In modern Russia, foreign banks are treated with great respect. Especially the British. But if our nouveau riche knew the financial history of Russian-English relations, they would be very surprised. And they would never entrust their money to the perfidious Anglo-Saxons …
One of the first cases of deception of Russian creditors by English financiers occurred in the 17th century. But then the Muscovites managed to return the borrowed money. But it was like this: for the war with the heirs of Oliver Cromwell, the future English king Charles II borrowed 100 thousand gold rubles from the Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1650. Which was equated at the rate of that time to 50 thousand pounds in gold. The British monarch returned the debt to the Russian Tsar 12 years later.
Robbed Menshikov
In 1698, Tsar Peter I first visited London. Did he open accounts in English banks in his own name? The unlimited autocrat of all Russia did not need a London bank account. But his "wallet" - Prince Alexander Danilovich Menshikov - opened accounts in his own name in banks in London. By the summer of 1725, the "Most Serene One" had over 9 million rubles in his British accounts. At the most conservative estimate, this corresponded to a million pounds in gold.
Of course, Alexander Danilovich did not expect that the marriage of his daughter to the heir to the throne, young Peter II, would not take place. And he, robbed to the skin, will die in exile. But when the daughter of Peter I, Elizaveta Petrovna, reigned, “the heirs of the nest of Petrov” were returned the princely title and lands in Russia. However, when they tried to regain the rights to their ancestor's London accounts, they were denied and not returned a penny or a pound. Reasons? The British court demanded (read carefully) from the heirs of Prince Menshikov "to prove the non-criminal origin of this money." Suspicions were voiced: they say, maybe the prince made money by piracy? The trial, forgotten by historians, lasted, intermittently, for almost 50 years (where would our oligarchs go). And the descendants of Menshikov did not return anything to themselves.
Crying your money
Promotional video:
The court physician of Emperors Alexander I and Nicholas I, Scottish Baronet Jacob Willie lived, worked and made money in Russia. But he converted Russian rubles into golden pounds and kept them in a London bank. A decent amount had accumulated there by the date of his death, although he was far from the scale of Prince Menshikov. His descendants remained to live in Russia and wanted to transfer the deceased's money to Sberbank of Russia. But the British refused. Reasons? According to the London bankers and judges of that time, the money of Her Majesty's aristocrats could not leave England. The most interesting thing is that the brothers of the Aesculapian Baronet, who did not leave their native Scotland, were not given the inheritance money either. Like, you are not the direct heirs.
These examples, although impressive in their impudence, relate to funds of individuals. The British have experience of non-return, and in fact, embezzlement of money from the treasury of the Russian state.
Alaska was sold to the United States in 1867 for $ 7.2 million. For some reason, the Russian ambassador, Baron Eduard Stekl, did not load the money on a Russian military frigate, but transferred it to one of the London banks. One and a half million of this amount was "lost" in translation into pounds, and then into gold. But this money did not reach Russia either. The ship "Orkney", on which he was allegedly transported to St. Petersburg, disappeared. As it turned out later, it was blown up by a time bomb. There is some evidence that the several million Russian rubles-pounds raised for the assignment of rights to Alaska never left the vaults of London banks. Emperor Alexander II did not even try, unlike the descendants of Prince Menshikov and Baronet Willie, to sue. Because I didn't know which one.
The largest outstanding deposits in London banks of the 20th century are in the accounts of the daughters (grand duchesses) of the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II. The amounts in pounds are different. Solid. But the relatives of the last monarch, who found themselves in exile, never received them. After all, the British Themis is resourceful and cunning. In comparison with this operation, the appropriation in 1945 of the personal funds lying on the accounts of the White Cossack emigration figures is a mere trifle.
On the eve of the war - in the summer of 1939 - some of the emigration chieftains transferred money to London banks. And after the war, the owners of the deposits were declared "accomplices of the Nazis." And what can be the return to the heirs of "war criminals"?
So London Bank Account Holders 2018, learn, learn history. However, she never teaches anyone anything.
Alexander SMIRNOV