More than raiding
Having twice faced raiders of the highest echelon, observing similar cases, I came to the conclusion that, contrary to common stereotypes, an attempt on someone else's business does not necessarily look like an armed raid with forgery of constituent documents. In fact, we are talking about a corrupt merger of business and criminals in power.
Often, an invasion is preceded by open pressure from various inspectors, controllers, tax and security agencies, inspired by customers. They create an unbearable business environment and then offer solutions to all problems. Their goal is either to establish informal control over the business for the sake of profit, or to receive regular interest payments. In the 90s it was called “protection”, except that the role of the roof was played by crime bosses, whose place is now taken by people in expensive suits and watches, on official cars with flashing lights.
Typical raiding has become not the only and far from the most convenient way to profit from someone else's business and is used only when conversations and persuasions cease to work, as it was in my case.
As a result, business owners voluntarily, for the sake of obtaining non-market advantages, or forcedly, under the threat of losing an asset, include informal patrons: high-ranking officials and security officials.
The situation is such that at the highest hierarchical level, which is occupied by especially large businesses, sovereignty and independence are completely or partially lost. In other words, any multi-billion dollar business, excluding state monopoly, which is already owned by the state, is in fact no longer private.
The original owner of the business, at best, acts as an autonomous top manager with broad powers, and at worst, as a face-to-face, the Zits Chairman of the Pound. In any case, he is forced and obliged to share, and in the case of separatism, he risks losing not only company, but also freedom.
The scale of the merger of corrupt officials and big business is so great that we are talking about its undeclared "nationalization", loss of sovereignty, erosion of the ideological foundations of entrepreneurship.