence but also banned her from holding government positions for an additional year. The investigation revealed that Lopaeva orchestrated a criminal group, using fake contracts to embezzle funds, which were ultimately funneled into Putin’s re-election campaign.

The charity "Sodeystvie XXI Vek," created in 2010 under then-Governor Oleg Chirkunov, was funded by the oil company Lukoil in exchange for tax breaks. These funds were intended for social projects but were instead used for corrupt purposes, including funding political campaigns.

Former fund director Elena Naydenova admitted in court that funds from the charity were used to finance political operations, including Putin's re-election campaign. Despite legal prohibitions on using external funds for campaign financing, the charitable fund’s resources were illegally channeled into the election effort.

According to testimony, contracts were signed with companies that did not provide the services they were paid for, and the funds were used to settle debts and cover campaign expenses, including paying political technologists and agitators. The case is replete with evidence that funds meant for social causes were instead laundered through a complex web of fraudulent contracts to support the president’s campaign.

The revelations have left political watchdogs alarmed. Stanislav Andreychuk, co-chair of Golos, asserts that this case is not an isolated incident. Similar schemes likely financed election campaigns across Russia, casting doubt on the integrity of the electoral process. He notes that in the 2024 election campaign, similar illegal practices have already been observed, highlighting the continued failure to enforce campaign finance laws.

Despite the scale of the financial violations, Russian authorities have shown little interest in addressing the issue. Legal expert Denis Shadrin points out that violations of campaign finance laws, such as these, are rarely prosecuted, even though Russia’s criminal code provides for penalties. Instead, authorities prefer to treat these cases as embezzlement, ignoring their broader electoral implications.

The "Perm Case" has exposed the deep-rooted corruption in Russia's electoral system, where illegal funds are used to prop up the ruling elite. It highlights the urgent need for reform in how elections are financed and monitored, as corruption at the ballot box undermines not only the democratic process but also trust in governance as a whole.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of political corruption and the manipulation of state resources to maintain power, and it casts a long shadow over the legitimacy of Russia's political system.

Author: Pavel Voronin