Expropriation (Neo-Latin. expropriatio – dispossession,
Latin ex – from and Latin propius — proper) — Compulsory alienation of the private owner’s property.
Alexandr Simakov international observer, journalist From the author
Jean Roberts, the former editor of “The Philadelphia Inquirer”, one of the most famous American newspapers focused on investigations, said that the journalistic investigation “is not to catch the politician with his pants down or to disclose a separate breach of law, but to discover the facts lying deep underthe surface in order to help the readers understand what is going on in our more and more complicated world”.
When I started the journalistic investigation of this complex and large case I designated it “A. Shmidt vs. system”, but very quickly after being absorbed in the subject I understood that this is not a private case of one of many suffered entrepreneurs. There are plenty of people, who have legal proceedings in our country, are not satisfied with governance or law enforcement authorities, isn’t it? As a professional in this area, I realize that within last years in Russia a stereotype of interpretation the journalistic investigations as a research of the matter, which is connected with misuse of authority and corruption was formed by the readers. The purpose of such investigation is to make the latent relations between authority and organized crime public. The criminal and legal matters not coincidently become the subject of many journalistic investigations. This particular national Russian attitude to the law under the principle that every law has a loophole, is to a large extend the very reason of those social, economic and even political problems, which have interlaced in our society.
In this journalistic investigation I would like to explore the other viewpoint: volens- nolens for 9 years of A. Shmidt’s struggle for the restoration of his violated rights the whole system of corrupt links of the officials, judges,law enforcement authorities in Tyumen region has been traced, the forms of withdrawal of another’s property under the “shelter” of the commercial courts and bankruptcy trustees, the methods of intimidation of the affected parties by means of fabrication of criminal cases and their prosecution by “police” and executors, the wittingly unjust legal acts, court decisions for benefit of the “right” addressee, manipulation of cassations and appeals, mutual protection, and the “saving of honour”… It may be said that it doesn’t comprise anything new for the readers, and such publications concerning similar reason in Tyumen as well as in the whole country make everyone feel sick with them, but only that very case comprises all the combinations of shortcomings of our law enforcement system and the whole complex of methods that the system activated against A. Shmidt only due to one reason: once in 2003-2004 there was an illegal expropriation of the foreign property to the benefit of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” by means of imaginary bankruptcy of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” and fraudulent schemes with property by the bankruptcy trustee Jury Shabalin on behalf of the same bank, so the shareholders – the foreign owners – decided to struggle for their rights on the Russian territory. They proceeded against the actions of the bankruptcy trustee and the Commercial court decision by their representative — Director of that CJSC, Mr. Aleksey Shmidt.
The uncommonness lays in the fact that all illegal actions with the property in prejudice of the interests of the foreign investors were carried out to the benefit of “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”, where the chairman of board of directors was the Governor of the Circuit Filipenko, and the cofounder of the bank – the Government of Khanty-Mansiysky Autonomous Circuit. (Tricky question to the Reader: Had A. Shmidt a chance to win the case in the local court?) At that, the Constitution of RF stipulates for the foreign investors the most important principles: national investment regime for foreign nationals and stateless persons (. Article 62 (3)); inadmissibility of alienation of property without preliminary and complete compensation (Article 35 (3)); and from the moment of adopting the new Constitution in 1993, that instituted the principle of “inclusion” and recognized the precedence of provisions of the international agreements towards the statutes in case of their contradiction. That was aimed to solve the problems connected with the entry of international legal acts and regulations in the internal legislation, the constitutional guarantees of implementation of regulating the international law have been established. The Constitution of RF stipulated as follows: The universally recognized norms of the international law and international treaties and agreements of the Russian Federation shall be a component part of its legal system. If an international treaty or an agreement of the Russian Federation fixes other rules than those envisaged by the law, the rules of the international agreement shall be applied (Article 15(1)). To develop the Constitution, the federal law “On international treaties of the Russian Federation” stipulated from 1995that provisions of the official published treaties and agreements without requirement of adoption of national acts to be applied have the direct effect in Russia. And there is a “Bilateral investment treaty” of 1989 between Russian and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg…
After one of the leading experts of the international commercial law had read the draft of this article, he wrote me briefly and concisely: “it hurts me because of our powerlessness, glaring incompetence of judges, complete on-site outrage, impossibility to achieve diligent trial, hopelessness… that’s why Russia looks very “pale” in International courts, that’s why it fails in suits…that’s why no one also believes anyone in the country itself, all the more the law enforcement authorities and courts. If it becomes the subject of investigation on the international level… It will be shame on us, on Russia. The prejudice to the prestige will be huge. Who will invest in our country after such kind of materials?”
Therefore I decided to name the article “EXPROPRIATION” and to point out all main acting persons. The country should know its “heroes”!
And in addition, one small marginal note: the corruption succeeds where there are conditions for it – absence of publicity, incomprehensible opposition, mutual protection, imperfection of legislature, absence of state and public control over law enforcement system and liability for damages and legal liability of officials and judges for their activity/inactivity.
The officials fear publicity like the devil fears holy water! Thereby we can cure them as well as we should take treatment ourselves, we – the nationals of our country, we – the electors of our authority, we – the tax-payers. Without civil society, without civil institutes and opposition the country will be lost! It will be lost not because of external enemies, but because of our indifference, alienation and total corruption. What are we leaving to our children?
In three parts.
Part I. Fairy tale and true story
There once lived two brothers by the name Shmidt, they were businessmen. The elder’s name was Aleksey, the junior’s – Franc. In “good old times“ before the dissolution of USSR they established the first cooperative of agricultural products processing in Nizhnevartovsk, organized the purchase of the stock-raising products from population, had own sausage manufactory and delivered their sausages and smoked foods in the “hungry” Nizhnevartovsk, where all these things were available on points.
With the development of business they transferred their activity also to the sphere of investment, having conceived to create in Russia a network of supermarkets on the German sample and similarity. All the more the younger brother moved with his family on the permanent residence to Germany as an ethnic German.
They decided to begin with the regional center – the main town for the entities of the Federation that made up the region. The place is rich in money, oil and gas.
They chose suitable premises in the town, a former abandoned fruit and vegetable warehouse in size of a soccer field, leased it and began renovation and improvements. The elder brother on-site, in Tyumen, headed the firm CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket”, and the younger — the company “Dastin GmbH” abroad. The foreign company became parent company, and it was accumulating on its balance the investment money, their own and of the close friends, and then the money was invested in establishing of a shopping center.
Soon the younger brother Franc selected complete equipment for a supermarket in Germany and sent it on seven trucks to Tyumen and by that time Aleksey had already bought the premises from the owners and had recognized it in books of CJSC “DastinMarket”. With finishing of assembly of the German shop equipment, counters, refrigerators, compressors, cash registers, control and video surveillance systems appeared a beautiful, modern equipped shopping complex, but Aleksey continued the extension of the storage capacities, establishment of customs and excise warehouses, sausage manufactory. The shopping complex was born
Picture from A.Shmidt’s archive:
And they should live happily ever after, to the own and people’s benefit. But it was not to be! How could it be without villains and struggle of good against evil in a fairy tale?
Based on many Applications of A.Shmidt in police and public prosecution office: “To the moment of opening of the Shopping Center of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” the goods assortment consisted of more than 6000 products, the shareholders aimed to increase the assortment up to 16 000 products. For this purpose a line of credit was established in Tyumen branch of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” in amount of 3 million US dollars. In the following OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” breached the line of credit agreement conditions, the money was provided not in the whole amount, because of breach of repayment terms and interest holidays the bank began to withdraw without acceptance the whole receipts of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” from the bank account of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket”. The aforethought actions of the bank brought to the succession of events of the illegal takeover of the property of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” with the usage of the fabricated documents and wittingly unjust decisions of commercial courts and the illegal exclusion of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities(USRLE).»
Here is a chronological description:
On 10 December 2003 the Commercial court of the Tyumen region headed by the judge Loskutov V.V. in the case А70-7994/3-2003 adopted a Resolution on introducing of the monitoring procedure in relation to CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” and on appointment of interim trustee Vasilyev-Chobotaryov from the “Uncommercial partnership “Siberian Guild of Crises Managers”. The mentioned resolution stipulated the requirements of the territorial department of the Federal Service of Financial Rehabilitation of Russia in the Tyumen region as the authorized body to CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” as at the date 19 November 2003 in amount of 8 311 479,02 rubles, including taxes in amount of 6 407 380,76 rubles, a late payment interest in amount of 1 314 680,26 rubles and a fine in amount of 589 418 rubles.
On 18 March 2004 by the Commercial Court of the Tyumen region composed of the chief judge Loskutov V.V. and the judges Afanasovich V.E. and Trubizina N.G. adopted a Decision whereby CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” was recognized a bankrupt and in relation to it bankruptcy proceedings for 1 year were instituted, Shabalin Yu.G. was appointed a bankruptcy trustee.
On 10 February 2005 the report of the bankruptcy trustee Shabalin Yu.G. was reviewed by the Commercial court and there the Resolution of bankruptcy proceedings of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” in the case А70-7994/3-2003 was adopted.
An important fact should be mentioned that at that moment OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” was a government sponsored enterprise, in which the basic shareholding (about 80%) belonged to Government of Khanty-Mansiyskiy Autonomous Circuit (the entity of the Russian Federation). The chairman of the board of directors was the Governor of the circuit Mr.Filipenko, the chairman of the management board and the president of the bank – Dmitry Mizgulin.
Extract from an appeal of A. Shmidt to the law enforcement authorities:
“…To take property from an owner is possible in case of (establishing a formal reason) involving the state represented by certain group of officials and authorities.
In order to repay tax arrears of 4 134 244,32 rubles pursuant to the decision of tax department of IMTC of the RF № 4 in Tyumen (Inspection of the Ministry of taxes and tax collections of the Russian Federation № 4 in Tyumen) of 25 August 2003 a court enforcement action № 982-8-03 (97-8-04) (court bailiff Eremchuk I.V.) has been instituted.
On 15 September 2003 the court bailiffs distained the real estate of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket”.
On 8 October 2003 pursuant to the judicial letter the goods in amount of 4 701 458,5 were confiscated by the court bailiffs.
The Court bailiff Eremchuk on his own underestimated the goods value by selling in spite of the fact that the state due by customs clearance VAT were paid and the goods were in free circulation.
However, the court bailiffs did not transfer to the budget the receipts from the sold goods of DastinMarket, and the tax authority additionally applied the Federal Service of Financial Rehabilitation of Russia in the Tyumen region to institute bankruptcy proceedings of the enterprise.
On 19 November 2003 the territorial department of the Federal Service of Financial Rehabilitation of Russia in the Tyumen region filled up an application to the Commercial court of the Tyumen region with a bankruptcy notice of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket”. Thereby the total sum of arrears increased from 4 million rubles up to 8 million rubles.
On 20 November 2003 the judge of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region A.A.Koksharov adopted a resolution on preparation of bankruptcy proceedings to a trial on 08 December 2003 (legal case А70-7994-3-2003)
On 10 December the judge of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region Loskutov V.V. introduced a monitoring procedure and appointed an interim trustee Vasilyev-Chobotaryov.
After distraining of the property by the court bailiffs CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” was unable to repay all debts of the enterprise.”
What happened? Why did a large commercial enterprise, an acting property complex that has become one of the first-rate tax payer in the Tyumen region hired 200 persons, suddenly become a bankrupt and was urgently liquidated? The shopping center was filled with first-class imported goods from Europe, convenience goods, food, and finally a wide range of spirits. If You have noticed, dear Reader, only the receivables made up 19 million rubles – this is solid cash, the goodstaken by agents for sales. The Tax inspectorate raised the arrears in amount of 4 million rubles, having increased the sum up to 8 million rubles by external trustee Vasilyev-Chobotaryov. Where are the features of bankruptcy? The court bailiffs distrained the goods to amount of 4 million, i.e. granted prohibitive injunctions, it seemed that the issue was taken off the table. Not by any means! The court bailiffs didn’t intend to transfer the money of arrears to the Tax inspectorate, and up till now they didn’t transfer it. It’s clear when the bank begins to withdraw without acceptance the whole receipts from the bank account of an enterprise, the appropriate financing is teminated in accordance with the line of credit, when the external management was introduced and committee of bankruptcy in three months with appointment of a bankruptcy trustee Yuriy Shabalin, the director of the enterprise is going to be dismissed and is already unable to affect the ongoing processes. Then the creditors determined by a commercial court and shareholders enjoy the rights, and the main acting person according to the law “On bankruptcy” – a court appointed trustee.
Let us keep in mind that the territorial department of the Federal Service of Financial Rehabilitation of Russia went to the law for bankruptcy of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” to the commercial court for the tax arrears (underpayment of due taxes), and let us consider that the proceedings were initiated by the Tax inspectorate of Tyumen, i.e. the money of arrears should have come to the national treasury.
So, how did the conflict of a Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk with CJSC “DastinMarket” begin?
From my conversation with Mr. Reger (Germany) who was the director of a foreign parent company “Dastin GmbH” at that moment, i.e. the shareholder of the Tyumen enterprise:
« …Brothers Shmidt were good friends with Vladimir Mits who was being involved in the construction of a new building for a bank branch in Tyumen at that moment. The bank was not very famous, not very rich. Just thanks to the efforts of Vladimir the building for the bank branch was finished. At the same time we leased the premises of an area of 5000 square meters of the former fruit and vegetable warehouse in size of a soccer field in Demien Bednyi str. in Tyumen. I remember it like it was yesterday this building was in a terrible plight, being a subject of the capital repair, it was impossible to walk around it – there was knee-deep of mud. But we decided to make it a center of retail- and wholesale. Aleksey headed the local firm “DastinMarket” and started the capital repair of this premises and the improvement of the territory. Living in Germany Franc moved out there to a considerable extent, in order to look for the necessary shopping equipment in Europe. Our company DastinMarket GmbH formed the initial circle of co-investors, who contributed to investment means for the corresponding shares in the company. But the main investors were Franc, Aleksey Shmidt and me. Vladimir Mits and Aleksey Shmidt often communicated, they were on the inside of each other, both founded something in Tyumen, had mutual interests and cooperation prospects. We were discussing with Volodya the issue of receipt of a credit line, by finishing of equipment installation, when the hypothecation value will be formed in amount of at least 3 million dollars for filling the center with goods. He promised to assist, if we were ready. Then it was clear that there was not enough money for the assembly of shopping equipment and putting into operation of the whole shopping center, Mr. Mits offered to be a partner in our business therewith he brought his deputy and friend – Mr. Kvassov. It was agreed that Mits and Kvassov would enter Dastin GmbH for 10% in equal amount of shares having paid 200 thousand dollars, as the company assets exceeded two million dollars. Everything was officially processed and brought to the registry. But they wanted to contribute money for the shares in cash and in part, via Aleksey, in order not to inform the Central Bank as rules required in Russia. It was agreed that way because I lived in Germany, I made a letter of authority from my firm in favour of Aleksey, he received money against signed receipt from Mits and Kvasov, informed me about it, I documented the cash, Aleksey didn’t transfer money to me, but made payment to the cashier of “DastinMarket” for the finishing of putting in operation. The grounds of the contribution to CJSC “DastinMarket” — cash order and respective contract – were sent to me as far as the contributions were made. All that was officially reflected in balance-sheets and documents. That was how Mits and Kvassov became co-shareholders of “Dastin GmbH”, each one had 100 000 shares, about 2 million shares statutory fund. A little bit later a Luxemburg joint stock company “Dastin Handelshaus AG” belonging to Franc, purchased “Dastin GmbH” and its subsidiary in Tyumen, so Kvasov entered the managing board of that joint stock company in Luxemburg. I provide the extract from the registry. Mits Vladimir left the bank because he had been promoted to the vice-governor of Khanty-Mansiyskiy Autonomous Circuit. Kvasov was promoted to the director of the Tyumen branch, therefore he transferred the money for shares to Aleksey.”
Dear Reader, remember one more thing: Aleksey Shmidt received money from Kvasov against signed receipt as a fee for the contribution to the company “Dastin GmbH”. (He would later feel it). I had a double curiosity: if Kvasov and Mits were the co-founders of such interesting structure which included an investing company from the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and a subsidiary (99%) CJSC “DastinMarket” in Tyumen, if Mits was vice-governor of Khanty-Mansiyskiy Autonomous Circuit, and Kvasov was the director of the bank branch, what was the reason for a “war”?
From the Application of A. Shmidt to the General Prosecutor’s Office:
“… the Administration of the Tyumen branch of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” misused the trust of Shmidt A.I. by deception, having said that after default in 1998 it is able to occupy a considerable segment of the physical persons loan market, and it has reliable borrowers– physical persons, and it has already signed the contracts of debt with them, but without guarantor it couldn’t pay them the stipulated sums, as a result I was asked to become CJSC “DastinMarket” guarantor to a number of contracts concluded between OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” and a number of physical persons.
Having trusted V. Mits and V. Kvasov and been sure that the bank had entirely controlled creditworthiness of the physical persons, as it was its obligation, and having had the signed contracts with physical persons as evidence, CJSC “DastinMarket” became the guarantor to a number of contracts for customer crediting of physical persons”
From my conversation with Mr. Reger:
“…Thereby, “DastinMarket” was involved in the scheme of customer crediting of physical persons as a Guarantor. If I remember correctly, the enterprise became a guarantor for the total-sum of 35 million rubles. … according to the law the creditor is a Bank and there are a number of requirements to comply with: to prove the creditworthiness of a person, its reliability, to learn the sources of income, to analyze the default risks, to examine at the credit commission all “pro et contra”. In addition the physical persons have to have a bank account, a credit should be transferred on the account of the owner. A bank also has at its disposal a range of control functions, like the supervision over purpose-oriented use of credit funds, timely payment of interests etc. All contracts of guarantee to Aleksey passed off Kvassov and Golovkov, his deputy. It was our serious mistake… The trust degree to these people was too high, we couldn’t imagine they could throw Mits over the bridge. Therewith the behaviour of Kvassov put us on guard, when he came to our office in Luxemburg with his wife, at that time I didn’t understand the purpose of that visit. He had lost a certain amount in the casino. Only later I understood that he had conducted reconnaissance to find out our financial condition, how much we “weighed”, what or who protected us…He was a shareholder of “Dastin GmbH”, a person, who possessed insider information, who was receiving all the reports and minutes of the meetings of the board of directors and meetings of the shareholders. How do you call a person who steals from his friends in Russia? Here in Europe it is a person who has at command insider information and has prejudiced his company, is to be prosecuted under law. Franc Shmidt has already prepared the materials for transferring it to the competent authorities of Luxemburg to prosecute Kvassov… I remember gossips having spread in Tyumen at that time that the shopping center supposedly was built for money of a bank. Kvasov won’t explain to people that he paid cash for himself and for Mits against purchase of shareholding of “Dastin GmbH!” And Aleksey didn’t conceal that he had brought cash to the enterprise from them. Plenty of former employees of the bank and of our subsidiary until now, I’m sure, don’t know, that Mits and Kvassov were co-founders of the foreign parent company “DastinMarket”.
Extract from an appeal of A. Shmidt tothe Prosecutor’s General office of the Russian Federation:
“… on 17 May 2011 there was concluded the contract of a line of credit No. 413 between OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” and CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” in amount of 88 000 000,00 rubles on a security of 1 % of the shares belonged to Shmidt A.I. (pledge agreement No.460 of 17 May 2011), 99 % of the shares belonged to “Dastin GmbH” (shares pledge agreement No. 459 of 17 May 2001), mobile property – shopping equipment (agreement No. 458 of 17 May 2001). Each agreement in particular provided the repayment of the total credit sum in amount of 88 000 000,00 rubles.
OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” credited as follows:
— Crediting was in US dollars;
— $ 1 000.000,00 in payment for the supply of consumer goods from abroad. The import transaction passport to the contract for the supply of goods was issued in OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”
— Taking into account that for the supply of goods from abroad 100% prepayment for goods was necessary, the bank deposited 1 000 000,00 $ additionally from the line of credit as a supply guarantee required by the law of Russia at that time. In addition the bank required to pledge these deposited funds of the enterprise.
Thus, from the sum paid out by the bank in fact not all sum of the line of credit was put in requisition. And the interests were added to the general amount!
Taking into account that there was a need to fill the shop with custom goods of Russian suppliers I repeatedly raised the question of the payment of the rest amount of 18 000 000,00 rubles under the line of credit agreement. In response the bank began to extort an additional security from CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket”. It was while the whole line of credit was secured on double standard. As I was in a state of emergency (staff of the shopping center was hired and trained – near 200 persons who were going to receive salary), I was compelled to accept the enslaving terms of mortgage agreement on the whole building of shopping center “DastinMarket” (pledge agreement of 31 August 2001, it was almost 5000 square meters) that was offered by V. Kvasov. Concluding the line of credit agreement there was an obligatory condition:: no right to assign without consent of the debtor CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket”.
Thus it came into the picture that for one line of credit there was provided a security which four times surpassed the banking standard! Consequently everything was pledged: shares, goods, equipment, the whole building. Let’s go further…
From my conversation with Mr. Reger:
“…At that moment the miracles began to happen. Since the line of credit was opened in security for a part of the building and equipment, Kvassov began to require, that was also illegal, an additional security and began to practice a charge-off without acceptance from the account of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” at the Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk against the repayment of interests on credit. I want to drawyour attention that the same thing was made in respect of the credit agreement conditions, which stipulated that we had 7 month vocation, and thesupermarket was on the stage of puttingin operation. It was the most important and the most responsible moment as well as the most vulnerable period for the firm. In addition the Bank began to delay the payments on the line of credit and from the beginning charged interests on the whole amount of the line of credit, but not on the actually provided sum. It blocked tax payment, VAT etc. It refused to pay for already delivered goods. It made find our company and Aleksey Shmidt in a tight corner At the same moment we found out that there had been an order of the president of the bank Mr. Misgulin, who was unsatisfied with work of Mits and Kvassov and the Tyumen branch on the whole, about the withdrawal of the line of credit and the breaking up of relationship with “DastinMarket”. Franc flew to Khanty-Mansiysk (to Misgulin and to the Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk) with the program of getting out of a crisis. He came back shocked and said that we had to expect the worst. The bank was inimical, Misgulin required to transfer the whole property to the bank, otherwise he would withdraw our whole property. You won’t believe but Mr. Misgulin also wrote the same in the letter with threats to “DastinMarket”. Aleksey has the original as well as other threatening letters. I.e. something like a gangster bank or Misgulin brought his habits from St. Petersburg. Though I was said he was an intelligent, used to write poetry…”
At my disposal I have these disastrous contracts with physical persons for crediting and their contracts of guarantee. I began to understand everything now…”
Director of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign
Mr. Shmidt A.I.
Director of the Tyumen branch
of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”
Mr. Mits V.I.
The administration of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” studied carefully the possibility of capitalization of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” and restricting of the existing debts to the Bank offered by the administration of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” in the official letters outg. No. 403 of 19 and 21th of November 2002 respectively.
Thereby should be mentioned that participation in the statutory fund of a commercial organization is out of activities and interests area of the Bank. This item of the Bank was already explained in the letter outg. No. 13-101/3870 of 20th of August 2002.
In addition, taking into account the minutes of the meeting of the shareholders of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” in which the joint measures of turnaround of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” were stipulated, it was mentioned by the Bank that the most acceptable is the implementation of the measures stipulated in item b) variant No. 1 of the plan of joint measures, which consists in purchase of the property of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” that was pledged, by OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” to the amount of actual debts.
However, taking into account the constant offers of the administration of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” in respect of capitalization of the enterprise, the Bank considers as possible to implement the plan described in the letters outg.No. 408, 410 of 19 and 21 November 2002 respectively only if 100% shares of the new founded joint stock company will belong to OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”. In the following the Bank can consider the possibility to transfer the shareholding in amount that doesn’t exceed 20% to the company that could effectively manage the new founded enterprise.
|Date||Borrower||Contract number||Sum rubles.|
|25 September 2000||Gurtyak Tatyana Leonidovna||№45505810503000400203||550 000,00|
|25 September 2000||Khilov Vladimir Viktorovich||№ 45505810803000300197||550 000,00|
|08 September 2000||Gurtyak Tatyana Leonidovna||№ 45505810603000300203||400 000,00|
|06 September 2000||Khilov Vladimir Viktorovich||№ 45505810903000200197||328 000,00|
|07 September 2000||Gelenidze Zurab Lerievich||№ 45505810103000300198||350 000,00|
|05 Oktober 2000||Plekhanova Elena Igorevna||№ 45505810103000200353||500 000,00|
|05 Oktober 2000||Plekhanova Elena Igorevna||№ 45505810203000100353||500 000,00|
|25 September 2000||Gelenidze Zurab Lerievich||№ 45505810003000400198||550 000,00|
|08 September 2000||Karasev Sergey Mihaylovich||№ 45505810003000200204||400 000,00|
|05 Oktober 2000||Knyazheva Nelli Aleksandrovna||№ 45505810703000200355||197 218,00|
|05 Oktober 2000||Knyazheva Nelli Aleksandrovna||№ 455058108 03000100355||500 000,00|
|25 September 2000||Karasev Sergey Mihaylovich||№ 45505810803000400204||550 000,00|
|25 Oktober 2000||Sadirov Farhad Hushvatovich||№ 45505810403000100373||950 000,00|
|25 September 2000||Kashubina Anna Mihaylovna||№ 45505810203000300205||467 000,00|
|05 Oktober 2000||Spesivtsev Aleksander Yakovlevich||№ 45505810903000100352||500 000,00|
|05 Oktober 2000||Spesivtsev Aleksander Yakovlevich||№ 45505810803000200352||500 000,00|
As far one knows from the documents provided me in summer in 2002 OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk tried to burden with additional debts and to distrain the property of CJSC “DastinMarket” filing the actions with a petition on security of the actions (sequestration of the enterprise’s property) to the Commercial court of the Tyumen region against CJSC “DastinMarket” that was the guarantor under loan agreement with physical persons.
Afterwards the Bank decided to disclaim all the actions. There were about 20 arbitration cases on the complaint of the bank of Khanty-Mansiysk. And the bank withdrew the complaints. What kind of games were those?
A. Shmidt: “Referring to the mentioned contracts of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” the claims on recovery of debt under the credit agreements with physical persons were brought to the Commercial court of the Tyumen region . They included the credit sum, the sum of the heightened interests, the sum of state dues. During the preparation to the judicial proceedings the security men of CJSC “DastinMarket” made some actions and found out that the physical persons under the contracts who were indicated in the claims hadn’t received money from the bank of Khanty-Mansiysk.
In the materials of the case there are the testimonies of the physical persons: Plekhanova E.I., Khilov V. V, Gurtyak T.L., Kashubina A.M. that they didn’t take the credit, and didn’t signed any papers in the bank and they are not related to the firms which paid the interests on credits of LLC “Steks”, LLC “Neotron”, LLC “Sigma-Treid TK”.
The physical persons Gurtyak, Khilov, Plekhanova, Gelenidze, Karasev, Knyazheva, Kashubina gave the written explanations that they hadn’t been issued the credits by OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” that was indicated in the claims, the signatures on the cash payment vouchers and cash receipt vouchers (payment of interests to the bank) didn’t fit with their ones. And they didn’t meet the organizations that instead of them paid the interests like LLC “Sigma-Trade TK” (INN 6661094457), LLC “Steks” (INN 6670002332), LLC “Neotron” (INN 6661094457). The note should be taken that the copies of payment orders produced to the court about the payment by the firms LLC “Sigma-Trade TK” and LLC “Neotron”, having had accounts in the Tyumen branch of OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”, of the interests given to the physical persons have the same INN 6661094457 (that is completely impossible!). It could be considered as a reason to inspecti the legitimate activity of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”. It must be concerned that the same employees took the payment orders to the execution.
Besides, during the work done by the security of “DastinMarket” in respect of the produced claims it was found out that the passport data specified in contracts of credit were fictitious, and some persons, with the passport data specified in contracts didn’t exist (Spesivtsev, Sadirov), some were registered as the dead.
It comes to the conclusion that the persons, who ostensibly have got the credit in the Bank, didn’t exist, and contracts of credit were mock.
The management of OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” misused the data that were at its disposal in order to mislead the administration of CJSC «The Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket «and to sign the contracts of guarantees for the purpose of taking into possession the property of «The Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket» by raising of financial claims as to the guarantor bearing a joint liability to the borrower.
It was the reason why OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” quickly disclaimed all his actions at court, wasn’t it?
In conformity with the court cases the following judicial acts have been adopted by the judge of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region Alekseeva N.A.
— In the case А70-7506/10-02 (Gurtyak) about the termination of proceedings in connection with nolle prosequi (OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”);
— In the case А70-7507/10-02 (Khilov) about the termination of proceedings in connection with nolle prosequi (OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”);
— In the caseА70-7508/10-02 (Gurtyak) about the termination of proceedings in connection with nolle prosequi (OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”);
— In the case А70-7509/10-02 (Khilov) about the termination of proceedings in connection with nolle prosequi (OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”) etc.”
Mrs. S. Basykova, who was the manager of the actions – didn’t expect that, her purpose as a lawyer was to file the actions against “DastinMarket” in respect of the contracts of the guarantee, it was said “the recourse for no repayment of the credits of the physical persons automatically passed to the guarantor”, in order to distrain the property of “DastinMarket”, and suddenly appeared that staff. Then the bank began to proceed the other way…
From an appeal of A. Shmidt to the Prosecutor’s Generaloffice of the Russian Federation:
“On 28 February 2003 breaching the contract conditions without assent of CJSC “EFI “DastinMarket” the OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” concluded an agreement, and on 20 May 2003 transferred rights on mortgage (the building of the shopping center) of 31 August 2001 to a limited liability company “LC HESLISING”, (today LLC “LC Yugra-Lising”, director — Kondrashov). It is a company affiliated with the bank, a subsidiary of the bank. The department of the Federal Service for State Registration in the Tyumen region registered that assignment. Taking into account that the actions in respect of rights assignment infringed the contract conditions and valid law, the indicated actions were appealed by CJSC “EFI “DastinMarket” represented by Shmidt A.I. in a judicial procedure:
— action about the invalidation of the transaction was filed with a court (case A70-7283/24-2003 – the judge Prokopov A.V.).
— action was filed with a court about the invalidation of the security – a mortgage of 31 August 2001, perfected by CJSC “EFI “DastinMarket” in order to ensure the mortgagee rights of the Tyumen branch of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” on receipt of the writ of execution in respect of the bill of debt that was secured by mortgage (case A70-7779/24-2003 – the judge Prokopov A.V.).
— action was filed with a court about the appliance of the consequences of the invalid void transaction by mortgage transfer (case in Commercial court of the Tyumen region No. A70-8006/23-2003 – the judge O.H.Rozhenas).”
Yes! Mizgulin started to fulfill his threats. The bank breaching the mortgage contract transferred to its subsidiary premises of an operating enterprise “DastinMarket”. That was really interesting! And the department of the Federal Service for State Registration in the Tyumen region immediately registered the right for the building without owner’s assent! Great opportunities belonged to the bank. But Aleksey Shmidt “is an old hand” and he obtained the prohibition of the transaction fulfillment with real estate of CJSC “DastinMarket” (adoption of prohibitive injunctions by a court). Also by the authority of justice there were made the attachments of the state registration of real property rights and the transactions connected with that property on the territory of the Tyumen region, that was evidenced by the extract from The Unified State Register of Rights to Immovable Property and Transactions Therewith (No. 87/2003-146 of 06 November 2003)
Running ahead I would like to say, dear Reader, that as consequence the bankruptcy trustee Shabalin Y.G. disclaimed the action for damages against “DastinMarket” in the case А70-7779/24-2003, А70-8006/23-2003! That was definitely abuse of law, because the bankruptcy trustee acted in prejudice of the enterprise, the creditors (please don’t forget about the Tax Service with a suit) and the shareholders of the enterprise.The legal cases were not examined essentially by the court, rights and legitimate interests of the enterprise and its foreign shareholders were abused! It wasn’t an innocent prank of Shabalin – it was an unmistakable sign of the actions of the bankruptcy trustee “in conspiracy” in the interest of the definitive creditor – the bank of Khanty-Mansiysk.
In the case А70-7283/24-2003 the bankruptcy trustee on behalf of CJSC “EFI “DastinMarket” concluded an arbitration agreement with OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” and LLC “Lease company “HESLISING” about transfer of the dispute to a court of arbitration where one of the arbitrators was the lawyer of the very bank S. Basykova (affiliation) and cofounder of the court was also the bank of Khanty-Mansiysk (affiliation). At the hearing of the court of arbitration the bankruptcy trustee on behalf of CJSC “EFI “DastinMarket” acknowledged all the claims of the bank and LLC “Lease company “HESLISING”, despite of the work made by A. Shmidt in order to defend CJSC “EFI “DastinMarket” and its shopping center and the interests of the shareholders – owners of the property.
The conspiracy of the bankruptcy trustee Shabalin and the representatives of OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” can be traced again. A kind of “party” to abuse law.
A little reference for the Reader: it is prohibited to transfer the cases concerning conclusions of commercial courts to courts of arbitration. By the way, there is a real know-how for fraudsters. Note, on behalf of CJSC “DastinMarket” the transaction was concluded by the bankruptcy trustee Shabalin that was prohibited by the law, he might act for himself only and might issue notarized letters of the authority from himself only. It’s clear that it was “concocted” to grant any credibility of the acquisition of right on the property. The decision of the court of arbitration was added to legal proceeding by the judge V. Loskutov.
This judge will assist very much the group of persons taking part in the conspiracy. Now it is possible to call it like that. A “shakedown” of the enterprise under the non-existent fictitious credits of physical persons, in the banking language called “physicists”, in which it was as the guarantor, was made. They gained to the protect themselves. Now a “shake-down” of the mortgaged building, but the court acknowledged the mortgage contract invalid. A threat has appeared that the court would acknowledge invalid the whole credit agreement No. 413 because the bank had unilaterally breached it many times.
But let’s not to deflect our attention away, the story about illegal takeover continues… Obviously because of his mistakes Kvasov was dismissed from the position of Director of the Tyumen branch of the bank
From an appeal of A. Shmidt to the Prosecutor’s General office of the Russian Federation:
“As confirmation that the contracts concluded with OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” didn’t purpose the mutually beneficial cooperation, but an another purpose was pursued, the president of “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” D.A. Misgulin sent on the address of the enterprise the messages, where he directly said, that he would get everything from us (the letter of the president of OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” Mizgulin D.A. ref. No. 13-101/5633 of 10 December 2002, outg. No. 13-49/949 of 27 February 2003), that confirmed the invalidity of the concluded contracts.
The president of “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” Mizgulin D.A. in November 2003 sent a letter on the address of the former manager of the Tyumen branch of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” Kvasov V.V. outg. No.13-49/6043. Obviously it was the very beginning of a criminal group, which aimed to realize a fictitious, special-ordered bankruptcy of CJSC “EFI “DastinMarket”, the enterprise takeover, its property, property of the foreign company.”
You’ll ask why did they need the property at any cost? There is an answer: as the fictitious granting of funds supposedly for the custom credits to the non-existent physical persons and the line of credit agreement that could be acknowledged null/invalid, placed in jeopardy the bank norm – security. Obviously the “holes” were very large. You and me we didn’t know the extent of «cashing» and money laundering. How could they write the statement of the bank? With the first inspection carried out by the Central Bank the unsecure sum that could lead to the withdrawal of the license from OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” was found out. So Kvassov decided to sacrifice “DastinMarket” in order to close the “holes” with “physicians”. Obviously, he thought it could be done “without consequences”, the brothers didn’t threaten him, he has got everybody in his pocket in the region. The value of the building and the property of the enterprise “covered” all credits granted to physical persons and the line of credit for “DastinMarket”, but the director of CJSC was taking legal recourse, threatening the prosperity of the bank. They needed that property to transfer to the affiliated company and to conclude the new contract of security for the bank already with that company, and the funds received from goods selling to turn on paying off the fictitious custom credits. Aleksey Shmidt could prevent that…
Obviously, that A. Shmidt and the contracts of guarantee with physical persons – it is a visible part of an “iceberg”. Unintentionally he became the witness of money laundering in the bank. I suppose, there were much more such credits in the bank, the mechanism of the fraudsters was clear. Imagine, if everything would “come out”? The bank of Filipenko and the Authority of the JSC of Khanty-Mansiysk are engaged in “cashing” and laundering of the state’s and depositor’s money. That’s why the local corrupt system was turned on and the command “Attack” to destroy the enterprise and personally Aleksey Shmidt was given. He should obligatory keep silent. In that case nothing cared, it didn’t care, that was property of foreign companies, they had to “save their bacon”, their positions. Do you understand whose and what kind of “cash” circulated in the bank? And it doesn’t matter that the facts of fraud were concealed in the bank, it’s important that it didn’t bring troubles, that the further facts of frauds on the same bill of credit, which Mizgulin mentioned in the threatening letter to Kvassov, will be not concealed. I think, it deserves to be given in full content (Kvassov had already worked in a branch of MANATEP Bank):
“Dear Mr. Kvassov!
When you were the head of the Tyumen branch of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” there was committed the financing of projects and the fulfillment of the transactions which resulted in problems for the financial condition of the branch and the Bank in general. In particular it concerned the purchase of bills of LLC «Steks» and LLC «Neotron», and crediting of CJSC «EFI» DastinMarket «and physical persons under its guarantee, and the credits issued to Kolpashchikov N.P., Moiseenko V. N, Poluyanova V. I, Popov V. V, Kosinov D.V., Kozlovtsev S.A., Plyasunova S.B. … In addition we inform that by CJSC “EFI «Dastin Market» in commercial court the pledge contracts were appealed concluded with the Bank on security of its liabilities under the received credit as well as the mortgage. The satisfaction of the claim requirements will lead to the insecurity of the credit issued by the Bank. Considering these circumstances and existing credits of physical persons under CJSC «EFI» DastinMarket” guarantee we inform that the further relations with the given enterprise may result in the involvement of the Bank in law enforcement bodies and bodies of public prosecutor’s office that will cause wide publicity of the given problem. The bank doesn’t wish and isn’t interested in the thing, that the negative information of your methods and results of your management in the Tyumen branch of the Bank will become accessible to wider range of people, including Bank of Russia and management of OJSC “MENATEP SPb». We hope for your understanding on the complexity and gravity of the established situation and active part in its positive solving for the Bank”. Signature of Mizgulin.
In other words the best banker of the year nowadays, more than just poet and writer, the honorable Consul of Czech Republic in Khanty-Mansiyskiy Autonomous Circuit Mr. Dmitry Mizgulin knew about frauds committed in the bank, «cashing» by false physical persons, but didn’t inform on it to law-enforcement and supervising bodies (Central Bank), but covered crimes, under the legislation he became its accomplice, having urged Kvasov to solve a question. Interesting about this was, how Kvasov should have solved it?
Kvassov V. apprehended the threat of Mizgulin very seriously and began the tireless activity in «certain» structures of the city of Tyumen to arrange the closing down of Joint-Stock Company «DastinMarket», that was the witness of a deceit, in order to destroy traces of fraud in the bank for ever. At that time the scheme of fictitious special-made bankruptcy was planned with the usage of persons affiliated with the bank, including the guild SGCM that as well as bank had been registered in Khanty-Mansiysk.
That was an incentive motive of the further actions of the group of colluded persons led by Kvasov at that time and the lawyer of bank V. Baskova, whose husband E. Baskov was a member of the Council of the Guild of court appointed managers of SGCM.
The affiliation will be regarded in this investigation later.
I apologize to the Reader for “dry” legalese in this publication but it’s impossible to reproduce the events in a different way, and the fairy tale finished long ago, now the hard life chronicle of an entrepreneur in our country is going on.
From a conversation with V. Reger:
«… I think that Kvassov, using his job position, redeemed his shares of «Dastin GmbH» at the expense of bank means by drawing fictitious consumer contracts on false persons. It is possible and it is necessary to reveal! Therefore he and Mits were convincing Aleksey so much to make CJSC “EFI “DastinMarket «act as the guarantor under consumer credits! They understood that we would need to open a line of credit for filling the shopping center with goods in the nearest future, and we wouldn’t have any other choice. Aleksey had never seen those «consumers»! The motive was clear: the management of the Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk had committed plunder of money through by consumer credits in a big sum and when D. Mizgulin and the bank security service revealed a part of plunder, Kvassov didn’t invent anything better than a takeover of the property of «DastinMarket» by organizing the criminal group of colluded persons. It is necessary to request investigating bodies, whether Kvassov and Mits paid any consumer credits on behalf of the third parties the next years, and from which firms? What firms does Mizgulin mention? I think it is necessary to involve the Central Bank in inspection. I think, they urgently repaid some debts from the sales of our property by Shabalin, otherwise the letter wouldn’t have been written by Mizgulin. They repaid something instead of physical persons. How did the bank withdraw all those consumer credits finally? What did the bank report? That’s why you could find it in the Bank operational reporting! And Mizgulin covered the crime; therefore Aleksey should appeal for his prosecution for the crime concealment!”
How did the bank of Khanty-Mansiysk become the bankruptcy creditor on arbitration? All pledge contracts were declared invalid, the rights under the mortgage too, the transaction with real property was distrained by the court. The contracts of guarantee of «physicists» were automatically illegal, as it was not the crediting of physical persons. And what about the fraud scheme of plunder of available funds in bank, the fact for criminal investigation (which for the way 9 years “hadn’t been seen by investigating bodies and public prosecutor’s office), what had «DastinMarket» to do with that? And here it is possible, if you have your “own” bankruptcy trustee who admits bank as the appropriate creditor and your “own” judge who confirms and admits the amount of accounts payable. The professional fraudsters look pale against the plan implemented by Y. Shabalin and S. Baskova.
On 6 February 2004 the demand of the creditor OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” was illegally acknowledged by the judge of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region Loskutov V.V. as follows:
On 12 January 2004 LLC «LC «HESLIZING» went to the Commercial court of the Tyumen region with an application about the acknowledgement of demands to CJSC » EFI «DastinMarket», that was based on the contract about the opening of the line of credit № 413 of 17 May 2001, in connection with the assignment of the rights from the above-stated contract to LLC «LC «HESLIZING» under the agreement on the assignment of rights of 28.0.2003 from OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”. The resolution “on the preparation of the law case to proceeding” the judicial hearing concerning the acknowledgement of demands of OJSC «LC «HESLIZING» was appointed by the court on 2 February 2004. The objections according to provision of Article 71 of the Federal Law «On insolvency (bankruptcy)» about the illegal acquisition of rights were presented by CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» represented by its director Shmidt A.I. on demand of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» by LLC «LC «HESLIZING» in connection with the nihility of the Agreement “on assignment of rights» of 28th of February, 2003 (transfer of a building to the third party without CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket” consent).
The tiny judicial tricks: because of the necessity of studying the objections of Joint-Stock Company «EFI «DastinMarket» and providing of the additional proofs for the judicial session that had begun on 2 February 2004, the judge V. Loskutov announced a break till February, 6th, 2004.
On 6 February 2004 the judicial session was resumed. During that judicial sitting LLC «LC «HESLIZING» stated the fact of termination of “rights assignment agreement» with the bank of 28 February 2003. (!) That agreement was terminated on 5 February 2004. LLC “LC «HESLIZING» filed an application to replace it as the creditor in the course of proceedings with OJSC «The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk». Simultaneously, i.e. on 6 February 2004, the independent application on the establishment of demands of OJSC «The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» was filed, it based on the same agreement «on the line of credit» № 413 of 17 May 2001 which was considered as the independent application within the same judicial sitting and there the demands of «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» were recognized.
As follows from the motivation and resolutive parts of the Ruling — the replacement was carried out not in the course of the procedural legal succession by the court according to Art. 48 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Thus, the consideration of the independent application of CJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» was established infringing of Articles 127,133,135,137,184-186 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Did you get it? I’m going to explain in brief: the Bank without permission conceded the building to the affiliated enterprise LLC «HESLISING», Aleksey Shmidt had protested and won, then LLC «HESLIZING» and the bank went to the court of arbitration where the bankruptcy trustee rejected Aleksey Shmidt’s claims on behalf of «DastinMarket» and recognized the rights of «Heslizing», «Heslizing» filed the claim against «DastinMarket» with the court and refused the right on the building in favour of “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” (hocus-pocus, heretofore the premises were in pledge, and now the bank enjoyed all rights), it was necessary only that the court recognized that. And the fact, that the shareholders didn’t give their consent to the essential transaction (the building exceeded 25 % of value of all assets of the enterprise), that the arbitration decision was not very lawful — that were peanuts for them and didn’t matter.
From A. Shmidt’s appeal tothe Prosecutor’s General office of the Russian Federation:
» During the judicial hearing by CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» in the name of the director A.I. Shmidt was filed an oral motion with the judge V. Loskutov “on adjournment of the case” in the manner established by Article 158 (5) of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation caused by the necessity of the preparation of objections and evidence granting concerning the new creditor of OJSC “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”.
As it was mentioned above, the previously presented objections concerning the creditor of LLC «LC «HESLIZING» were connected with the person of the improper creditor LLC «LC «HESLIZING» exclusively. That motion remained without satisfaction. This circumstance in conjunction with the infringements connected with adoption of the appeal and infringements, connected with preparation of the case for proceedings, abused gross the procedural rights of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket”, that are stipulated by Article 41 (1) of the Administrative Procedure Codeof the Russian Federation, also the general principles of commercial legal proceedings, fixed by Articles 8 and 9 of the Administrative Procedure Codewere breached.
In connection with the above-stated procedural infringements by adoption of the Ruling of 06 February 2004 by the local court, the factual situation was not acknowledged in a whole and, as a consequence, the unreasonable conclusion infringing the norms of the substantive law was made, and in particular — the unreasonable conclusion was made about acknowledgment the mortgage right of OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» concerning real property under the pledge agreement of 31 August 2001. The mortgagee right is subject to the state registration and is defined by the corresponding record in the state register of the rights to real property, and is proved by the respective extract from the state registry (Article 131 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). These evidences weren’t granted to the court by OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk», and, as a consequence, the extract from the state register, requested and received by CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket”, confirms that the legal entity OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» was not registered as the mortgagee! (An extract from the Unified State Register of Rights to Immovable Property and Transactions Therewith № 30/2004-314 from 24 February 2004 years). Thus, the conclusion about acknowledgement the mortgagee right of OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» concerning real property of the debtor was made in contravention of Article 131of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and entailed the infringement of the provisions of Articles 134, 138 of the Federal Law ”On insolvency (bankruptcy)».
Nevertheless the judge V. Loskutov made his work, appointed bankruptcy creditor the bank of Khanty-Mansiysk, and the judicial act wasn’t sent to CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» premeditated. It is «old as Adam» judicial trick — in the judicial act the 10 days appel term was stipulated in the appeal court where after the judicial act shall be enforced! There is no mark about sending of the judgment to the address of “DastinMarket” in the judicial case as well as on Aleksey Shmidt’s address of, as the representative of shareholders-owners. Having taken into consideration that the term of the appeal has passed, on 2 March 2004 A. Shmidt submitted the cassation to the Federal Commercial court of the West-Siberian Circuit on the V. Loskutov’s judgment of the 6th of February, 2004 on acknowledgement of the demands of OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk». Simultaneously the motion for adjournment of the first meeting of creditors was filed. This motion was handed over in the office of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region also on 2 March 2004.
There is a bale of document in front of me; it is possible to write one or two Doctoral Dissertations at the right method of approach. For lawyers and businessmen there is a lot to learn! Now go on the impudent infringements of the law …
A. Shmidt: …«Meanwhile, on 3 March 2004 the first meeting of the creditors of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” was organized by the interim trustee Vasilyev-Chobotaryov and the improper creditor (decided by the judge V. Loskutov) OJSC «The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» (94,99 % of voices), where they have accepted the report of the interim trustee and voted for introduction of bankruptcy proceeding in respect of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» (lawyer Basykova S.V, who acted on the basis of the letter of authority issued by OJSC «The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» №76-06/04-03-1 of 26 January 2004, the representative of territorial department of the Federal Service of Financial Rehabilitation of Russia in the Tyumen region Degtyareva N.N., who acted on the basis of the letter of authority of 12 January 2004).”
The cassation appeal against the judgment of the judge V. Loskutov of 06 February 2004, should have been sent in the Federal Commercial court of the West-Siberian Circuit with materials of the case А70-7994/3-2003 according to Article 275 (1), (2) of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Attention, please (hocus-pocus №2) — appeal proceeding was appointed on 5 April 2004, therefore the case А70-7994/3-2003 was sent in court of cassation. However, despite this circumstance, on 18 March 2004 the judge of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region V. Loskutov appointed the hearing of the case without materials (!), leaning on own ruling of 06 February 2004 on acknowledgement of demands of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”, and passed the decision on introduction of the bankruptcy proceeding concerning CJSC “DastinMarket” and appointment of the bankruptcy trustee Shabalin Y.G. Because of such judges the reference “Your Honour” became the reference neither to mind, nor to conscience, didn’t it …?
Obviously the corruption in the courts disturbs the normal economic development of the country, reduces its investment opportunity, deforms public consciousness and painfully beats the human dignity, breaks people destinies.
A. Shmidt: «The judgment of the judge V. Loskutov of 18 March 2004 entered into force immediately. CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» was taken over on the basis of this judicial act on 24 March 2004, and being the director I was compelled to transfer the seal to the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee Yuriy Shabalin. During the seal transfer I tore it slightly and warned the bankruptcy trustee about the invalidity of the seal of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» from that moment.
On 5 April 2004 the cassation was considered, the acknowledgement of the requirements of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” was cancelled, the case А70-7994/3-2003 was directed to the new consideration to the first instance court – the Commercial court of the Tyumen region under the replacement of composition of the court.
However, the security of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” and the bankruptcy trustee didn’t allow me to enter the operating enterprise which was taken over, to take the protection actions. The bankruptcy trustee issued an order on the admission to the enterprise of a certain circle of persons into which number I wasn’t included categorically. I wasn’t informed what was going on with the property of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket”. The bankruptcy trustee ignored my numerous inquiries or refused the providing of information!»
The shareholders consider the enterprise to be taken over from that very moment. The same consideration will also be in Great Duchy Luxembourg on the basis of judgements, it can be expected.
The higher cassation instance cancelled the decision of the judge V. Loskutov on acknowledgement of the bank as the proper creditor, and at that time in haste valid court-appointed managers organized the fictitious first meeting of the creditors, Shabalin hastens to «cut» the director of the enterprise, but he didn’t regard that A. Shmidt was not only the director, but also the shareholder of 1 % of the statutory fund, and the representative of the Luxembourg shareholder «Dastin Handelshaus AG» on the basis of the letter of authority (99 %) in Russia. The interference of business activities of the foreign investor was obvious.
I asked Aleksey Shmidt several times about these moments of «take-over», several times read the materials of courts. The impudence that accompanied all these actions certified the belief in full impunity of characters. Well, such leaders were behind the back … And a very strong mutual protection. We will show that in following. Don’t forget that apart from the property take-over it was necessary «to shut up» Aleksey Shmidt. How? It was needed to establish the prosecution and make him the criminal to be sure that even if he would complain and appeal any instances, the brand of «a criminal» would have belonged to him already. How can our system trust «a criminal»?
From the Appeal of A. Shmidt to the Prosecutor General’s Office:
«Further neither by the court, nor by the bankruptcy trustee, as the director, as the holder of 1%, shares, as the representative of foreign shareholders (99 %) wasn’t notified of or involved in carrying out inventory of the enterprise property, didn’t give consent to do large transactions with the enterprise property. The property selling was held out on me. At the same time I wasn’t even permitted to study the materials of the arbitration case А70-7994/3-2003, all my complaints to bankruptcy trustee Y. Shabalin were remained without consideration by the court. As substantiation the court indicated the absence of authority to appeal the actions. In spite of the fact that the court and the bankruptcy trustee knew for certain that I was the director of that enterprise, the owner of shares of 1 %, the representative of the foreign enterprise shareholders under letter of authority (99 %).
At that time, based on the application of the lawyer S. Basykova (she was also the chief of the legal department of the Tyumen branch of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” and the representative of bankruptcy trustee Y. Shabalin under the letter of authority (affiliation), as the individual executive body of CJSC “DastinMarket”, I was slandered, and based on the consent of the public prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region a criminal case № 200403835/14 under Articles 30, 159, 196 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation was instituted concerning me.
At the same time my application to the public prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region (ref. of 04 March 2004 case № 200500108/01) concerning the facts of the fraud by the employees of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” in connection with infringement of the provisions of the law wasn’t considered in the proper term and CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” wasn’t deprived the protection from take-over that was infringement of Article 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The illegal consequences came and created the necessary prerequisites for the illegal withdrawal (plunder) of the property, including the certain requirements of the state (the tax authorities) at a rate of 6 407 380,76 rubles that also wasn’t executed by the bankruptcy trustee (!).
The criminal case № 200403835/14 regarding the application of the lawyer of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” Basykova S.V. concerning me was terminated by the superior investigator of the Investigation Department of Directorate of Internal Affairs of the Central Administrative Circuit of Tyumen (Resolution of 10 September 2004), its institution was recognized illegal by the decision of the judge of the Central district court of Tyumen Belousova M. Y. of 27 September 2004.
On 25 November 2004 the decision of the judge Belousova M.Y. of 27 September 2004 on recognition illegal the institution of the criminal case against me № 200403835/14 came into force. At this interval all property of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” in amount of almost half-billion rubles had been already stolen (as I found out then, using the invalid seal of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket”).
I filed complaints against the actions of the bankruptcy trustee with the motion for his dismissal. My complaints were being rejected permanently. The consideration of one of them against the actions of bankruptcy trustee was appointed by the judge of Commercial court of Tyumen V. Loskutov for 8 February 2005. He also didn’t notify me that for the same day were appointed the finishing of bankruptcy proceedings in respect of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket”, the approval of report which despite the law “On insolvency (bankruptcy)” wasn’t introduced to the shareholders of “DastinMarket”by the bankruptcy trustee Shabalin, as well as weren’t introduced to the shareholders the profit and loss report, the intermediate and liquidation balance sheets confirmed by the auditor. That is, I was once again deprived possibility to be prepared for the proceeding, to study the materials of the case.
On February, the 10th the invalid report of the trustee was validated by the judge of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region V. Loskutov, the bankruptcy proceeding was finished.
It is to notice that the bankruptcy trustee Shabalin J.G. filed the report with Commercial court of the Tyumen region only on the next day that is evidenced by the stamp of the office of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region.
My motions for the recusal of the judge V. Loskutov used to be declined repeatedly.
My motions for the dismissal of the bankruptcy trustee Shabalin Y.G. who had caused by his actions and inactions the damage to CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket“ weren’t essentially examined. All these materials, including my written complaints, appeals and applications I always attached in order to simplify the work of the instances which I referred to.»
Dear Reader! Life’s like that. Behind sentences set forth by Aleksey Shmidt hide day-to-day struggles, visiting of different institutions, waiting for the answers of different institutions, hope. Hope springs eternal… A. Shmidt filed the appeal. Let’s go further…
Shmidt to Prosecutor General’s Office:
«On 14 February 2005, on the basis of my motion by the judicial act of the appeallate instance of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region the security measures to prohibit the exception of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investmentss «DastinMarket» from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (USRLE) were adopted till the moment of proceeding on appeal.
On 15 February 2005 the writ of execution on the prohibition of exception of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» from USRLE had been received and submitted to execution in the registering body of the Inspectorate of Federal Tax Service in Tyumen № 3 by the moment of proceeding in appeal.
Anyway, the enterprise was excluded from USRLE on 15 February 2005 by the tax authority that entailed the termination of the proceedings in all claims submitted by me and in the claims submitted to the Commercial court of the Tyumen region and the Federal Commercial court of the West-Siberian Circuit:
Can you follow how corruption functions? The Tax inspectorate № 3 got the injunction against exception of the enterprise from USRLE, but anyway the same day it excluded the enterprise, — it is very important for this group of fraudsters, it is more important than the Law abuse, because the enterprise exception means the termination of all actions, of all proceedings that were initiated by A. Shmidt, of any protests and complaints in the following. If there is no enterprise, then there is no object. That is our legislation. This gap in legislation is applied by the special-order bankruptcies in the whole country repeatedly.
The exception of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» was recognized invalid by the judgment of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region of 17 June 2005 in the case А70-1693/8-05. The tax authority was ordered to restore in corporate the state registration of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket». The appellate and cassation instances despite of complaints of the bankruptcy trustee and the tax authorities of 17 June 2005 left the judgment of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region in effect. That is the one more evidence of the corruption – the tax inspectorate of Tyumen together with the lawyer of the bank S.Baskova filed the appeal against the judgment on the enterprise restoration in USRLE! It is also the mutual responsibility.
Also notice, the tax service didn’t lodge the claim against the bankruptcy trustee Shabalin who «has managed» not to pay those ridiculous six million rubles with kopecks from all auctioned property of CJSC «DastinMarket», because of which the tax service acted as the initiator of insolvency of the enterprise! Do you remember who submitted the claim at the beginning of my clause?
It’s striking that the enterprise was not just destroyed. The damage to the state was passing caused, no one kopeck of taxes was paid as a result of the auctions (it is strange, and what about the VAT from sale of property, the goods, the equipment? What about building sale? And was the auction really being held?). But the tax inspection didn’t ask questions the bankruptcy trustee, didn’t inspect concerning the due taxes, and stood near to him, side by side, in the judicial instances against restoration of the taxpayer. Maybe, the management of the region and the corresponding federal organs will be engaged in «arts» of «heroes» after this article? My colleague from abroad who runs the parallel journalistic investigation on materials of this business, but already in Luxembourg, phoned me actually to specify: «whether that was really the truth or not, and whether there were the supporting documents». I had to ask Aleksey Shmidt to send him the materials.
It’s also striking that all of that was known by the law enforcement bodies, by the municipal and regional public prosecutor’s offices, because A. Shmidt used to write and apply the documents with these facts repeatedly, but there was no reaction! They don’t see and don’t want to see!
I think, the inhabitants of Tyumen should know that. They should also know that the officials will go to every expedient they need. The Tax inspection №3 was disbanded and Aleksey Shmidt was obliged to appeal to the court in order to prove the legal succession of the tax inspection №14 to restore the CJSC «DastinMarket» in USRLE because he received the answer: there is no tax inspection №3 in the city, and your court order on restoration the tax is indicated the inspection №3!». The swindlers understood that the enterprise restoration in USRLE would entail the claims for damages, from the foreign investors including, and the total compensation. The enterprise is not still restored in the registry! Some manipulations were made in the subsequent by the uncertain persons, it is investigating now who and on what basis falsified the subsequent records, the inquiries are sent to the federal organs.
A. Shmidt: «On 15 November 2005 the appeal instance of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region including the president judge Koksharov A.A. and the judges Rozhenas and Sinko confirmed the judicial act of the judge of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region Loskutov of 10 February 2005 on termination of bankruptcy proceedings, and my appeal was unsatisfied. Besides that decision was made by the illegal composition of the court. The judge Koksharov A.A. was not entitled to participate in the appeal instance of that trial as it was forbidden by law because that was him who had accepted in November, 2003 the application of TD of FSFR of the Tyumen region and had adopted the ruling on preparation of bankruptcy proceeding concerning CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket».
On 28 November 2005 the Federal Commercial court of the West-Siberian Circuit refused to satisfy the claim of the tax authority and the bankruptcy trustee and left the judgment of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region of 17 June 2005 on restoration of the state registration of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» in USRLE.
Throughout all years till today the judgement of the Commercial Court of the Tyumen region of 16 June 2005 hasn’t been executed by the tax bodies administrating the state register of legal entities.
On the basis of the judgment given by the Commercial court of the Tyumen region of 17 June 2005, the resolutions of the appeal instance of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region of 01 September 2005 and the cassation instance of the Federal Commercial Court of the West-Siberian Circuit of 28 November 2005 and because of the fact that the enterprise was subject to the restoration in USRLE, I submitted the applications on revision of judicial acts under the newly revealed matters in the case instituted earlier. My applications were left without satisfaction by the judges. In the judgment of the court “CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» had been already excluded by the registering body from USRLE, i.e., the case was a subject to the termination and the fact that the tax authorities didn’t restore the registration against the judgement wasn’t the reason for revision under the newly revealed matters». No claim filed by me was considered by the court in essence of the claimed demands (on acknowledgement invalid the underestimated valuation of the property of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «Dastin Market», on nullification of the actions, on nullification of the pledges, on nullification of the line of credit, on nullification of the Arbitration agreement, on revision of the bankruptcy trustee report and termination of bankruptcy proceedings taking into consideration that the court bailiffs didn’t charge the means got by distrained(?) and withdrawn goods sale of «Dastin Market» etc.).
In December, 2008 I received a writ of enforcement on execution of the Judgement of the Commercial Court of the Tyumen region of 17 June 2005 in the case А70-1693/8-2005. The received writ of considering that tax authority didn’t execute the judgement on its own, it was submitted to the court bailiff service.
During the struggles from 2005 to 2008 the registering body the Inspectorate of FTS of Russia of Tyumen № 3 was replaced with the Inspectorate of FTS of Russia of Tyumen № 14. Within the case was found out the legal succession of the registering body obliged to execute the judgement.
In December, 2011, having studied the executive proceeding initiated on the basis of the writ of enforcement presented by me, I learnt that the writ of enforcement was in the case of that executive proceeding and was not presented for execution by the registering bodies. The judgment of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region of 17 June 2005 in the case А70-1693/8-2005 is not executed by the registering bodies till now. The writ of enforcement wasn’t returned to my address, it was made disappear. The similar illegal actions/inactions were assessed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the Decree No. 13-n, dispositions of which stipulate, that the non-execution of judgements turns justice into farce»
Only in October, 2011, the deputy public prosecutor of the Central Autonomous Circuit of Tyumen A.S. Mokhov ref. No. 135-204 of 28.102001 apologized to Aleksey Shmidt for the unreasonable institution of criminal proceedings against him in the case No. 200403835/14 under the application of the lawyer of “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” Baskova. Do you remember?: On 25 November 2004 the resolution of the judge of the Central district court of Tyumen Belousova M. Y. of 27 September 2004 on declaration illegal the criminal case № 200403835/14 entered into legal force. Let’s estimate, in 2004 — a judgement on innocence, but only in 2011, in October – apology of Public Prosecutor’s Office and an explanation of the rights of A. Shmidt, including the moral damage compensation. And that’s all? And did mister public prosecutor Mokhov initiate the institution of a criminal case against the guilty person whose slander had been a ground for the prosecution of the obviously innocent person as the legislation requires? I’ll answer – no, he didn’t! Obviously, S. Baskova belonged to «the local untouchables».
My journalistic investigation would be incomplete if I didn’t analyse the legality
of actions of arbitration managers of the non-commercial partnership «Siberian Guild of Crisis Managers» (NP SGCM). To be unprejudiced, we will follow «the letter of the law», that is the conformity of the Law of the Russian Federation «On insolvency (bankruptcy) of 2002».
First of all the Law provides in Article 2 such concepts as follows:
As you understand, no of these measures laying down the Law were applied in relation to CJSC «DastinMarket». There was a straight line to close down the enterprise carried out by the trustee of SGCM, having indicated the improper creditor – OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”.
How did that all become possible? Many things become clear when you study a question of affiliation in bankruptcy. The system mechanisms are often hidden from human eyes and any publicity. Let’s take a look at the document on the constitution of SGCM and the scheme:
We can see that a sort of the «independent guild» created on the initiative of three Governors: of the Tyumen region, the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Autonomous Circuit and Yamal-Nenetskiy Autonomous Circuit. That was certainly made to serve their interests. In other words, the governor Filipenko was the initiator of the constitution of NP SGCM and the Chairman of the board of directors of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”, where the authority of KMAC represented by the Committee on the state property that he headed, was the founder of this bank, E. Baskov was in the Council of NP SGCM, i.e he was a managing person in relation to the trustees Vasilyev–Chebotaryov and Yuriy Shabalin. E. Baskov is the lawyer S. Baskova’s — the chief of the legal department of the Tyumen branch of “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” at that moment — official husband ,. In addition Baskova S.V. was the judge of the Court of arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Tyumen region. However, the co-founder of that Court was OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”. Do you feel what kind of «machine» was created to serve theinterests of «untouchables»? (That’s why, dear sirs and madams, the decision of the Court of arbitration “was concocted”!).
Dear judge V.Loskutov! It is clear now why A. Shmidt sought refusal of Yuriy Shabalin as bankruptcy trustee many times and at the hearing concerning the appointment rejected E. Baskov. Otherwise that would have been absolutely interesting – Baskova S. working for the bank, and the husband – the bankruptcy trustee. Your appointment of Shabalin in spite of the recusal sought by A. Shmidt, the inactivity after numerous appeals of the shareholder A. Shmidt (the interested, third party) on replacement of the bankruptcy trustee, on the committed violations of the law, on the damage caused to the enterprise – it is called «prejudice“ in the international judiciary practice, istn’t it? You are the deputy chairman of the Chamber of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region, aren’t You? That’s the way You show your colleagues how to work? I think the qualification chamber of the regional Commercial Court and of the disciplinary commission should pay their attention to your actions.
From the appeal of A. Shmidt:
«On 18 March 2004 I came to the Commercial court of the Tyumen region in order to add the independent market-based valuation of the property of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket» to the case А-70-7994/3-2003 and also to learn the results of the consideration of my motions and complaints:
— motion for adjournment of the first creditors’ meeting of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» in connection with the appeal of the ruling of 06 February 2004 on acknowledgement of requirements of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” under the cassational procedure,
— my cassation on resolution of the judge of the Commercial court of the Tyumen region Loskutov V. of 06 February 2004 on acknowledgement of requirements of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” bank under the cassational procedure.
— motion for suspension of the consideration of a case А70-7994/3-2003 in connection with the necessity of consideration in the first place of the cases under the claims of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket «, submitted by me, the director of the enterprise Shmidt A.I.
I found out «unintentionally / casually for the court» that the case А70-7994/3-2003 concerning the establishment of the bankruptcy management and the appointment of the bankruptcy trustee was going to be considered. Thus having been uninformed of the date and time of the proceeding, I succeeded in being present at it.
The judicial acts under the motion granted by me for adjournment of the first creditors’ meeting and for suspension of proceeding in the case А70-7994/3-2003 weren’t received by me, subsequently that was found out that they hadn’t been considered by the court at all and the judicial acts hadn’t been adopted, that was the infringement of the article 159 of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation!
The judge Loskutov started the legal investigation of the case on 18 March 2004 without case materials, because according to the Article 275 of APC of the Russian Federation the materials of the case А70-7994/3-2003 were directed with my cassation of 02 March 2004 on the ruling on acknowledgement of requirements of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” of 06 February 2004 to Federal Commercial Court of the West-Siberian Circuit.
At the proceedings in the case А70-7994/3-2003 that took place on 18 March 2004, came the unknown people and the court on the basis of the first creditors’ meeting of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» that was held on 3 March 2004 with the proper creditor OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”, that had 94,99 % of voices of the creditor, according to the register of the creditors’ first meeting drawn up on 03 March 2004 by the interim trustee Vasilyev-Chebotarev began the consideration of the matter on introduction of the bankruptcy management and appointment of the bankruptcy trustee. My objections, the presented market-based valuation of the enterprise (valuation of LLC» Region-otsenka» of 01 Oktober 2003), the motion for adjournment of the proceedings in the case because of the absence of materials of the case and/or its suspension weren’t considered/satisfied.
Only then I found out that the strangers present at the proceeding were the candidates for bankruptcy trustee of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket». Thereby that was proved that the judgement at the proceeding on 18 March 2004 had been already known to them –the bankruptcy proceeding will be introduced. (Author: That was one more indirect evidence of contractual courts and special-order bankruptcy).
The candidates for a bankruptcy trustee were offered by the non-commercial partnership «Siberian Guild of Crises Managers » (2B Rosa Luxembourg str., Tyumen, 625003, INN 8610002420 KPP 861001001) that had been founded by 3 governors of the Tyumen region.
The first candidate for the job of bankruptcy trustee offered by the court was the trustee in bankruptcy Baskov Evgeniy Stepanovich, the husband of Baskova S.V. – the lawyer and the chief of the legal department of the Tyumen branch of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” whom I sought refusal of, taking in consideration these circumstances. The constitution of the family business in order to capture another’s property by the improper creditor (withdrawal and re-registration by the husband) would be the top of legal nihilism.
After the court offered the trustee in bankruptcy Shabalin Yuriy Gennadevich. In spite of the fact that the court knew that Shabalin J.G. and Baskov E.S. worked together, the judge appointed Shabalin Y.G. bankruptcy trustee of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket». That judicial act was to come into force immediately.
CJSC «EFI» DastinMarket» was declared bankrupt on the basis of the acknowledgement of requirements of 06 February 2004 of the improper creditor — OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” and the first creditors’ meeting held with the improper creditor of 03 March 2004 at which as if that creditor succeeded to possess 94,99 % of voices and voted FOR the introduction of the committee of bankruptcy at the enterprise.»
It is very important to know: the acting large enterprise was made bankrupt by trustees in bankruptcy by means of manipulations, forgeries and fictitious documents issued by NP SGCM and OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” which was determined as the improper creditor but introduced the committee of bankruptcy at the first creditors’ meeting. Aleksey Shmidt didn’t refer to that. He was deprived of the enterprise under the fraudulent scheme (takeover), and then inexplicably liquidated the property. Can you imagine a bankruptcy trustee with the impairment insurance only for one million rubles (again an incident) who became the absolute master of property and goods in amount of ten millions dollars? Therein under I’ll describe how was caused the damage to the enterprise especially by shareholders.
The list of the illegal actions of the bankruptcy trustee Y.G. Shabalin:
This infringements are enough to declare the actions of the trustee Shabalin as such that substantially damaged the enterprise in an especially large amount, at the same time they damaged the state by non-payment of the taxes and the VAT from sales as it is reflected in the Shabalin’s interrogation by the senior investigator of the Investigation Department of Directorate of Internal Affairs of Leninskiy administrative circuit of the city of Tyumen the senior lieutenant of justice M.V.Tsiporkina, – I’d like to quote the Shabalin’s words: «The settlement with creditors was executed at a rate of 93%, the obligations were not carried out among bankruptcy creditors only in respect of the tax inspectorate because of the absence of property». Yes, it was! The value of the property of the enterprise was about 450 million rubles, but the bankruptcy trustee didn’t find money for the state in the name of the Tax inspectorate that has initially submitted the claim on insolvency of «DastinMarket» in order to get arrears in amount of six millions rubles “with kopecks”! What did they write off the accounts receivable? Was that a theft? It is a question to the «blind» law enforcement bodies of Tyumen.
The copy of the case lays in front of me, referring to A. Shmidt (ref. 23/10-2194 of 09 April 07) sent by the investigator M.Tsiporkina. Probably she is a professional investigator, a clear head, for all that long-term story she was only one who laboriously questioned all characters and has been an impartial person in the proceeding, ceased the criminal case No. 200500108/01 on the basis of item 1 part 2 of Article 24 (2) (1) of CPC of the Russian Federation, instituted against the undetermined person of OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» concerning the «physicists», i.e. the impairment to CJSC «DastinMarket» by collecting of sums for the consumer credits which were ostensibly granted by the bank to physical persons and where CJSC was admitted to be a VICTIM. It is remarkable that despite the frauds in the Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk the criminal case was instituted on 22 April 2005 by the assistant public prosecutor of the Leninskiy district of Tyumen Biktimirov R. M., it means the public prosecutor saw the reason and the basis. Why did the investigator cease the criminal case? Let’s take a look at the Resolution on termination of the criminal case of 9 April 2007. I will tire you only of the extracts in order to understand the investigator’s logic, in brackets I will insert my comments, the spelling is kept:
«…By the preliminary investigation carried out in the case it was established that the credit agreements with physical persons Korsakov A.M., Popov S.A., Vardugin E.A., Nelichaev M. V and Lukmanov T.Z. were concluded for a period of six months under 70 % annual. As a result, the credit agreements were extended up to April, 2000. (Author: why these physical persons only? The list is much longer, if the bank had made an inspection, it would be even longer, in the editorial office you can find the list) Within the periods the credit interests were paid. (Author: who and how did that?). After the termination of the periods of the credit agreements, the total credits were not returned to the bank. (Author: the investigator inspected whether they were received in a total amount, if yes, who received them? And in the materials of the case there are the testimonies of the «physicists» in the commercial courts that they had never received the credits, didn’t open accounts in KMB, didn’t pay interests … Do you remember, dear Reader, that the bank withdrew urgently the claims from the court? In the case there are also the testimonies and the application of A.Shmidt, enclosing the facts of non-existent «physicists» and «dead souls» that were discovered by his security service, the list of contracts of guarantee that he added to the credit agreements of physical persons. So why didn’t the inspector see the existing fact – who were the persons the bank concluded the contracts with? To whom and how was the cash given? Who and how paid the credit interests monthly? For the information to the investigator – that was the bank that bore the liability for the credit granting, but not «DastinMarket, and the Guarantor bore a joint liability with the borrower for the credit non-return. But, dear inspector, if the borrower didn’t take money, if there were the whole list of “dead souls» and «false” passports of citizens of Russia, then it is called «A C R I M E ». But the investigator for some reason didn’t see those facts. And such credits were granted in the bank not only under the guarantee of «DastinMarket». The scopes of plunders and «cashing in» are much larger)… CJSC «EFI “DastinMarket” according to the payment orders No.10, 11, 14, 16 and 17 transferred from the loan account opened under the line of credit agreement to the account of the Tyumen branch of OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» the money means in amount of 2 439 130 rubles according to the credit agreements with physical persons in relation to which it acted as the guarantor, thereby having fulfilled the obligations under guarantee contracts. (Author: that’s right, it fulfilled the obligations and charged the employees of the security service with an investigation in order to find out why the «physicists» hadn’t returned money to the bank, how could it be collected, what would be in respect of the other guarantee contracts, and they «dug out» that everything was «a fake», therefore they had written the Applications to the law enforcement bodies and filed an action on compensation of the damage caused by fraud of persons of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”. Is it Correct? That’s why, you are holding for questioning in the instituted criminal case.)
The questioned person Shmidt A.I. testified … Since the Constitution and beginning of the activity the enterprise was serviced by the Tyumen branch of «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk», 1999-2000 as the director of the company he was offered by the bank’s management to take part in the development of mortgage lending programs and to make CJSC the guarantor under the credit agreements of physical persons. CJSC cooperated with the bank, he trusted the management of the bank, in connection with it he agreed to act as a guarantor under the credit agreements with physical persons, who were unrelated to CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» and weren’t its employees. At the request of the bank’s management he signed the complete package of documents; he was sent the signed credit agreements with physical persons for the familiarization. Having familiarized with the credit agreements he signed a contract of guarantee in presence of the representative of the bank; the physical persons-creditors (auth.: the borrowers obviously) at the signing of a contract of guarantee were not present, he didn’t demand the meeting with them,…. In December 2003, during the inventory of accounts of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» the accounting department required to the legal department to collect the amounts in recourse that were given to repay loans of Nelichev M.V., Lukmanov T.Z., Vardugin E. A., Korsakov A.M. and Popov S.A., in the total amount of 2,439,130 rubles. In course of the preparation for the actions only Lukmanov T.Z. was found, the others didn’t live at the indicated addresses, they were the dead persons. Lukmanov T.Z. rejected the claims filed to him, explaining that in the period from 1998 to 2003 he wasn’t in the contractual relationship with OJSC «The Bank Khanty-Mansiysk», didn’t take any loans, didn’t open any accounts…
The questioned person Mits V.A. testified that since January 2005 (auth.:obviously it is a slip, one must understand since 1995) till August 1999, and then since December 2001 till the summer 2003, he worked at the Tyumen branch of «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» and his responsibilities as the director of the Tyumen branch included the complete organization of the branch, its development and management, the people were and the reporting to the head office. In 1998 A. Shmidt began to implement the construction and preparation of the activity of CJSC «EFI “DastinMarket”, the construction was carried out on the expense of shareholders’ money. …According to the agreement with Shmidt, he instructed the credit department in respect of the preparation of the necessary documents. In April 1999 between the Tyumen branch of the bank and physical persons Popov, Nelichev, Korsakov, Lukmanov and Vardugin were concluded the credit agreements in the total amount of about 2.5 million rubles. (Auth.: dear reader, it’s not true, you have seen a table and a list of physical persons and contracts of guarantee only with «DastinMarket’ in amount of more than 7 million).On behalf of theBank the contracts were signed by the deputy Golodkov who had the signatory authority and the chief accountant of the bank Domnina. Simultaneously with the signing of the credit agreements with physical persons were signed the contracts of credit guarantee, it was agreed with Shmidt CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» acted as the guarantor …after the signing of the contracts the physical persons-borrowers received money in cash under the contracts in the branch cash desk, the act of the reception was reflected in the accounting records of the branch .(Author: Mr. Mits tried to fool ,the credit agreements should be considered as well as the borrower, at the credit committee, the borrower was required to present a stack of documents, such as a certificate of employment, certificate of income, a residence permit, obligatory to open a personal bank account, under the instructions the bank should transfer the credit to the account, only after that a «physicist» could get cash in the cash desk with his passport, etc. This is not a communicating courtyard, but a loan institution. But we know that the «physicists” didn’t exist. And the investigator didn’t ask the «extra» questions; obviously it wasn’t a part of the task. Otherwise, it would have been necessary to check the bank, the bank office, the physical persons’ accounts, but they did not need to open the banal theft of money and «cashing out» under consumer loans). … After receiving the credits the interests were paid to the bank for the period of the credit agreement. Who paid the interests he did not know … (Auth.: Was it known to the director of the branch, who was to be interrogated by the investigator? Why didn’t the investigator find out that? This is «the heart of the matter» — the mechanism of theft commitment and fraud cover. Even an absolute idiot could know that!).
…The questioned person Gerdov V.F. testified that since October 1994 to February 2001 he worked in Tyumen at OJSC “The bank of Khanty Mansiysk”, since 1998 he was the head of the department of work with population and his responsibilities included the management of physical persons crediting…
…He received a verbal order from the director of the bank to execute the required documents for credit granting, then the division began to prepare the necessary documents. How the information about physical persons was get, he didn’t remember. After the preparation for the signing of credit agreements and contracts of guarantee the borrowers were invited to the bank to sign the documents, and then the money was handed to the borrowers (Author: How were signed the agreements with the dead persons and how was the cash handed to them?).In April 1999 there were the credits granted to the physical persons under the guarantee of CJSC «DastinMarket». Under guarantee of CJSC the credit interests of physical persons were paid regularly (Auth.: by whom?) …
…The questioned person Golodkov A.V. testified that in 1994 he worked in the Tyumen branch of «The Bank of Khanty Mansiysk», since 1998 he was appointed as deputy director of the branch, he was responsible for resource management, execution of duties of the Director in his absence …
…In connection with the held position, he was a member of the credit committee of the bank, who considered the questions concerning the crediting of physical and legal persons. The meetings of the committee were held as necessary on the determined time, the credit committee carried out its activity on the basis of the approved «Regulation on credit committee». The procedure of the credit granting to physical persons was as follows: a physical person submitted an appropriate application to the bank, that application was to be considered by the credit committee and in case of the decision to give the credit, the person fulfilled the documents, namely a credit agreement, a contract of guarantee and term liabilities… ( Author: that was really striking none of the employees mentioned the way one could get cash from the bank. I’ll answer – only from the account and only by the account holder with the passport).
… The crediting of physical persons was in accordance with the terms and the limits of the bank. The decision on crediting physical persons under guarantee of «DastinMarket» was made by the credit committee of the bank. He signed the credit agreements with physical persons, because at that time he held the position of the director of the branch, he signed the prepared contracts, that had been already signed by the borrowers, the prepared contracts of guarantee were signed too, i.e. they had been already signed by the director of «DastinMarket» and the main accountant of the enterprise. He had never met the borrowers. After the signing of the documents, they were transferred to the crediting department and after to the accounting department to grant funds. (Auth.: the money was not given in the accounting department, but only at the cash desk on the basisan identity card). The credit interests were duly paid ..(Auth.: this is not essential, essential is by whom and how?)
The questioned person Kvassov V.V. testified that he worked at the Tyumen branch of «The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk», since 1999 he was appointed as director of the bank …
… The decision on crediting was made by the credit committee. Then the necessary documents were drawn and were signed by the director of the branch, the money had to be received by the physical persons personally on the basis of the identity card (Author: Finally, right!)
(Author: and now attention — the « physicists»!)
The questioned person Kosakov A.M. testified that … he hadn’t concluded the credit agreement with OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk», and had never opened the accounts in the bank.(Author: let’s keep it in mind)
The questioned person Dementieva E.G. testified that Nalichev M.B. cohabited with her relative previously and lived in the same apartment for a long time. Nalichev misused alcohol, in the period since 1999 to 2000 he was unemployed. He died on 16 December 1999. Whether he had lost his passport or not before he died, she didn’t know. Whether he had concluded a credit agreement with OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» or not, she didn’t know, but she has never seen any bank documents.
The questioned person Lukmanov T.Z. testified that … he hadn’t concluded the credit agreement with OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk», and had never opened accounts in that bank. (Author: let’s keep this in mind)
The questioned person Popov S.A. testified that … he hadn’t concluded the credit agreement with OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk», and had never opened accounts in that bank. (Author: let’s keep this in mind)
The questioned person Vardugin E.A. testified that … he hadn’t concluded the credit agreement with OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk», and had never opened accounts in that bank. (Author: let’s keep this in mind)
The questioned person Shabalin Y.G. testified that since 18 March 2004, pursuant to the Resolution of the Commercial Court of the Tyumen region, he was appointed as a bankruptcy trustee, having held that position in accordance with the law during the term. Every three months he provided the reports about the progress made to the creditors of “DastinMarket”. The applicant on recognition the enterprise «DastinMarket» bankrupt was the Ministry of taxes and tax collections of the RF in the Tyumen region. There were 5 or 6 creditors of the bankrupt enterprise, including the tax inspectorate and OJSC «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk». The total account payable constituted 130 million rubles …
…The settlement was made in amount of 93%, from the number of bankruptcy creditors only the obligations to the tax authorities were not fulfilled because of the lack of property. After the court had accepted the report, the Resolution on finishing of bankruptcy proceedings and liquidation was adopted. The enterprise «DastinMarket» was liquidated.
The conclusion of the examination No. 4784 of 26 September 2006 according to its findings the signature in the column «Guarantor» in the contracts of guarantee belonged probably to A. Shmidt; the signatures in the column «Bank» in the contracts of guarantee was made probably by Golodkov A.V.; the signatures in the column «Borrower» in the credit agreements with physical persons didn’t belong to Lukmanov T.Z., Popov S.A., Vardugin S.A., Korsakov A,M, »
(Author: The investigator got confessions in fraud of all bank employees, theyhad concluded the contracts with physical persons, and the money had been «somehow» paid in cash to the creditors, but the physical persons hadn’t got credits and hadn’t opened the bank accounts, though someone had been paying interests regularly. That’s why I called her «a good girl» after she had made the «prodigious conclusion «) From the above-written one can see that in April 1999 under the guise of the concluded credit agreements with physical persons Korsakov A.M., Popov S.A., Vardugin E.A., Nelichev M.V. Lukmanov T.Z. and by the conclusion of contracts of guarantee with CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» the Tyumen branch» of “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» credited CJSC “EFI «DastinMarket» in amount of 2 439 130 rubles. (Author: i underlined that That was why A. Shmidt filed an application that the enterprise had been caused damage, that «physicists» didn’t exist, that fraud had been committed, so recourse was not his business as guarantor … the investigator didn’t take it into consideration) … as the objective and subjective elements are missed the relationships of both enterprises should be considered in the arbitration proceedings.
Based on the mentioned above, guided by Article 24 (1) (2) and Article 213 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation
1. To terminate the criminal case No. 200500108/01 on the grounds specified in Article 24 (1) (2) of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation… Investigator: Signature.
NO COMMENTS. I do not know how can A.Shmidt wait to stand all this, to dispute methodically, to seek justice, I would have given a way to despair. With such «gumshoes» it is unallowable to establish the death penalty. I showed this Resolution to the old prosecutor who had already retired, «thimble riggers, they should be got the boot ….» And who approved that, and who were the supervisors? I will explain to the reader — the responsibility for the credit granting bears the credit institution, and the guarantor bears jointly liability for credit repayment. A. Shmidt didn’t grant any fictitious consumer credits instead of the bank! To the dead and the forged especially. Why «DastinMarket» should be responsible for these loans?
But I’m interested in the testimony of Shabalin. We remember that the amount of the line of credit that was opened in favour of «DastinMarket» under the credit agreement No. 413 was 88 million rubles. 6 million “with kopecks” were claimed by the tax inspectorate. In addition, the bank had been writing off the interests without acceptance, then how did the bank have 130 million of requirements? If the fact that to the amount of requirements of the fictitious bankruptcy creditor «The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk» directly or veiledly included the amount of «physicists», that the Bank had given to the false persons and «dead souls», is confirmed, then the enterprise was caused the additional damage by fraud.
A. Shmidt didn’t possess the reports of the bankruptcy trustee. All requests were ignored. The requests to the courts were ignored too. The requests to the law enforcement authorities were also ignored. The requests to the public prosecutor’s office, as supervision authority – also ignored. The replies didn’t offer the information. The request to the foreign investors, shareholders of NP SGCM wasn’t taken into account. The restriction of the information access is one of the main violations of human rights under the Constitution. A. Shmidt’s appeal to the Council of Federation did not help either. That was how the free entrepreneur A. Shmidt became a hostage of the system and a slave of circumstances. I emphasize that all these facts were known, A. Shmidt referred to all the law enforcement agencies. Uselessly, the interests of «untouchables» are infringed…
From the Application of Shareholders of “Dastin Handelshaus AG” (Luxembourg) to the Ministry of Justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg:
«… The materials of the case of the Court of Arbitration of the Tyumen region A70-7994/3-2003 on bankruptcy of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» indicate that to the register of creditors of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» the investor Dastin Handelshaus AG, whose investment was protected by the dispositions of the Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investment and by the Protocol to the Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Government of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg of 1989, was not included.
The dispositions of Article1 of the Agreement stipulate the term of “investment”, which shall comprise every kind of assets to be invested by the one Contracting Party on the territory of the other Contracting Party in accordance with the law of the last one including in particular:
1.2.1. such property as buildings and equipment, and any property rights thereto;
1.2.2. monetary funds, as well as rights derived from shares, bonds and other forms of participation;
The provisions of Article 4 of the Agreement of 09 February 1989 indicate that Each Contracting Party shall ensure fair and equitable treatment to the investments of investors of the other Contracting Party and shall not impair, by unreasonable or discriminatory measures, the operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal thereof by those investors.
Thus, from the bankruptcy assets should be excluded the property which was an investment of the company Dastin Handelshaus AG on the territory of the Russian Federation in CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investmentss «DastinMarket» in amount of 99% of fixed assets of the enterprise, that is: 459 264 718,80 rubles * 99% = 454 672 071.61 (four hundred fifty-four million six hundred seventy-two thousand seventy-one rubles 61 kopecks) rubles … «
From the application to the Ministry of Justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for compensation:
«… In addition, in 2000 between Dastin Handelshaus AG (JSC, Dastin Handelshaus AG) and CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments DastinMarket» the Agency agreement No. 1/00-VED of 01 August 2000 was concluded, according to it Dastin Handelshaus AG sent to CJSC «DastinMarket» the goods in amount of 300,000.00 (three hundred thousand) DM (the conversion rate to euro is equal to 1.95583, that is 153,387.00 euros). The owner of the goods under the Agency agreement was Dastin Handelshaus AG. The passport of import transaction No. 2/33582247/000/0000000068 was opened in the Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk.
The goods under the Agency agreement were to be excluded from the bankruptcy assets, as it was the property of Dastin Handelshaus AG, but not of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket .»
… Meanwhile, the bankruptcy trustee Shabalin didn’t exclude the investment of Dastin Handelshaus AG from the bankruptcy assets, as well as the goods under the agency agreement № 1/00-VED of 01 August 2000 weren’t excluded either. «
You have to know the International law, to understand that the expropriation of foreign property was carried out, legalized and confirmed by obviously illegal acts of commercial courts of the Russian Federation. In fact, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was not in a «state of war» with Russia. Did the bankruptcy trustee and the judge Loskutov understand what they were talking? Now Russia is responsible for the expropriation of the property of a foreign owner!
One of the reasons that made me write this article is my anger, that for all the «arts» made by the «group of persons in conspiracy» to take over the foreign property, the country’s budget represented by the Ministry of Finance will be responsible. Yes, yes, dear reader, the fraudsters steal, the corrupted officials and judges cover them and the budget bears liability, finally it is laid on us — the taxpayers. I hope the Legislators will at last fix liability of state officials for their actions/inactions? Therefore, as for me personally, I’m going to give this article to the appropriate federal agencies. If the law enforcement system does not see and does not want to see the crimes committed by the Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk and the theft of property of foreign investors, let our government, the public and our citizens see that. I’m at your disposal…
Part 2. Criminal-procedural waltz.
The judges are only the humans, and like others, they are influenced by prejudice. This is the corruption in essence, name it the way you like.
The complaint in the manner, established by Article 124
of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation
… Part 1: History of appeals against refusals to institute a criminal case on the ground of the application on fictitious bankruptcy of JSC «FDI» DastinMarket. «
On 04 May 2010 I, Aleksey Iosifovich Shmidt as the applicant (in the person of the participant of the first creditors’ meeting of CJSC «EFE «DastinMarket», the representative of shareholders of «EFI «DastinMarket»; shareholder of CJSC «FDI» DastinMarket «, the victim in the criminal case No. 200500108/01, instituted by DIA Leninskiy Administrative Circuit of Tyumen, the former head of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» representative of the debtor CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket»; the recoverer under the writ of execution No. 081531 of 15 February 2005, issued by the Commercial court of the Tyumen region, the recovered under the writ of execution No. 126438 of 22 December 2008 issued by the Court of Arbitration of the Tyumen region, a creditor according to the register of creditors of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket», the representative of employees of CJSC «FDI «DastinMarket», a Russian citizen), sent a communication on the fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket » of 03 May 2010. The fictitious bankruptcy was made compulsory with seizure of the enterprise under corrupt scheme with the great violation of the procedural and the substantive law and the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
On 09 June 2010 I received a letter from the acting head of the Department for supervision on abiding Federal law of the public prosecutor’s office in the Tyumen region L.A. Klenskaya ref. № 7-571-2010 of 04 June 2010 who informed that the communication on fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» that had been reported from the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, had been sent for checking to the public prosecutor of the Kalininskiy administrative circuit of Tyumen.
By the response of the public prosecutor of the Kalininskiy administrative circuit of Tyumen D.F. Gubskiy ref. № 894-zh-2010 of 07 July 2010 I was reported that concerning the communication on the fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investmentss «DastinMarket» the checking had been carried out.Thereby it was impossible to carry out any verification activities with regard to CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket”. Concerning the fact of the property concealment of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket «, its exclusion from the estimated weight, its non-realization during the bankruptcy proceedings, the undervaluation of the property complex, etc. the materials of the checking had been directed to the head of the police department of Tyumen Shilovskikh D.A. for checking in the manner, established by Articles144-145 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
On 14 August 2010 I received a resolution of the detective of the department for crime revealing in the industry and the energy sector, the Department for economic crimes of Tyumen A.A. Deybus on refusal to institute a criminal case of 02 August 2010, approved by the acting head of KM Directorate for Internal Affairs of Tyumen D.A. Sevryukov of 02 August 2010 at 14:50 who had refused to institute a criminal case under the communication on crime according to Article 197 of the Criminal Code on the grounds of of Article 24 (1) (2) of the Criminal Procedural Code (because of absence of the corpus delicti in the act) on the basis of the checking of the communication on crime KUSP № 16439 of 21 July 2010, namely, non-response to the sent request.
On 17 August 2010 I received a writ from the detective of the police department A.A. Deybus according to which I was summoned to the police department of Tyumen as an applicant at 15:00. of 17 August 2010 to the following address: Tyumen, Belinskogo str., 22, office 318. That day, I was questioned in respect of this communication for the first time.
On 6 September 2010 I received a resolution of the detective of the department for crime revealing in the industry and the energy sector, the Department for economic crimes, of Tyumen AA Deybus on refusal to institute a criminal case dated 23 August 2010, approved by the acting head of KM who refused to institute a criminal case under the communication on crime according to Article 197 of the Criminal Code on the grounds of Article 24 (1) (2) of the Criminal Procedural Code on the basis of the checking of the communication on crime KUSP № 3357-10 (KUSP № 16439 of 21 July 2010) (the reason was the absence of the corpus delicti in the act), due to the lack of information indicating the presence of corpus delicti, namely, non-response to the request sent to the territorial body of the Federal State Statistics Service of the Tyumen region, the Commercial Court of the Tyumen region providing for copies of judgments concerning this case .
On 22 September 2010 I filed a complaint under Article124 of the Criminal Procedural Code with the public prosecutor of Kalininskiy administrative circuit of Tyumen D.F. Gubskiy against the resolution of the detective of the department for crime revealing in the industry and the energy sector, the Department for economic crimes, of Tyumen A.A. Deybus on refusal to institute a criminal case of 23 August 2010, approved by the acting head of KM Directorate for Internal Affairs of Tyumen D.A. Sevryukov of 23 August 2010.
On 29 September 2010 I received a response of the deputy public prosecutor of Kalininskiy administrative circuit of Tyumen E.I. Faizullin ref. № 1416-x-2010 of 29 September 2010 who informed me that the resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case of 23 August 2010 was at that time reversed by the public prosecutor’s office of the circuit, the materials of checking (№ 3357-2010) had been directed to the head of the police department of Tyumen in order to organize an additional checking.
On 11 October 2010 under the same reference number (ref. No. 1416-zh) the deputy public prosecutor of Kalininskiy administrative circuit of Tyumen E.I. Fayzzulin responded on my appeal of 06 Oktober 2010 on providing a copy of the resolution of 29 September 2010 on reverse of the resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case, that my appeal had been considered, the resolution couldn’t be handed to me as it was an official document and was not to be handed. And an additional checking was carried out concerning my application .
In response to my application of 06 Oktober 2010 on granting me information, as to the applicant under the communication on fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket», about the actions and measures taken in accordance with the dispositions of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedural Code a notification of the acting head of KM Directorate for Internal Affairs of Tyumen the police major D.A. Sevryukov, came to my address, ref. № 3-24722 of 12 Oktober 10 on refusal to institute a criminal case, without enclosure of the relevant resolution.
My application of 06 Oktober 2010 which had been filed with the public prosecutor’s office of the region was «sent down» to the public prosecutor of the Kalininskiy AC D.F. Gubskiy (ref. № 16-r-2010 of 13 Oktober 2010).
On 19 October 2010 the deputy public prosecutor of Kalininskiy AC of Tyumen E.I. Faizzullin ref. № 1416-zh-2010 of 19 Oktober 2010 (again) responded that at the time an additional checking was carried out referring my communication and I would be notified of its results by the Department for economic crimes the Directorate for Internal Affairs of Tyumen, and at the same time the legality of the procedural decision on results of the additional checking would be checked by the public prosecutor’s office of the circuit under supervisory competences.
In my second appeal of 22 Oktober 2010 on granting of information under my appeal concerning the fact of fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» of 08 November 2010 the resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case was sent to me by the detective of the department for crime revealing in the industry and the energy sector, the Department for economic crimes, of Tyumen Gabrielyan M.M., approved by the head of KM Directorate for Internal Affairs of Tyumen B.B. Iskuzhinov (because of the absence of the corpus delicti in the act as it had been impossible to question Shabalin Y.G.)
From the letter of the head of the Directorate on information and documentation of the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation V.V. Popov ref. № 5.8.4/20846p-2 of 09 November 2010, I found out that my appeals under the Constitution of the Russian Federation and in accordance with Article 8 (3) of the Federal Law of 02 May 2006, № 59-FZ «On the order of consideration of the appeals of citizens of the Russian Federation» had been forwarded to the public prosecutor’s office in the Tyumen region under the number 5.8.4/20846p-1.
From the letter of the public prosecutor of the Department for supervision of the inquiry and the operational-investigative activity of the Prosecutor’s General Office of the Russian Federation, L.F. Tyapkin ref. № 69/1-r-2010 of 08 November 2010 (came to my address 16 November 2010), I found out that my appeal of 06 Oktober 2010 had been sent to the public prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region to organize a thorough checking of the presented evidenced and to take respective measures.
From the responses of the acting head of the Department for supervision of the inquiry and the operational-investigative activity of the interior and the department of justice of the Tyumen region A. Pimanov ref. № 16-201-2010 of 22 November 2010, and ref. № 16-201-2010 of 26 November 2010, and ref. № 16-201-2010 of 02 December 2010, I found out that the regional prosecutor’s office had considered the documents received from the Prosecutor’s General Office and the Council of Federation to be duplicates. It was reported: «that on 19 November 2010 by the public prosecutor’s office of Kalininskiy Administrative Circuit of Tyumen the resolution of the detective of the Department for economic crimes of Tyumen Gabrielyan M.M. was reversed because of incomplete checking. At present, the additional checking is carried out under the case materials about the results of which I will be informed in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Due to the violation of law committed in the course of the checking by the public prosecutor’s office of the Kalininskiy AC, a presentation was sent to the head of the Directorate for Internal Affairs in Tyumen to eliminate the violations and bring the guilty persons to justice. The supervision over the initial inquiry on the specified material is carried out by public prosecutor’s office of the Kalininskiy AC of Tyumen.
On 22 December 2010 by post I received a cover letter ref. № 91/3-32498 of 15 December 2010 from the head of the KM DIA of Tyumen B.B. Iskuzhinov that informed me about the refusal to institute a criminal case concerning the application on fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «enterprise with foreign investmentss «DastinMarket». The Resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case was passed on 15 December 2010 by the detective of the department for crime revealing in the financial and credit sector, coinage offences of DIA of Tyumen M.M. Gabrielyan, approved by the head of KM DIA of Tyumen Colonel B.B. Iskuzhinov.
On 22 December 2010 a complaint was filed by me with the public prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region Vladimirov in the manner, established by Article 124 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
On 14 January 2011, by post I received a cover letter ref. № 91/3-34018 of 30 December 2010 from the head of the KM DIA of Tyumen B.B. Iskuzhinov, that informed me again about the refusal to institute a criminal case in respect of my Application on fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket”. The resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case was passed on 30 December 2010 by the detective for crime revealing in the financial and credit sector, coinage offences of DIA of Tyumen M.M. Gabrielyan, approved by the head of DIA of Tyumen Colonel B.B. Iskuzhinov.
In response to the complaint in the manner, established by Article 124 of the Criminal Procedural Code filed on 22 December.2010, the head of Department for supervision of the criminal procedural and operational-investigative activity of the public prosecutor’s office in the Tyumen region E.E. Kurmaev ref. 16-201-2010 of 20 January 2011, wrote that “on 30 December 2010 based on the results of additional checking of the materials on fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» the detective of the Department for economic crimes of DIA of Tyumen Gabrielyan M.M. the resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case passed. Due to the incomplete checking and the illegality of the resolution, it was reversed by the public prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region, the materials were submitted for the additional checking. In connection with the violations committed during the checking the prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region sent to the deputy head of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of the Tyumen region a presentation of 27 December 2010 with the formulation of bringing the guilty officials to responsibility, is currently pending. The public prosecutor of the Kalininskiy Administrative Circuit of Tyumen was entrusted to take personal responsibility for an additional checking on the mentioned materials.
Meanwhile, on 28 February 2011 the following resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case was passed by the detective of the Department for economic crimes of the Directorate for Internal Affairs of Tyumen Gabrielyan M.M.. This resolution was presented to me in a form of a copy by M.M. Gabrielyan without approval of his superior – head of KM DIA of Tyumen.
From the letter of the deputy prosecutor of the Kalininskiy AC of Tyumen E.I. Fayzzulina w/n of 10 March 2011, I found out that on basis of the results of the additional checking made by the public prosecutor’s office of the circuit the resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case of 28 February 2011 had been admitted unfounded and revoked under supervisory competences.
On 05 March 2011, I sent an Application to the acting head of the investigative directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation of the Tyumen region, Major General of Justice Boginskiy M.V. on inspection of legality of actions of prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region, prosecutor’s office of Kalininskiy AC of Tyumen and the bodies of inquiry concerning fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket».
On 17 March 2011 by post I received a notification of the acting head of the investigation department of the Tyumen region A.M. Akhmedzyanov ref. № 221r-11 of 11 March 2011 that informed me that my Application concerning the actions of the prosecutors of the Tyumen region, the prosecutors of the Kalininskiy AC of Tyumen, delivered on 05 March 2011, had been directed for consideration according to jurisdiction to the prosecutor of the Tyumen region.
On 21 March 2011 another resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case was passed by the detective of DEC DIA of Tyumen the senior lieutenant M.B. Safiyev. This resolution was approved by the acting head of KM DIA in Tyumen major D.A. Sevryukov that was presented to me only in the form of a copy.
On 01 April 2011 by post I received a cover letter ref. № 91/3-5345 of 28 February 2011 (?) from the head of KM DIA of Tyumen B.B. Iskuzhinov that informed me once again about the refusal to institute a criminal case concerning the Application on fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket». The resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case was passed on 28 February 2011 by the detective of the department for crime revealing in the financial and credit sector, coinage offences of DIA of Tyumen M.M. Gabrielyan, approved by the head of KM DIA in Tyumen Colonel B.B. Iskuzhinov.
On 06 April 2011 I made a request on information to the prosecutor of the Tyumen region, the Council of Federation of Russia, the Anti-Corruption Committee and the General Prosecutor of Russia where I asked to give me some information:
1. About the actions you have taken in connection with the report of the bankruptcy trustee of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket», invalidity of termination of bankruptcy proceedings, invalidity of the exception of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» from USRLE, in conjunction with Art. 195, 197,159,163,169,129,303,305,201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
2. Whether the actions of the officials of different authorities were checked in respect of their interest in the invalid exclusion of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» from USRLE;
3.The theft of property after the invalid fictitious bankruptcy was considered as completed or it should be returned to the victim in order to compensate damage according to Articles 2,8,10,15,34,48,49,50,52 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation;
4. Whether the checking was carried out on the basis of the order of the Prosecutor’s General Office and the Council of Federation on the fact of fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» in respect of the presence of organized crime group, criminal organization, a group of persons under a preliminary conspiracy;
5. Whether the violations of the Russian legislation were checked or established in the actions of the officials of different state authorities after the law had come into force at the moment of the crime commitment and its compliance regarding Article 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Devisions 1, 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Articles 53, 120 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
The head of the Department for supervision of criminal procedural and operational-investigative activity of the public prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region E.R. Gimatov ref. № 16-201-2010 of 14 April 2011 informed me that on 21 March 2011 based on results of the additional checking on the ground of the materials of the inspection № 3357-10 on the fact of fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» a resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case specified by Article 24 (2) (1) of the Criminal Procedural Code was issued by the detective of the Department for economic crimes of DIA in Tyumen Safiyev M.B. in respect of Shabalin Y., which was reversed by the prosecutor’s office of the region because of the incomplete checking and the illegality of the decision. A presentation based on which the guilty officials were brought to responsibility was sent To the deputy head of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of the Tyumen region. In connection with the improper supervision over the checking, the deputy prosecutor of the Kalininskiy AC of Tyumen region E.I. Faizullina was made answerable too. No violations were found out by the officials of the prosecutor’s office.
(Author: to what kind of responsibility? What were the consequences? On 30 September 2012 – no consequences! If the prosecutor’s office reversed the resolution of the detective Safiyev on refusal to institute a criminal case against Y.Shabalin due to the incomplete checking and the ILLEGALITY of the decision, then what will be next? Nothing, dear reader! Everything has disappeared in the bureaucratic system. Interesting, was Mr. Gimatov informed of further developments? Does any control exist over the decisions and terms of their execution in the Tyumen regional prosecutor’s office?)
On 3 May 2011 by post I received the response from the public prosecutor of the division of the department for supervision of criminal procedural and operational-investigative activity of the General Procecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation S.M. Kuzmin ref. № 69/1-р-2011 of 21 April 2011 which informed me that my appeal on the improper checking having acquired the bureaucratic character, had been directed by employees of the Department for economic crimes of the Directorate of Internal Affairs of Tyumen on the fact of fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC « Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» to the public prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region for the organization of the thorough checking.
On12 May 2011 by post I received the response from the head of the second division of the department of supervision of the criminal procedural and operational-investigative activity of the prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region E.E. Kurmaev ref. № 16-201-2010 of 11 May 2011 that informed me that “the duplicates of my appeal of 06 April 2011 which had been received by the prosecutor’s office from the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation were considered and all the presented materials were studied.” Also it was indicated in this response that before 06 February 2011 ref. № 16-201-2010 I had been already reported (but that response I received only 2 days later) that the plot of land which had been given in the perpetual permanent use to the CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» by the order of the Administration of Tyumen № 2772 of 17 July 2000, «could not be sold in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, but according to the sale contract of non-residential premises concluded on 08 August 2004 between CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» (seller) and LLC «Defo» (buyer), the person who acquired the specified object, was obliged to terminate the right of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket’ to use the plot of land and formalize it. Meanwhile, the buyer hadn’t fulfilled this obligation. Because of these circumstances the information for checking concerning the usage of the plot of land under the real property objects was directed by the prosecutor’s office of the region to the Directorate of Federal Service for State Registration, Cadasters and Cartography of the Tyumen region, the Yamal-Nenetskiy Autonomous Circuit, the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Autonomous Circuit which was the authorized body for implementation of the state land control «. ( Author: Here’s a trick, the enterprise «DastinMarket» in the person of A. Shmidt has never signed any contract with LLC «Defo», and if it was done by someone under a fictitious certificate of authority, then it is also a crime — the shareholders didn’t approve that, is that again a kind of fraud with the participation of Shabalin?)
On 14 May 2011 by mail I received the response (to my appeal of 06 April 2011, which was enclosed to the copy of the response that I had received 2 days earlier) from the head of the Department for supervision of criminal procedural and operational-investigative activity of the prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region E.R. Gimatov ref. № 16-201-2010 from 06 May 2011 which informed that on 21 March 2011 based on results of additional checking the materials of inspection № 3357-10 on fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» the resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case based on the grounds specified by Article 24 (1) (2) of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation was passed by the detective of the Department for economic crimes of DIA in Tyumen Safiyev M.B. in relation to Shabalin Y.G., which due to the incomplete checking and illegality of the decision of the prosecutor’s office of the region was reversed. The material is in the proceeding; in course of which the legal assessment of the actions of the bankruptcy trustee and other persons will be given. The prosecutor’s office of the region took over the control of the checking. In addition, in relation to the plot of land that was provided CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» based on the order of the Administration of Tyumen № 2772 of 17 July 2000 in perpetual permanent use was indicated that «it could not be sold in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, but according to the sale contract of non-residential premises concluded on 08 August 2004 between CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket» (seller) and LLC «Defo» (buyer), the person who acquired the specified object, is obliged to terminate the right of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket’ of use of the plot of land and formalize it. Meanwhile, the buyer didn’t fulfill this obligation. Because of these circumstances, by the prosecutor’s office of the region the information for checking concerning the use of the plot of land under the real property objects was directed to the Directorate of Federal Service for State Registration, Cadasters and Cartography of the Tyumen region, the Yamal-Nenetskiy Autonomous Circuit, the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Autonomous Circuit – which was the authorized body for the implementation of the state land control».
On 08 June 2011 by mail I received a cover letter ref. № 91/3-13308 dated 30 May 2011, from the acting deputy head of the Directorate for Internal Affairs (DIA) of Russia, the head of the police of DIA of Russia in Tyumen Colonel G.V. Penkov that informed me once again about the refusal to institute the criminal case concerning the application on fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «Enterprise with foreign investments «DastinMarket». The resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case was passed on 30 May 2011 by the detective of the department for revealing of crimes in the financial and credit sector, coinage offences of the Department of economic crimes of DIA of Tyumen senior lieutenant of the police M.M. Gabrielyan, approved by the acting head of the police of of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia of Tyumen Colonel G.V. Penkov.
On 21 June 2011 that resolution on refusal to institute a criminal case dated 30 May 2011 was appealed by me in the manner, established by of Article 124 of the Code.
On 02 September 2011, the head of the police of the Directorate of Internal Affairs of Russia of Tyumen G.V. Penkov approved again the resolution of the detective of the Department for revealing of crimes in the financial and credit sector, coinage offences of the Department for economic crimes of Tyumen M.M. Gabrielyan on refusal to institute a criminal case.»
Dear Reader, thanks for the reading this whirl of essential questions till the end. From A. Shmidt’s appeal one can trace the substitution of a careful investigation by a simple document circulation – formal replies, red tape signs. I want to notice that the appeals of citizens in higher instances may not be directed for consideration to the subordinate instances which the Applicant complains of, it is forbidden under the legislation. The senior lieutenant M. Gabrielyan replaced the whole system of law of the Russian Federation by himself, worked instead of the General Prosecutor’s Office, the regional public prosecutor’s office, the district prosecutor’s office, the Investigatory Committee, the Directorate of Internal Affairs, the municipal police. He answered the appeal which was directed to the Investigatory Committee once again in September 2012. His actions were appealed on the substance of the declared offenses, everything was sent down to him again, and he continued “not to see” the constituent element of a crime. It seems like in law enforcement bodies the fair employees are hidden and they are not allowed to investigate serious crimes…
I dare to remark to the misters policemen on the refusal to institute the criminal case «under the communication on the committed crime based on A. Shmidt’s Application, in connection with absence of corpus delicti of the crime pursuant to Article 159, 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Article 197, 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the actions of Shabalin Y.G. (on the basis of of Art. 24 (1) (2) Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation) as it was stipulated in the resolution».
Thus, the Application on fictitious bankruptcy of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» (Article 197 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) was filed on 04 May 2010 separately from the Application on the presence of corpus dilecti that is stipulated in Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 15 December 2008.
The signs of the crime provided by Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (swindling) were recognized by the employees of the regional prosecutor’s office. The signs of the crime provided by Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (abuse of authority) were recognized by the investigator, having forgotten about Article 195 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (lawless actions in case of bankruptcy) and Article 140 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (the refusal to grant information to an individual) etc. I will not tire the reader with the professional legal text.
It is only important to remark that the resolutions on consolidation of materials of checking in respect of the Applications filed by A. Shmidt was not passed, that was the violation of of Article 15 (3), (2), (1), (4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the European human rights convention and the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
A. Shmidt persistently filed to the different instances within several years the complete systematized set of information and grounds, which were not noticed by the officials of the law enforcement bodies, because if they had noticed them, it would have been necessary to institute a large investigation, there would have been a large scandal in the region with a major bank, which is connected with the Government of Khanty-Mansiyskiy Circuit, moreover with the international bias! High-rankers and officers would have been fired, concealments, special-made bankruptcies, corruption schemes, including contractual courts would have been revealed. Who of them needed that? Therefore the variety of crimes was concealed.
It’s very entertaining, that irrespective of which authority Aleksey Shmidt addressed to, everything was sent down on a chain to the bottom to the senior lieutenant, and the senior lieutenant never, I underline NEVER at all had been engaged in the facts of the committed crimes, had not performed the investigative actions – the collection of materials and their analysis, the checking of the facts set forth in the materials of Aleksey Shmidt, examination of suspects, examination of witnesses, seizure of the documents, requests to corresponding instances, demand of the cases from courts, checking of affiliation, examination, auditions and other. He didn’t even interrogate Aleksey Shmidt! But he regularly passed the resolutions on the refusal to institute a criminal case which went upwards on a chain, in higher instances which formally directed replies to the Applicant that «your application/appeal/complaint was considered in the manner, established by the Law …» I think You understand what was going on further.
If you also noticed from the text, even at those not numerous orders of any public prosecutor was written of an additional investigation, the warnings to the officials were charged, but the case returned to the same persons again, who were charged with warnings, and they didn’t want to correct the mistakes and to begin the new investigation, they reported using the previous resolution concerning the case. In this system the main thing was not to act, to roll up the issue, and G.V. Penkov, the head of the police, would validate the resolution of the investigator or detective and all would be happy, except the applicant. It is the same as though you have found out at home that you have bought the delayed goods, You return it to the shop, the apologize is brought to you and you get in replacement the new one, you are happy and satisfied, you come back home, take glasses of You, read at the label and find out with surprise that you have got the goods with older keeping time than it was. It is our law enforcement system. It is a question not of the piece of goods, but of one of the most serious crimes that cause an essential damage to the state, foreign investors, to the prestige of the country, eventually, that causes the illegal prosecution of obviously innocent person – A. Shmidt. A group of persons under conspiracy, in a roguish manner, made property «withdrawal», were connected with swindlers from the bank of Khanty-Mansiysk who had organized all that in order to conceal the traces of invalid transactions in the bank, connected with the plunder of money means from the bank and the money-laundering.
I think, I brought a lot of evidences of that acts in this article. By the way, Mr. Penkov, did you think of promotion in a rank the lieutenant Mr. Gabrieljan? Otherwise it is somehow unserious – he had been replacing the whole law enforcement system of the Tyumen region so many years; no one abroad, in the Prosecutor’s General office of Luxembourg and in the European anticorruption bodies will understand this discrepancy of his crucial role. And the superior supervisors won’t understand that and will search for the more solid whipping boy soon. It’s our tradition – to find the whipping boy! It’s worthy to be thought about…
Part 3. Judges, who are they?
The Governor of the Tyumen region Vladimir Yakushev stated that the other name of Tyumen – Kushchevka (that had been the most criminal town in Russia) was far-fetched; the journalists of the newspaper “Komsomolskaya Pravda” have it on their own conscience.
Dear Mr. Yakushev! The journalists of «Komsomolska pravda“ have at least a conscience! And the assertion that Tyumen is the second Kushchevka is true! Has something changed after publication of the article? It’s You who have all the information about the «unsuccessful» situation in the region from the weekly reports of heads of the law enforcement bodies, including the Directorate of the Federal Security Service, the public prosecutor’s offices, from the never-ending stream of complaints and appeals of citizens, from the open sources! The article «There has been the other Kushchevka in Uralskiy Federal Circuit already for a long time, but it is preferred to keep silent about that!» on ura.ru (http://www.ura.ru/content/tumen/12-03-2012/articles/1036257678.html) should be enough to take serious measures.
In the modern world of Internet development it would be very useful to take into account the feedback of the society (“people voice”) by means of monitoring of the comments left by the most active or «advanced» persons concerning the themes and publications which are actual for the society. Here are a couple of examples for the regional management and the law enforcement authorities (comment: spelling and style are kept):
Guys, from ura.ru, don’t make Ponomarev laugh! Yuriy Aleksandrovich isn’t the only one who is abreast of everything that occurs, but also any citizens of Tyumen! Imagine that this night Sanych (nickname) slept badly and suddenly since the morning…. has decided «to put things in order in Tyumen» concerning corruption and crime! Should I give a hint about the future of Ponomarev in this case or you will guess?EVERYBODY PERFECTLY SEES EVERYTHING AND KNOWS, WHO «MOVES» IN TYUMEN AND WHAT AMOUNTS OF «SUMS». IT IS NOT MILLIONS ANYMORE! AND ALL ARE TIRED, ALL HAVE INTERESTS! AND ACROSS (ON PLACES) AND ON THE VERTICAL (THE FEDERAL CENTER — TYUMEN)! AND WHO WILL DARE TO NAME THE PERSON WHO «DRAWS» BILLIONS ALLOCATED FOR THE ROAD BUILDING IN TYUMEN? YOU, JOURNALISTS, YURY ALEKSANDROVICH? THAT IS! KEEP SILENT TILL THE ANTICORRUPTION MECHANISMS ARE NOT ACTIVATED AND DO NOT FUNCTION.
House of culture
The purpose of the law enforcement bodies is the protection of the citizens from crimes. Citizens shouldn’t be afraid of that one can kill, rob, plunder them etc. …
… the Criminal background in Tyumen is bad. The crime revealing rates are disgusting; the law enforcement bodies don’t want to work. It is the highest time to shake up all from the top to the bottom.
Those are right who say that the authority should begin from itself.
One has to cease to steal the budget. One has to cease to demand the kickbacks. One has to cease to pass boundless judgments.
It is necessary for the law enforcement bodies to look more attentively at Loskutov. It isn’t a secret how and in whose interests he passes the decisions. And, in general, look at the people whom Vova studied with at the university at the legal department and who are these people now. Scratch my back and I will scratch yours.
The lawlessness dominates in Tyumen. The courts and officials are bound. It’s the hell. It is time to take measures. One can begin at least from the judges. One has to replace the chairmen of the boards of all courts! It is the time… Otherwise it will be too late, as in Kushchevka…
Maybe the materials of my article will be an additional signal for the Governor to organize serious «blamestorming» for the experts of the law-enforcement system of the region? The citizens of the region expect from the regional authority not only the official reports about «well-being» of the entrusted region to Moscow, but the effective measures on the life improvement in the region, safety of citizens. The city of Tyumen has twin-cities abroad. The people of Tyumen want to live not worse than the people of the twin-city Celle in Germany! Do they have the right on it? What is needed to achieve this purpose? Should one hire the governor or the mayor from Germany or to replace our people with Germans?
Dmitriy Medvedev, as the President of Russia, didn’t ignore this problem, having understood what occurs on a national scale: «it is necessary to make the courts independent of the authorities as much as possible and at the same time absolutely dependent on the society».
And in addition: «The court is not a closed corporation. We know that the judges take bribes, don’t we? Yes, they do take. Whom is it easier to catch red-handed — the policeman or the judge? A policeman, a detective, a public prosecutor, government employees all of them Try to catch the judge! … Full corporate closure. Once we struggled for that, because the soviet judges didn’t possess any of necessary immunities. But we created a strong corporation. And, unfortunately, this corporation isn’t capable of the whole self-cleaning. If it could expel those who has breached the law on its own, maybe, it would be normal, but it isn’t capable to do that today … I will think over the mechanism, allowing in the correct, constitutional ways to control the situation in the judicial corporation»
While the authority is thinking, the people should somehow live. How can an ordinary person or a businessman protect themselves from the illegal and obviously unjust judicial acts in such a system was precisely described by the deputy of the State Duma Pavel Tarakanov in the inquiry addressed to the General prosecutor of the Russian Federation (the publication in «Komsomolska pravda») concerning the Tyumen farmer Borodulin?
«The numerous appeals of the applicant (Borodulin. — edit. of «Komsomolska pravda») to the law enforcement bodies… break about mutual protection and unwillingness to analyze this matter, first of all in connection with involving THE FEDERAL JUDGES in this problem … The indirect signal of corruption in the judicial system, are the numerous contrary decisions of the courts of various jurisdiction, the ambiguous transfer of the cases from one jurisdiction in another, and also the regular appearance of the same judges of the cassation instance who pass the judgments in favor of the certain commercial organizations… As it is known, the impunity of offenders and the criminals, covered by representatives of the state authorities, is able to lead to the tragic events, that happened to the village Kushchevska…»
It explains the aforesaid.
Vladislav Naganov wrote about our judicial system in details, with deep arguments and with figures in the blog (http://naganoff.livejournal.com/32145.html ):
… Now the federal judges receive about 100 thousand rbl. Monthly and annually awards at the rate up to 1 million rbl. and more. While in 2000 they could receive 6 thousand rbl. monthly. So what? Did the growth of their incomes somehow decrease the corruption? Did that provide the independence and impartiality of the judges? No, absolutely! This growth of their salary was at our expense, affected exclusively the obedience of judges which increased, accordingly, 16-fold and more. Now they are tightly bound to the authority and don’t want to lose such incomes because of ephemeral requirements of the law and justice …
Apparently, the system is arranged in such a way that all the judges are depended on the president of the court. He or she allocates the cases and appoints awards; he or she possesses leverage in respect of «disobedient» judges – if those are. If a sponsored case is sent down or the authorities are interested in the case, nothing will depend on the ordinary judge. He or she may choose one of two ways: to refuse the legal consideration, or to follow the instructions of the president of the court. And in especially «responsible» cases the president of the court is engaged in the case consideration personally. Under such conditions a distinctive feature of the legal proceeding is that it is possible to speak everything in the judicial sitting, to provide any evidences. And it won’t be reflected in the judgment, as though it has never occurred. Moreover, the court can pass the judgment that directly contradicts the actual circumstances of the case with confidence (I would tell — impudently). It looks approximately like that: «The arguments of the applicant that twice two equals four were comprehensively investigated by the court; and the court established that twice two is equal five». And the court of each subsequent instance will diligently copy the decision of the previous — irrespective of any evidences and arguments and irrespective of how obvious is the wittingly invalidity of the judgment.»
At the beginning of the article you’ve read that Aleksey Shmidt would feel later the consequence of payments against receipt from V. Mits and V. Kvasov for shares of „Dastin GmbH“. And he really felt! As soon as on 25 November 2004 the judgment of the judge of the Central district court of Tyumen Belousova M.Y on recognition as invalid the institution of the criminal case against Aleksey Shmidt under S. Baskova’s application entered into legal force, the roguish group, obviously, were deep in thought what to do now, how to stop A. Shmidt who continues to appeal in the courts the validity of the withdrawal of the property of «DastinMarket» and its exception from USRLE, who also requires the investigation of the case concerning consumer credits. Kvasov has thought up – he «has set in motion» these receipts, having filed an action against Aleksey Shmidt for non-return of the ostensibly personal debts. Well done Kvasov! He purchased the shares, took away “DastinMarket” under the roguish scheme, and «rambled on» Shmidt. A banker in brief
That is how it has occurred.
From A.Shmidt’s Application to the Investigatory Committee of the Russian Federation, to A. Bastrykin:
«Kvassov V.V. transferred via me, Shmidt Aleksey Iosifovich, in May, June, September, November, 2000, January, February, March April, July, 2001 the money funds for the purpose of acquisition of shares of «Dastin GmbH» (the Commonwealth of the Bahamas) that proves to be true against the receipts issued by Shmidt A.I.of 2000 and 2001:
1) 6 500 US dollars of 23 May 2000;
2) 40 000 US dollars of 19 June 2000;
3) 35 000 US dollars of 08 September 2000;
4) 25 000 US dollars of 09 November 2000;
5) 70 000 US dollars of 21 November 2000;
6) 32 407, 88 US dollars of 24 January 2001;
7) 3 000 US dollars of 27 February 2001;
8) 38 000 US dollars of 23 April 2001;
9) 3 546, 76 US dollars of 20 March 2001;
10) 20 000 US dollars of 10 June 2001.
As a result of the indicated actions Kvassov B.В. and Mits V.A. in August, 2001 became owners of 100 000 shares of foreign business each one. This fact can be proved by following documents:
A) Protocol of shareholders meeting № 2 LLC «Dastin GmbH» of 28 September 1999;
B) Certificate В-01 009 on 100 000 shares LLC «Dastin GmbH» of 01 August 2001;
C) Certificate В-01 008 on 100 000 shares LLC «Dastin GmbH» of 01 August 2001;
D) Shareholder register «Dastin GmbH» as of 01 August 2001.
Meanwhile, in 2004 Kvasov filed an action against me, Shmidt A.I., for the recovery of outstanding amount under credit agreements (the case № 2-1649-04) with the Central district court.
The indicated civil case № 2-1649-04 was considered by Agafonova V.G. who was the vice-president of the court on criminal cases; her competences are criminal cases only! (That is an infringement already).
The Ruling on acceptance of the claim on case 2-1649-04 passed by the judge Agafonova on 20 September 2004, that is one day earlier, than the claim was lodged by Kvasov (ref. No. of the offices of the Central district court of Tyumen is 21 September 2004 № 1753). That testifies to collusion of these persons.
The consideration of the claim of Kvasov V.V was without me – the defendant Shmidt A.I.. Nobody informed me properly of the proceeding, no judicial writs came to my address, though both Kvasov V.V. and the court knew my residences in Nizhnevartovsk.
At the passing of the ruling on refuse to send the criminal case over in accordance with its jurisdiction to the place of residence of Shmidt A.I. to Nizhnevartovsk the judge Agafonova was guided by the documents presented to Kvasov V. V which were obtained with violation of the law from materials of the criminal case № 20040383514 (a recognizance not to leave of 18 August 2004). Meanwhile, even before passing of the decision of 04 October 2004 by the judge Agafonova, the judge of the Central district court of Tyumen Belousova M.Y passed a resolution of 27 September 2004 on recognition as invalid of the institution of the criminal case concerning me, Shmidt A.I., № 20040383514. That also proves to be true the resolution of the investigator of the Investigation Department at the Directorate of Internal Affairs of the Central AC of Tyumen Kolmakov S.A. of 10 September 2004 who ceased proceeding on the case. It is necessary to notice that the participant of the trial (party) the plaintiff Kvasov didn’t appeared in respect to the criminal case № 20040383514. According to Article 55 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation the evidences obtained with violation of the law haven’t legal force and may not be the basis of judgment. Despite it these evidences were accepted and taken in to consideration by the judge Agafonova as the basis of judicial act.
The court specified in the decision of 04 October 2004 on the case, that as the evidence of relations under the loan agreements by Kvasov were provided the following documents, designated the receipts:
1) 6 500 US dollars of 23 May 2000;
2) 40 000 US dollars of 19 June 2000;
3) 35 000 US dollars of 08 September 2000;
4) 25 000 US dollars of 09 November 2000;
5) 70 000 US dollars of 21 November 2000;
6) 32 407, 88 US dollars of 24 January 2001;
7) 3 000 US dollars of 27 February 2001;
8) 38 000 US dollars of 23 April 2001;
9) 3 546, 76 US dollars of 20 March 2001;
10) 20 000 US dollars OF 10 July 2001.
Total amount 273 454, 64 US dollars.
Those receipts became the basis for the judgments of the first instance court, however, a part of those receipts testified only the money reception by Shmidt A.I., without indication of the addressee from whom the means had been received. It didn’t prove Kvassov’s right to claim under the receipts and it should be established by the first instance court that hadn’t been done yet. The content of the receipts, which were the basis of the Judgement didn’t contain the information about the loan reception according to Articles 807, 808 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, that stipulated the necessity of the indication of the loan agreement conditions in the receipts, in particular of the condition of reception of money funds on credit, i.e. the condition of returning of the received means.
The actual content of receipts didn’t contain promises of the defendant to return the received means, and only had the reference to any conditions expressed by phrases – «on the same conditions» or «on the previous conditions». From the content of receipts it followed that there were some kinds of mutual liabilities between the parties, but it wasn’t obligatory a loan agreement.
The receipts, as the proofs, didn’t contain the designation «receipt». Besides in respect of a part of documents presented by the plaintiff missed the condition about the interests which Shmidt A.I. «ostensibly» borrowed from Kvasov B.B.
Thus, the court came to a wrongful conclusion on validity of the loan agreement, the provisions concerning which are stipulated in Articles 432 and 807 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Besides, there was no loan agreement, no agreement as a whole, because it wasn’t concluded between the parties at all. In accordance with Article 808 (2) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation the receipt can be presented as the confirmation of the loan and its conditions. But, the available documents of the case didn’t contain the main conditions which are listed in the Law and necessary for the loan agreement.
The documents named as «receipts» by the plaintiff didn’t contain the main condition provided by Art.807 (1) of CC of the Russian Federation. It was the obligation of the borrower to return to the money-lender the same amount of money (amount of loan).
The documents didn’t contain the condition that personally Shmidt A.I. undertook to return an amount of the loan to Kvasov V.V. Consequently, the presented documents were improper proofs.
Pursuant to Article 55 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation the evidences were information on facts, received by the legally established procedure, based on which the court established either presence or absence of the circumstances substantiating claims and objections of the parties, and also other circumstances significant for the sound examination and settlement of the case. Evidences, obtained with the breaking the law, are illegal and cannot be the ground for the court decision.
According to the par.1 of Article 807 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation the loan agreement is a real transaction that needs the money transfer to conclude it.
In course of the judicial investigation no proofs of money transfer from the plaintiff to the defendant were found.
I want to point out the fact that the plaintiff – Kvassov V.V. concealed the important facts from the court, namely: Mr. Kvassov V.V, Mr. Mits V.A, Shmidt A.I. were the founders of the foreign legal entity «Dastin GmbH» registered in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. The shareholders of the enterprise decided on 28 September 1999 to increase the statutory fund of the company up to 2 016 200 US dollars.
These facts can be confirmed by the testimony of all shareholders having participated at the meeting of 28 September 1999.
— Vladislav Reger — the citizen of Germany;
— Shmidt Franc – the citizen of Germany;
— Mits Vladimir Andreevich, lives in Tyumen,
— Last known residence of S.S. and S.I. – Zelenograd, the Moscow Region,
— Last known residence of F.A. and F. S.I. – Zelenograd, Moscow Region.
The cover letter of Reger V. of 21 June 2012 and the enclosed cash payment voucher of 23 May 2000, 20 June 2000, 10 September 2000, 12 November 2000, 27 November 2000, 28 January 2001, 27 February 2001, 25 March 2001, 25 April 2001, 14 July 2001 confirmed that Kvassov V.V. obviously presented false data to the court.
At the trial Kvassov V.V. indicated that the specified amount of money transferred in foreign currency was a loan. In this case, money was the object of civil rights by virtue of Article128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. However, only the ruble is the legal mean of payment, that had to be accepted (Article140 (1) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Cases, terms and conditions of the usage of the foreign currency on the territory of Russia are determined by law or in the established order (Article140 (2) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
In accordance with Article 9 (1) of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation № 173-ФЗ of 10 February 2003 «On Currency Regulation and Currency Control», foreign exchange transactions between residents are prohibited. At the same time, giving the loan is not subject of the exclusion under Article 9 (1) of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation № 173- ФЗ of 10 February 2003 «On Currency Regulation and Currency Control». In this case, and Kvassov VV and A. Shmidt were residents under Article1 (6) of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation № 173- ФЗ of 10 February 2003 «On Currency Regulation and Currency Control».
On the grounds of the above-written guiding by Article 9 (3) of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation №173- ФЗ of 10 February 2003 «On Currency Regulation and Currency Control» only the bank has the right to give loans in foreign currency to the residents. Thus, V.V. Kvassov fulfilled the banking transactions, as a kind of business, without license and without being the banking institution, in such a case Kvassov V.V. committed the illegal business without license giving the opportunity to execute banking activities.
The provision of foreign currency loan, without the bank’s license is prohibited by virtue of Art.9 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation № 173-ФЗ of 10 February 2003 «On Currency Regulation and Currency Control»
Under those circumstances, I was disabled to present my objections to the claims of Kvassov V.V. to confirm it with documents. On these grounds the Court made the improper conclusion of the existence of the loan agreement.
The facts that the plaintiff Kvassov referred to were not proved by the statutory sources of evidence. During the proceedings no real facts were found out: how the transfer of money was made from the plaintiff to the defendant, and what the main conditions were. The court didn’t verify the accuracy of the facts stated by the plaintiff. The court did not provide me with the opportunity to present my objections to the claim.
These circumstances testify a lack of objectivity and impartiality of the judge and demonstrate the interest of a certain group of persons in a negative outcome of the case for me.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the judge Agafonova V.G. personally issued the writ of execution by the decision of the above-mentioned claim to the plaintiff Kvassov V.V., however he didn’t hand the application of issue to the office of the Central District Court of Tyumen, as it was stipulated by the court proceedings, that proved the existence of personal relationships and arrangements.
On the grounds of the above-written guiding by the current legislation of the Russian Federation
1. To examine the activity of Kvassov Vladislav Viktorovich for the existence of signs of crime in his actions, responsibility for which is provided by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
2. To examine the activity of Agafonova V.G. for the existence of signs of crime in her actions, responsibility for which is provided by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
3. To set up an inquiry team to investigate the facts set forth in the present complaint for the existence in the actions of the persons mentioned above of signs of a crime under the Criminal Code, without sending this complaint to the authorities of the Tyumen region. «
Besides, Arithmetic shows when adding the established amounts and ones specified by the judge results an amount of 266 954.64 U.S dollars. Meanwhile, the judge specified the sum of 273 454.64 U.S. dollars!
The difference between the amounts is 6500 U.S. dollars! It is for V.V. Kvassov benefit . A lot of times Aleksey Shmidt appealed to the courts, and to the law enforcement authorities in the region, and to the federal authorities, nobody has taken specific steps to restore justice, even the disciplinary commission of qualifying board saw no reason at least for the disciplinary penalty on the judge Agafonova. In other words, if the court resolved that 2×2=5, it would be correct! Let’s suppose the judge «impartially wrong» but it isn’t the worst thing! The most terrible is that it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to change it.
Nobody will undertake to help, because such instances do not exist. Nobody wants to be engaged, because if to appoint the new consideration, it is needed to submit the case to the same judge who will continue the obviously illegal actions, otherwise what will other judge assume «sins» of the judge Agafonova? Besides, it is necessary to invite the defendant, i.e. A. Shmidt and to consider his arguments, this way the special-ordered case can crumble to dust … For who is it necessary? Quite the contrary, the best efforts will be made to «bury» A. Shmidt.
Firstly, mutual protection «within the corporation of judges», secondly, obviously sponsored judicial act with wittingly false information of the plaintiff substituting definitions and essence of «loan agreement» can cause checking from «above» and afterwards other improper judicial decisions will come out. «The entire machine» turns on automatically in order to intimidate the victim, to press him/her constantly, to threaten with the unlawful criminal prosecution.
Kvassov was acting that way having seen that A. Shmidt didn’t stop to appeal to legal bodies and institutions. He filled an Application against Shmidt A. for evasion from the judgment execution in which he was recognized the debtor and the criminal proceedings were instituted against him! You understand, with so many direct facts of fraud in consumer credits in the bank within years, it was impossible to institute the proceedings – the law enforcement bodies didn’t see corpus delicti. That time they saw well and very fast, taking measures of compulsion to bring A. Shmidt to the court bailiffs. All the arguments and explanations of Shmidt were not needed, no one heard him. The system worked in the needed direction and served only «who required», nobody else. Who would know much about those matters? The court bailiffs only fulfilled the orders. No order — no action. How to explain the fact that the judge Agafonova issued a writ of execution to the bailiffs in order to arrest 1% shares of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” which belonged personally to Shmidt in 2004? According to the valuation before the bankruptcy these were more than four million rubles. And how did Shabalin bankrupt the company which shares and buildings were arrested by the judgment of another court? Where were the bailiffs that time? Why didn’t they chase Kvasov? If A. Shmidt was withdrawn all his property why was he malicious «dodger»? Why did not Kvasov fill in the application of non-fulfillment of solutions by the bailiffs? For the reason the Bank has marked this «piece» for itself? Things begin anew as soon as they end. When the shares were arrested, A. Shmidt had been completely dispossessed having his business stolen, dismissed from work, the case didn’t not allow to get a job or start a new business as it always is in our country. The person was deprived the right tolife, to free economic existence, i.e. that was violation of Articles 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Under the law this person is simply insolvent in view of the Civil Procedure Code. Shmidt lived with his family in the rented apartment even during the construction of the «DastinMarket», because he lived on one salary, the budget money was not being stolen, oil wasn’t being traded. As the director he was paid a salary by the shareholders. And at present he lives in the rented apartment with two small children. He doesn’t hide, the children go to school.
Why was a Russian citizen being destroyed under the lawlessness?
And if you take into account the «sponsored» or «corrupted» court, it is much worse than «sponsored» football matches. Life is not a game. Nine years of life of a citizen had been stolen. Misrepresented and humiliated, for what? Because of the regional prosecutor wanted that? Or was it a vengeance for the last excuse that the public prosecutor’s office had to make in 7 years (!) after the court decision? Even when the bailiffs temporarily suspended the criminal case because of health condition of A. Shmidt (he had survived a heart attack without medical attention) confirmed by the medical reports, the acting regional prosecutor V.A. Russkikh withdrew the bailiffs’ decision “because of lack of medical conclusion«, resumed the criminal case, and passed it under the control of the regional prosecutor’s office. Do you understand? Under the control, as the investigation of the particularly meaningful or resonant crime. Isn’t there anything more to control in the Tyumen region? I publish this document of the regional prosecutor for public viewing.
The Prosecutor’s General Office of the Russian Federation redirected the appeal of A. Shmidt to the regional prosecutor having added on 52 sheets the supplement of cases of fraud and illegal seizure of property, rights violations, having ordered to know much about those matters thoroughly. But the regional prosecutor instituted the threatening Resolution! He gave orders to attack again. When the Federal Security Service (FSS) in the Tyumen region redirected the appeal of Franc Shmidt to the regional prosecutor’s office from abroad having evidenced specific cases of theft of foreign property, with listed goods under the agency agreement, the threat of life of A. Shmidt (attempt), F. Shmidt has got a «runaround» that the company had been restored in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (USRLE) on the court decision and afterwards it was liquidated. By whom? What were the grounds? Where were justifying copies of the documents? Who put a signature? The shareholders knew nothing about it! Was there fraud again? What was the request on the merits of the appeal?
Not every murder was put «under control», but this case was paid so much attention to. There were many questions, but the answer was unique — corruption.
This group was interested in making A. Shmidt «a criminal». This fact could be written in the runarounds to the higher authority concerning the inquiries initiated by Aleksey Shmidt, control and supervisory bodies, in order everybody consider him like a criminal. The dirty methods. And in this terrible system you couldn’t have already proved that you were before the law that you had never stolen anything, killed no one, never abused the law… That’s all. The fat is in the fire. Shmidt was regarded as a criminal with the institution of the criminal case.
In other words, after the prosecution of A. Shmidt in the illegally instituted criminal case because of misleading information of a lawyer of the bank of Khanty-Mansiysk Baskova that had made the public prosecutor’s office to apologize, Kvasov initiated a new case on the false circumstances.
The court in the absence of the defendant A. Shmidt (that was gross violation of human rights) determined him a debtor of Kvassov in accordance with non-existent credit agreement, THE JUDGE PERSONALLY ADDED INTERESTS TO THE AMOUNT in defiance of Russian law, which prescribed the refinance interest rates of the Central Bank, if in the loan agreement there were no specified interests to the amount of the loan, and was blind to the investigation of the subject to the court — receipts were produced without mentioning of the words «credit» or «loan», there were no conditions of the contract, no contract, no specified and biding repayment of the amount, that meant not to be the loan at all – One could draw the conclusion about the «pre-judicialness» of the judge. A. Shmidt wasn’t interrogated during prejudicial investigation (investigation phase) and during court proceedings (he was absent and did not even know about such proceedings!). How do you think, why did Kvassov need that? What did the public prosecutor want? There was a single answer: A. Shmidt was shown now and then to stop writing and appealing the expropriation of «DastinMarket» property and fraud in the Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk.
There are in the same boat. This is a caste.
I am journalist and not indifferent person, so I want to bring all these facts to the ears that can hear and to the eyes that can see. I think and believe that Yuriy Chayka also won’t be indifferent, as the vast majority of our people.
From conversation with V. Reger:
«… You understand, here is an elementary monocle being, for example Paramecium caudatum that lives and doesn’t know that except it exists another life on the Earth – reasonable one. The creature won’t understand it because of the lack of brains. The same is the group of «servants» who don’t understand that the corrupted world where they live in under cover of local authorities, doesn’t come to the end on them that there are people cleverer, more honest, simply different in spirit and education, conscience and responsibility. They seem to be completely protected by the system and can commit the outrage. The limits of their comprehension don’t transcend their world, they even didn’t understand the thing they broke and the way they broke it, I think so. Organizing the takeover of CJSC «The Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket» directly transferring property without auctions to the affiliates of the bank of Khanty-Mansiysk, they were so sure that they deserved gratitude of the system for a faithful service, and I think there would be a big surprise to get assessment of their qualification as «conspiratorial crime».
Kvassov having got a fright that under the court decision «DastinMarket» would be restored in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (USRLE), thought to file an action with court against Aleksey concerning the receipts that Aleksey had issued for shares in payments of Mits and Kvassov in Dastin GmbH and, it was obvious, as a deputy of «Just Russia» of the Tyumen regional duma, he continued to prosecute Aleksey. But Aleksey was not the only one! And the bank involved in fraud, money laundering and corruption in Europe, wouldn’t be given even three cents. On our part we prepared materials for the international anti-corruption institutions and the community of banks. And I think, for the members of the party «Just Russia» it would not be so pleasant to work with a person involved in improper affairs».
Corruption “is strangling” Russia, prospering in the bureaucratic authorities. It is typically human to identify the state with the authorities and government official. As a result appear the dislike for the Fatherland and inactive life and civil attitude, nihilism of the young generation and the understandable desire to go abroad. What should man do, if nobody needs him in his own country? I don’t remember who said: «poverty -is not the lack of money, poverty — is the lack of opportunities.»
To some characters of this story I would like to say the following :
Power doesn’t like fools. If someone from the authorities blushes for something on the international level, somebody else in the country will be very pale.
People dislike lawless men. When the hate reaches a bifurcation point … It would be better not to reach!
«Do not lay up treasures for yourselves upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
6:20 But lay up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart also be «
(Matthew, ch. 6, p. 19-20)
the 5th of October, 2012
Укажите свой email: