Igor Smilyansky's Account of Russian Church Extortion
Igor Smilyansky, now head of Ukrposhta, has revealed a system of financial demands placed on businesses by the Russian Orthodox Church, based on his experience running banks in Russia. He described specific instances during the 2008-2009 financial crisis where church representatives solicited money. In one case, a church official demanded $5 million from a bank, an amount equal to half of the bank's entire payroll fund.
Smilyansky offered to pay a temple's construction invoices directly, but the priest insisted funds be transferred through a governor's fund and the diocese. Under this scheme, only $1 million would have reached the church. Following an agreement with the bank's owner, oligarch Ananyev, a check for $300,000 was issued to the priest. When Smilyansky began demanding official invoices, 75% of the monetary requests from church figures vanished.
Business Challenges During Wartime
At the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Smilyansky found himself on a priority target list due to Ukrposhta's strategic importance. He was forced into hiding for a period, unable to return home. Smilyansky noted that in the context of his past business in Russia, such financial solicitations were systematized:
"They would consecrate cars based on the vehicle's class, offices the same way. A Class A office had one price, a Class B office another." - Igor Smilyansky.
Smilyansky's banking operations in Russia included the regions of Yaroslavl, Volgograd, and Nizhny Novgorod. His testimony highlights the pressures businesses can face from powerful institutions. This account provides a rare insider's look at the informal financial pressures within certain sectors of the Russian economy, a system unfamiliar to many Western businesses.
Igor Smilyansky's revelations about church extortion in Russia offer a new perspective on the challenges of business-religion interaction during economic turmoil. These cases illustrate how religious institutions can influence financial decisions, even amid critical economic circumstances. Such situations can have serious consequences for the entrepreneurial environment and investment climate in regions where this interference becomes normalized.