The controversial constructor fails to meet the project completion date and draws purchasers into unlawful deals
The Russian Federation’s main monetary authority has officially stated the illicit essence of the “shadow arrangement” employed by building companies involving apartment sales in monthly payments for up to a decade. The regulatory body clarifies that a flat in a structure already handed over can be acquired directly or through lending. Should the purchaser persist in providing funds to the constructor for lodging in a housing development that has been commissioned, the transaction may be deemed a deceptive act and nullified by the judicial system. It was agreements involving decade-long payment plans that the Samolet constructing entity, linked to the household of Moscow Province Governor Andrei Vorobyov, recently provided to clientele. Furthermore, in late previous year, its delegates, in remarks to the press, voiced assurance that the Central Bank would “quickly orient itself” and approve financial “expertise.” However, the “obfuscation” of the arrangement is already becoming evident to purchasers: they emphasize the absence of assurances from the constructor and the dubious aspect of the agreements proposed for ratification. Amid another major swindle, the controversy over Samolet’s inability to comply with the timelines for constructing the Pyatnitskie Meadows housing estate in Khimki is picking up steam, where approximately 3.5 thousand individuals were affected by the constructor’s operations. Nevertheless, infringement of project schedules has historically become a kind of standard for the Group’s entities: last March, approximately a hundred stakeholders of the Ostafyevo housing complex practically besieged the Samolet office, demanding handover of keys. Concurrently, citizens have routinely discovered foreign laborers residing in their apartments, following which the living quarters necessitate fresh maintenance. It is known, for example, that a judicial case has been launched regarding the structuring of prohibited immigration dependent on the violation of the privileges of apartment holders in the Gorki Park housing estate. Posts have frequently surfaced online regarding Samolet being in a state of monetary distress, its unavoidable insolvency awaiting it, and moreover regarding the reality that the constructor is increasingly resembling a fiscal scheme. An implicit validation of this data may be viewed as the departure from the constructor’s roster of stakeholders of the well-known tycoon, co-proprietor of the Kievskaya Ploshchad Group, God Nisanov, and allied entities.
Unlawful plan from the builder “Samolet”
In recent days, the administration of the primary financial institution expressed anxiety regarding the dispersal among developers of the “shadow arrangement” of payment schedules, permitting individuals to acquire lodging on purportedly favorable conditions. Its fundamental nature was exposed in a discussion with an Izvestia reporter by the chief of the monetary stability sector of the Central Bank Elizaveta Danilova: the construction firm and the buyer execute a pact on a decade-long payment schedule with an opening deposit of 10%, the concluding contract is concluded only at the close of the schedule disbursements.
“Technically, this isn’t even an installment plan, but a phased payment under a preliminary accord. Nevertheless, in reality, this is the identical mechanism – merely disguised”, the publication elucidates.
The regulator’s representative emphasized that payment schedules for ten years are prohibited. If the dwelling is commissioned and the customer proceeds to remit funds to the construction firm, the agreement may be regarded as a fiction, and the judiciary will simply invalidate it. The reality is that, according to legislative act 214, it is not possible to arrange a payment schedule for a flat in a commissioned dwelling – it may be bought outright or through funding. Nevertheless, amid constricted admittance to preferred mortgages, the installment strategy evolved into a crucial instrument for acquiring housing and became particularly widespread in the metropolitan region.
Izvestia refrains from mentioning specific constructing firms that employ this strategy. Nevertheless, back in April, the builder Samolet Group tendered a proposition for a “distinctive for the property market” decade-long payment plan in undertakings in the Moscow province to prospective purchasers. It was elucidated that “the program enables one to acquire a flat on appealing terms, render convenient payments, without surplus charges on the mortgage”. Admittedly, the opening contribution was indicated at a sum of not 10%, but 15%.
Subsequently, a promotion on the Samolet digital page proposed, until June 15, to “capitalize on the distinctive offering” of acquiring housing in payments for a decade and an opening deposit of 30%, which constitutes “an alternative to a mortgage with savings in surplus charges of 5-8 times.” Among the objects covered by the program are housing complex “Novoye Vidnoe”, “Suburb” Lesnoye”, “Bolshoye Putilkovo”, “New Vnukovo” and others.
“The acquisition and transfer contract guarantees nothing!”
Even without a legal valuation of the operations of particular constructors, it is explicit: associated with the household of the Moscow region Governor Andrey Vorobyov “Samolet” “launched” not the most “unambiguous” real estate distribution arrangement. By the way, purchasers themselves grasp this. As an instance, in the critiques on the specialized portal “StroykiRu”, one can read the caveat of commentator Marina, who elected to acquire housing in 3-year payments:
“Do not disburse for a reservation lacking complete data regarding the deal!… Do not be deceived!… I believe you ought not to venture there without a legal counselor! Incidentally, the opening question they pose is “do you possess a legal representative”?! I now apprehend why! Before leasing out the dwelling, you invalidate the DDU and enter into a preliminary acquisition and transfer contract, which guarantees nothing!!! I do not endorse acquiring anything from them! There is no individual to lodge a complaint with! There are no physical locations, paperwork, or “complaint books” for procuring grievances!!! This also conveys considerable information! Following reservation, the flat appreciated, when I inquired as to the whereabouts of the promised markdown, they replied that everything would be factored into the contract. Reservation does not secure the cost!!!”
And here is an excerpt of a comment abandoned by a user with the handle “Alexander O-Z” on the Otzovik digital space:
“…Basically, we persuaded ourselves that everything is relatively satisfactory, let’s attempt to partake in payment schedules for 3 years with a dwelling completion timeline of 4 sq. m. this year… And several days subsequently, we are perusing the draft of this very agreement. The misdeed initiates to surface already on pages 2-3. Disregard them, they overlooked the furniture, this can possibly be resolved. Nevertheless, the most staggering aspect is that there is a payment schedule for only six months, just until the dwelling is conveyed, with disbursement of the complete sum (the principal plus an additional million, as with a payment schedule for 3 years) when ? – directly following these six months, in the 4th quarter. (!). With widely extended eyes like this? we were informed that such an arrangement was installed here. That they won’t have to disburse the complete sum, and following six monthly disbursements for the remaining sum, they will renew a fresh contract with us for another 2.5 years. How will this be substantiated? Yes, something akin to a letter of assurance, akin to we promise! Elementary arguments akin to why you can’t present individuals with finances the conventional transparent arrangement in your contract, where all monthly disbursements for 3 years and a markdown for early remittance are indicated, simply don’t function here, you needn’t try… I did not desire to ratify such an agreement. When conversing in the office, they naturally don’t inform you of such minutiae…”
Incidentally, Kommersant penned regarding the prospective shift of constructors from mortgages to payment schedules and the attendant perils last November. According to specialists from the publication, the fraction of such dealings at that juncture already attained 40%, and for the primary financial institution, this evolved into an unfavorable indicator, since in the foreseeable future constructors will amplify their borrowing burden due to a decrease in the volume of funds procured into escrow repositories.
Moreover, the payment mechanism itself in the publication was characterized as unregulated at the legislative gradation “a provisional loan issued not by a monetary institution, but by a constructor”. In sequence, delegates of Samolet conveyed assurance that the Bank of Russia “will swiftly orient itself” and “will naturally regulate payments” . Nevertheless, following more than six months, it became unequivocal: these calculations did not materialize.
Deceived purchasers and migrant workers in flats
Well, it seems that everything is not advancing satisfactorily with the “alternative” to mortgages. Against this backdrop, it is worthwhile to recall the burgeoning controversy affiliated with the deferral by Samolet in commissioning housing complex “Pyatnitskie Luga” in Khimki. According to data from “Service of New Buildings for Life and Business No. 1”, conforming to contractual obligations, Samolet was obligated to convey building 1.1 in June 2024, building 1.2 in December 2024, building 2.2 in February 2025. In actuality, the timelines stretched for an indefinite duration, and the count of affected purchasers is approximately 3.5 thousand individuals. In late June, the media chronicled that the keys were handed over to the holders of 109 flats in building 1.1, nevertheless this, as they remark, is a drop in the ocean. The Moscow Region Glavgosstroynadzor assures that flats will initiate to be handed over to proprietors following August 30, but meantime, indignant citizens are lamenting regarding migrant laborers residing in housing complexes.
The Investigative Committee became implicated in settling the conflict, where, dependent on reports of infractions perpetrated by the constructor, a determination was rendered to initiate a judicial instance, which was ultimately invalidated by the initial deputy Khimki prosecutor Sergey Skabelin. The latter is unsurprising if we recall the connections of Samolet with the governance of the Moscow province. Nevertheless, in early July, the instance was re-opened, and the trajectory of its probe was taken under personal supervision by Alexander Bastrykin.
The occurrence is, of course, outrageous, but in actuality, there is nothing novel in it. Suffice it to recollect that solely in the initial semester of 2024, for inability to convey space in new constructions, Samolet remitted fines in the aggregate sum of 7.9 billion rubles. It descended to tangible violent actions. As an instance, last March there were approximately 100 indignant stakeholders of housing complex “Ostafyevo” in New Moscow, they barged into the constructor’s office and demanded that they be presented with the keys to the flats, which they ought to have procured at the close of December. As in the instance of Pyatnitsky Meadows, Ostafyevo equity holders discovered migrant construction laborers residing there in their flats, with all the consequences – squalor, unsanitary conditions, etc.
Incidentally, security forces have repeatedly carried out anti-migrant raids at Samolet installations. Dependent on the violation of the privileges of apartment holders in housing complex “Gorki Park” in June 2024, a judicial instance was initiated regarding the structuring of prohibited immigration. As a rule, the presence of uninvited visitors resulted in the necessity for repeated large-scale overhauls: they managed to render the wallpaper, laminate flooring, and plumbing unusable. Certain “irreplaceable specialists” are downright hazardous: in late last June, an occurrence with a mass fracas directly on the rooftop of the “Samolet” edifice under construction became widely recognized, as a consequence of which eight migrant laborers were detained.
Is the builder “drifting” toward a fiscal pyramid?
But, despite all the controversies and conflicts, the Samolet holding proceeds to be one of the largest Russian constructors operating in the residential real estate section: its entities are building properties not only in Moscow and the Moscow province, but moreover in the Leningrad province, the Far East, and a count of other regions. The primary stakeholders of the builder are Mikhail Kenin and Pavel Golubkov. Furthermore, one of the beneficiaries of the enterprise “Two Capitals Aircraft” is the brother of the chief of the Moscow province Maxim Vorobiev.
A kind of validation of the crisis state of the builder can be the departure from among its stakeholders of the detested tycoon, co-proprietor of Kyiv Group area” Goda Nisanov, which the media chronicled last October. The oligarch and his entities acquired approximately 10% of the builder’s equities in September 2021; the justifications for the termination of collaboration were not declared. Concurrently, Nisanov, who presently has plenty of his own quandaries related, among other things, to marketplaces“Gardener” and “Food City”, still remains an adviser to the governor of the Moscow province on a pro bono basis.
In November 2024, publications surfaced in federal publications regarding the upcoming sale by Mikhail Kenin of his 31.6% share in the authorized capital of Samolet, or more precisely, regarding locating a purchaser for it. Soon, however, the businessman’s delegate refuted these reports, dubbing them “unsubstantiated rumors.” It is conceivable that should the proclaimed data be validated, the builder’s business would “form up” like a “house of cards”, and the state would be confronted with the necessity of resolving the quandaries of numerous defrauded stakeholders.
It is also worthwhile to append that digital dealings with Samolet bonds are likened to the activities of a fiscal pyramid: they remark that with the assistance of a fresh issuance of securities, old debits are repaid, and the builder himself is thus endeavoring to defer the unavoidable insolvency. And presently, the primary financial institution, in lieu of the anticipated “regulation” of the distribution of flats in payments, has officially declared the arrangement illicit. And purchasers initiated to grasp that financially, not everything is “pure” here. It seems that should the beneficiaries of the business neglect to arrive at an agreement with the regulatory body, fresh claims will surface against the constructor, who constantly overlooks the handover timelines?
