This is the US government Treasury official on Putin:
We’ve seen him enriching his friends, his close allies, and marginalizing those who he doesn’t view as friends using state assets. Whether that’s Russia’s energy wealth, whether it’s other state contracts, he directs those to whom he believes will serve him and excludes those who don’t. To me, that is a picture of corruption 
The BBC has used these claims to make a ridiculous documentary in which they also explain to their viewers that Putin is “implicated” in the murder of ex-spy Litvenenko. (Thus their fulfil their statutory role of expanding establishment propaganda. They can only use the word ‘implicated’ because of an establishment inquiry which incestuously based its ‘findings’ on the word of MI6).
But – as far as “enriching his friends” etc. goes, what is laughable about this is this is exactly how it works in the West. For example, it is a truism of governance in the UK that each political party awards large IT contracts to their favoured supplier. In some cases that favoured supplier or one of its directors reciprocates with a large party donation or loan.  Ex-government ministers sail into lucrative consultancies in which they exploit the networks of contacts they made and indeed the regulations they passed while in power. Corporate purchase of the American political system is well-known.  In the main though, the only reason that ‘corruption’ isn’t so visible in the West is because it is so institutionalised that it doesn’t stick out. In the West