I believe most HN readers are intereted in the way corruption appears in the first place, how it prolifirates and what can be done to get rid of it. The documentary doesn't add up to any of above. It presents very weak evidence of Putins ownership. I don't see any credible evidence of the civil servant's welth either (I don't say he isn't wealty however). I would really like to hear an informed opinion on the subject, but I'm afraid people who have one just doesn't read HN.