The economist, Sergei Guriev, who wielded significant influence under the presidency of Dmitri A. Medvedev, has been questioned repeatedly in a case that stems from a report of which he was a co-author that criticized the treatment of Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, the imprisoned oil tycoon.

Mr. Guriev’s flight comes amid investigations that focus on Moscow insiders who, investigators believe, have offered support to the opposition movement.

Behind their suspicions lies an uncomfortable truth: Among the businessmen and technocrats who make up Moscow’s ruling class are many who hold relatively liberal views, and who are uncomfortable with the repressive, conservative course Vladimir V. Putin has set since his return to the presidency. But they have felt safe, for the most part, until now.

“This means that no one has immunity,” said Aleksei V. Makarkin, an analyst at Moscow’s Center for Political Technologies. “If any representative of the elite enters into a relationship with the opposition, he takes a great risk.”

Mr. Guriev would not comment on his decision, and he has said he is vacationing with his wife and children in France. But a friend, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Guriev left Russia abruptly because “had reason to believe he could be deprived of his freedom.”

Investigations have begun to scrutinize government insiders, including officials who fell into Mr. Medvedev’s liberal-leaning camp. Notably, investigators opened a criminal case against a top official at the Skolkovo Foundation, the state-financed innovation hub that was Mr. Medvedev’s trademark project, claiming the payment of hefty speaker’s fees to the opposition leader Ilya V. Ponomarev.

One of the few political heavyweights affiliated with Mr. Medvedev, the deputy prime minister Vladislav Y. Surkov, resigned after publicly criticizing the investigation, amid reports he was forced out. Officials, speaking anonymously, told journalists that Mr. Surkov — who once called the anti-Putin protesters “the best part of our society” — was himself funneling money to opposition groups.

Mr. Guriev, the rector of the New Economic School, seemed untouchable until recently. He wrote speeches for Mr. Medvedev, sat on numerous advisory bodies and served on the boards of state companies. When President Obama visited Moscow in 2009, he chose Mr. Guriev’s university as the site for a speech.

A centrist figure, on good terms with most of Moscow’s power brokers, Mr. Guriev took the unusual step last May of contributing 10,000 rubles, or around $320, to a fund supporting the anticorruption efforts of Aleksei A. Navalny, an opposition leader.

In an essay about the decision, he said he did it because he believes Russia needs more political competition.

“Am I not afraid?” he wrote “No. I am a free person. I know that as long as I haven’t violated the law, no one can forbid me to say something or do something. Might I be misled? Of course.”

Since then, Mr. Guriev has been questioned repeatedly in a case stemming from the 2011 report on Mr. Khodorkovsky’s case. Investigators have scrutinized several experts, contending they had received money a decade ago from a fund linked to Yukos, Mr. Khodorkovsky’s company.

Mr. Guriev’s friend, who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to comment on the case, said that after the most recent round of questioning, Mr. Guriev “asked a number of influential people in Moscow who normally would protect him, and he was given advice that he was not safe.” The friend added, “He left in a hurry, we’re talking about a few days.”

Another friend and colleague, the Pennsylvania State University economist Barry W. Ickes, cast Mr. Guriev’s decision as the result of a long deliberation. “It came to a point where he had to make a decision, because he was in limbo,” he said.

Dmitri S. Peskov, a spokesman for Mr. Putin, said that as far as he knew, Mr. Guriev had simply left Russia on vacation, and that he could not comment on the investigation. “This is not our question. This has nothing to do with the Kremlin, nothing to do with the president,” he said. “The only thing I can tell you is that this is pure speculation.”

Commenting on Mr. Guriev’s case on Wednesday, the pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei A. Markov wrote that institutions like Skolkovo and the New Economic School had been used to funnel funds to demonstrators.

“The sudden departure of Guriev is connected to the attempt to keep out of the hands of investigators these secret channels, through which oligarchic and federal budgetary funds went to support the revolutionary anti-Putin opposition,” Mr. Markov said. “The goal was, of course, not direct revolution, but for Putin to give up his intentions to return for a third term.”

Andrew Roth contributed reporting.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/world/europe/economist-sergei-guriev-leaves-russia-abruptly.html?partner=rss&emc=rss