RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
19/09/2024
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
19 September 
1970 Scott Fahlman proposed using emoticons as a way to express emotions on the Internet.
1970 The Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR banned the export of art and historical monuments abroad.
1970 The first beauty contest was held in Belgium.
19 September
1970 Scott Fahlman proposed using emoticons as a way to express emotions on the Internet.
1970 The Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR banned the export of art and historical monuments abroad.
1970 The first beauty contest was held in Belgium.
Supreme Court of Russia explained how to identify a fake creditor
The bankruptcy case of RealtService (À40-267855 / 2018), which experts got interested in last year, reached the Supreme Court. The reason for the interest was the amount of 252 million rubles - it was demanded from the bankrupt company by the Tver firm ‘Vesna’ on the basis of a cession.
First, the Moscow Arbitration Court satisfied the firm's claim by a ruling dated August 12, 2020. The court's verdict was confirmed by the appeal instance (decision of December 16, 2020), and then by the Moscow Regional Arbitration Court (decision of March 22, 2021). On November 9, the Supreme Court rejected to satisfy the claim of ‘Vesna’ and remitted the case for new consideration (determination of the Supreme Court No. 305-ES21-9462).
The Supreme Court of Russia criticized the judges who refused to carry out an examination of the disputed documents and hear the arguments of the ex-head of the debtor company, who was not even included in the process as a witness.
According to the main version of the events, which was previously agreed on by the courts of three instances, in 2008, the CEO of ‘RealtService’ Alexander Akimov took a cash loan in the amount of $ 2.5 million (64 million rubles as of the time of receipt of money) from an individual (Yuri Mina), having issued ordinary cash receipt order. Subsequently, Mina formalized the assignment to Irina Kireeva (who worked as the chairman of the board of a large bank), and the latter ceded the right of claim to the ‘Vesna’ company.
The courts justified their refusal to appoint a handwriting examination of a controversial document on the receipt of such a large amount of borrowed funds by the absence of claims by the participants in the process of arguments about the falsification of documents. This time, the Supreme Court recalled that the absence of such a motion does not interfere with carrying out an examination at all, providing an increased standard of proof.
In addition, the Supreme Court of Russia drew attention to the fact that the principles of equality and competition of the parties, enshrined in the law, actually oblige judges not only to accept the explanations of one side, but also to check the counter-arguments of the other. Otherwise, as it was previously noted by the experts, the image of the signature on a piece of paper could bring an unscrupulous ‘lender’ much easier money than creating a masterpiece of art for any of the contemporary artists.
First, the Moscow Arbitration Court satisfied the firm's claim by a ruling dated August 12, 2020. The court's verdict was confirmed by the appeal instance (decision of December 16, 2020), and then by the Moscow Regional Arbitration Court (decision of March 22, 2021). On November 9, the Supreme Court rejected to satisfy the claim of ‘Vesna’ and remitted the case for new consideration (determination of the Supreme Court No. 305-ES21-9462).
The Supreme Court of Russia criticized the judges who refused to carry out an examination of the disputed documents and hear the arguments of the ex-head of the debtor company, who was not even included in the process as a witness.
The ruling of the Supreme Court, according to legaltop.ru, turned out to be an instruction for identifying a fake creditor.
The company ‘RealtService’ carried out the construction of the building of NUSR ‘MISiS’. In the course of the bankruptcy of the company, it turned out that it actually incurred serious expenses, having invested about 800 million of its own funds in construction, which must have been reimbursed from the budget and distributed among co-investors. And here, a creditor unexpectedly appeared in the person of ‘Vesna’ firm, which received the right to claim for millions of sums from a private person.According to the main version of the events, which was previously agreed on by the courts of three instances, in 2008, the CEO of ‘RealtService’ Alexander Akimov took a cash loan in the amount of $ 2.5 million (64 million rubles as of the time of receipt of money) from an individual (Yuri Mina), having issued ordinary cash receipt order. Subsequently, Mina formalized the assignment to Irina Kireeva (who worked as the chairman of the board of a large bank), and the latter ceded the right of claim to the ‘Vesna’ company.
The experts' interest was attracted by the fact that the judicial authorities, which are usually so scrupulous about the cases of transferring money ‘in cash’, in this case did not begin to check whether the money was actually transferred.
On the contrary, the arbitration courts refused to satisfy the claim of the university and even the the claim of the former director of ‘RealtService’, who worked as the head until 2013 and stated that he had not signed any orders, and had not taken or seen any cash.The courts justified their refusal to appoint a handwriting examination of a controversial document on the receipt of such a large amount of borrowed funds by the absence of claims by the participants in the process of arguments about the falsification of documents. This time, the Supreme Court recalled that the absence of such a motion does not interfere with carrying out an examination at all, providing an increased standard of proof.
In addition, the Supreme Court of Russia drew attention to the fact that the principles of equality and competition of the parties, enshrined in the law, actually oblige judges not only to accept the explanations of one side, but also to check the counter-arguments of the other. Otherwise, as it was previously noted by the experts, the image of the signature on a piece of paper could bring an unscrupulous ‘lender’ much easier money than creating a masterpiece of art for any of the contemporary artists.
16.11.2021
