Relatively fair change of ownership
Let us briefly recall the essence of the question. Early in the morning of December 8, 2018, an unidentified “ChOPovtsy” broke into a stone processing enterprise operating in the village of Rybreka, Prionezhsky district, took out the workers and refused to let the director of the company renting the production complex in the premises. As the director of the company, Irina, told us, it was clearly a seizure of the company by a thief, which even the police did not prevent.
Later it turned out that the “invaders” were not criminals at all. It’s just that the owner of the production space transferred the right to rent and dispose of the property to them, and the rental relationship with Irina was terminated, which no one informed her about.
Read on the topic: “The case of the” raider capture “in Rybrek received an unexpected sequel”
Thus, the conflict turned into a dispute between two economic entities, where the media should not go.
But recently, we were surprised to learn that the matter had once again been taken out of litigation. It turned out that the new tenants left the company with a whole list of property belonging to Irina, according to her, for 18 million rubles (however, there is no documentary evidence of this amount). For two years, the entrepreneur tried to recover machine tools, machinery and raw materials, but the final decision was taken by the Karelia Arbitral Court in September 2021 (subsequently he resisted in the proceedings higher).
The court found that having entered the territory, the new owner of the land and the building of the stone-cutting workshop “… demanded that the rented territory be released. Access to the territory has become impossible…”, and the new owners have refused to return the property of the former owner placed on the territory.
Most importantly: “The site inspection protocol dated December 8, 2018, drawn up by the investigator of the SO MIA of Russia for the Prionezhsky district, recorded the fact that the property listed on the applicant’s balance sheet was located in the territory of the defendant”. On this basis, and also taking into account the expert’s opinion, the request was granted.
In search of the lost
A year and a half passed, but nothing was returned to Irina. Also: As the documents show, no one was going to do it. The contractor is sure that part of the property has simply disappeared.
According to Irina, the way the new owner entered the territory of his company and his actions to retain his property can be interpreted as arbitrariness. This is a criminal offense, so she filed an application with the Prionezhsky Department of Internal Affairs with a corresponding statement, this was in 2018, immediately after the events. And she was refused: no signs of crime were seen in the actions of the new owner. Six months later, she wrote another statement – the same reaction. But now the refusal has been appealed to the public prosecutor, who has overturned it.
And then the circus began. According to the representative of the victim, lawyer Irina Belyaeva (“Position Law Office”), since 2019, eight such complaints have been filed against the actions of persons withholding the property of others, including two after the arbitration officially recognized the property as belonging to Irine. All requests receive the same denials to initiate criminal proceedings with the same sentence: that “at this stage of verification”, there are no signs of crime in the actions of the people who seized and hold the assets .
The refusal is canceled by the prosecutor, the investigative service of the Prionezhsky internal affairs department conducts an additional check (what it consists of – no one knows), and it is again followed by a refusal. And so on in a circle.
“Maybe the police are just waiting for the case to expire,” the attorney said. “During my professional career in law enforcement, and now in the legal profession, I cannot recall such cynical neglect of my duties. To not understand the obvious situation in 4 years, and even if there is a court decision, ignore the contractor’s statement!…”
Since there is a judicial act, the bailiffs must ensure the restitution of the property to the rightful claimant. Irina says that in October last year she filed an application with the Federal Bailiff Service of Russia in Karelia to initiate proceedings regarding non-enforcement of a court order. “I have not been informed about the decision taken by the Karelia FSSP investigative body and the results of the control so far,” she said.
Realizing that nothing could be achieved in Karelia, the owner of the property filed a complaint with the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office, where she told the story of her ordeals.
“All the above events led to the fact that the company, which was a conscientious taxpayer and provided work at different periods of activity from 8 to 12 people in a small village in Karelia, has actually ceased its activities since 2019,” writes the entrepreneur. .
And further: “My appeal to you with a request for intervention in the current situation of arbitrariness and anarchy, to demand from the supervised bodies and officials the proper exercise of their official duties when organizing the next further inspection is the last hope of restoring justice…”
shades
How to explain the reluctance of the “siloviki” to help Irina is difficult to say, but one can guess. Even then, immediately after the new owner arrived, the woman was, say, not entirely candid with the police or the media. Only a year later it turned out that the contractor herself had debts to the owner, which she was in no hurry to return.
The Rybrek building complex was leased by the company Irina and her husband to a businesswoman from Nizhny Novgorod and accrued a heavy debt on rent payments – more than 3 million rubles. Apparently, realizing that it would not be possible to receive the money, the owner of the property in December 2018 concluded a transfer agreement with another Karelian company. In short, I sold my debt. Having become the new building and equipment manager, the company “entered” the establishment.
It turned out that Irina and her husband received a change of creditor notice, but they ignored it, because they felt that the assignment agreement was not valid and they owed nothing to the new owner. As a result, the Petrozavodsk City Court ordered the spouses to pay the debt of just under 3,300,000 rubles. And the competence of the production manager was clearly assigned to the new company.
Read on the topic: “The case of the” raider capture “in Rybrek continues”
Suddenly, because of Irina’s devious position, the Onega police officers found themselves under fire from partly unfair criticism. Perhaps they have formed a biased attitude towards the entrepreneur, which affects their work – they simply do not believe her. But the law is the law, and the fact that Irina’s equipment is still kept on company territory against all laws remains a fact.
We will follow the evolution of the situation.
