The Prosecutor General’s Office has sent to court a major corruption case involving the “manufacture and sale of automobile tyres,” including large-diameter tyres. According to the press release, nine officials are accused. The charges include receiving and giving bribes on an especially large scale, abuse of authority, and acting as intermediaries in bribery.
The enterprise is not named directly, but the Prosecutor General’s Office states that from December 2017 to July 2024 an organised group operated in Belarus and Russia, consisting of executives of several companies, including firms belonging to a state concern. In Belarus, the only enterprise within such a concern that manufactures large-diameter tyres is Belshina.
Alyaksandr Lukashenka already discussed a related case in February 2023, saying it involved selling tyres to a Russian company below cost price.
“What the general director of Belshina did: he signed a contract with some Russians… well, I call them crooks. There’s no other word. He agreed to sell tyres exclusively to them at roughly 16–20% below cost. The demand is enormous today! Mining companies, especially in Russia, pay crazy money. Deliver as much as you want. He sells these tyres at a loss. And if you refuse to sell below cost, as they demand, the contract says you will owe half a million dollars in penalties every year,” Lukashenka said at the time.
According to the prosecution, as described in today’s announcement, the group included:
• the general director of a Moscow-based distributor of the Belarusian tyre manufacturer and his two deputies;
• the head of the company’s Rostov-on-Don branch, later head of tyre sales at the same distributor;
• the general director of the large Belarusian tyre-manufacturing enterprise and his two deputies for commercial affairs. One later became head of a republican unitary subsidiary in Minsk — the founder of the Moscow distributor.
“The purpose of the coordinated activity was the systematic receipt of bribes for ensuring priority sales of tyre products to certain Russian business entities on behalf of the Belarusian manufacturer,” the Prosecutor General’s Office stated.
According to the indictment, the Moscow company’s general director acted as organiser and leader of the group. He designed a scheme of coordinated sales to companies in Russia’s Southern and North Caucasian Federal Districts, later expanding to all of Russia. He determined the amounts of bribes (1% of the value of supplied products excluding VAT over a set period), assigned roles, and created a mechanism to collect, record, distribute and transfer the illicit payments.
One episode demonstrating his coordinating role involved influencing the appointment of one of the deputy general directors of the Belarusian tyre manufacturer. Once appointed, the deputy was instructed to ensure regular, uninterrupted deliveries of tyres to the Moscow company in required volumes and assortments in exchange for regular bribe payments.
In November 2022, this deputy was appointed director of a unitary enterprise in Minsk that was the founder of the Moscow distributor. He continued receiving bribes and protecting the illegal scheme.
“The amounts of illegal remuneration for supplying tyres in the required volume and assortment varied from 360,000 to 35.5 million Russian roubles.
In total, from 2018 to July 2024, about 560 million Russian roubles (17.7 million Belarusian roubles, or 520,391 basic units) were received as bribes,” the Prosecutor General’s Office reported.
Another member of the group left it after being dismissed in March 2023 from his post as general director of the large Belarusian tyre manufacturer. He is additionally charged with abuse of power causing major damage.
“This general director organised the supply of more than 7,690 tyres of various models and sizes worth 80.3 million Belarusian roubles, while their actual production cost was 90.2 million. The Moscow distributor subsequently resold the tyres to end users in Russia, earning a margin of no less than 93.7 million Belarusian roubles,” prosecutors said.
During the investigation, six defendants signed pretrial cooperation agreements, though two failed to comply with their terms.
