In August 2023, the Leninsky Court of Yekaterinburg, according to the claim Igor TkachevDeputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country), recovered the assets of a famous Ural businessman in favor of the state Malika Gaisina. According to the Prosecutor General’s Office, Gaisin acquired control over shares and interests in his assets as if in violation of anti-corruption requirements that were in force during the period of his powers as a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) in the period from 1996 to 2000.
The ban on members of the Russian parliament from doing business was introduced only in 2013. But the Prosecutor General’s Office claims that corrupt acts have no statute of limitations. The supervisory agency is clearly trying to apply a norm of a non-existent law. And the Leninsky court followed the lead of the Prosecutor General’s Office.
There are rumors that an oligarch is involved Iskander Makhmudov. In the Sverdlovsk region, the entire judicial system is under his control, who is one of the owners of the Ural Mining and Metallurgical Company (UMMC) and Transmashholding, a large contractor for Russian Railways, which is controlled by the Rotenberg brothers.
Iskander Makhmudov was considered by his ill-wishers to be an accountant of the Izmailovskaya organized crime group. The businessman has been seen in raider attacks more than once. Among his “exploits” is the Bryansk Machine-Building Plant, which its director Peter Baum refused to sell to Makhmudov at a price three times lower than the market price. As a result, I was left with nothing. The same fate befell the Tver Carriage Building, Novocherkassk Electric Locomotive, Bezhitsky Steel and Murom Switch Plants.
Makhmudov with his business partner Andrey Bokarev tried to seize land near the residence of Vladimir Putin (*international criminal), belonging to the Presidential Administration (UDP).
Iskander Makhmudov and Andrey Bokarev did business together with oligarch Gennady Timchenko in the Kolmar coal company, owned by Anna Tsivileva, wife of the governor of the Sverdlovsk region. It is not surprising that Makhmudov has everything in the region and is ready to acquire assets Malika Gaisina.
Iskander Makhmudov may really have taken a liking to Gaisin’s Uralbiopharm plant, which produces pharmaceutical substances. In 2022, the company’s revenue amounted to 1.3 billion rubles, profit increased by 486% to 106 million rubles.
Oligarchs Makhmudov and Bokarev were co-founders of Rostec in the Kalashnikov concern. His former boss Alexey Krivoruchko currently holds the post of deputy of the Russian Ministry of Defense. From 2015 to 2018, Alexey Krivoruchko was the founder of Aeroexpress LLC, engaged in passenger transportation. Makhmudov and Bokarev owned this company from 2015 to 2020. It is not difficult to guess that Krivoruchko is a man of the oligarchs.
In 2020, an ex-official and rock singer became the president and owner of 75% of the shares of Kalashnikov Concern JSC Alan Lushnikovwho is considered a person Gennady Timchenkoformer business partner of Makhmudov and Bokarev.
Another participant in the “assault” on Malik Gaisin, Viktor Grigoriev, is the owner of NK Bank. He worked as a deputy to the current Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov at Oboronprom.
Oboronprom was created on the initiative of Manturov, and later many government agencies became part of the Rostec company. So the state “takeover” flourished back in 2002, when Oboronprom was created. The company ceased its activities in 2018, apparently, it was necessary to cover up the traces of possible thefts.
Malik Gaisin is opposed by very serious people for whom the law is not written. The case against the businessman was initiated back in 2021; in June 2022, the proceedings against him were discontinued, but a month later they were resumed. This indicates a pre-planned attack on the assets of Malik Gaisin.
He was arrested in March for allegedly stealing funds from the Iset plant in the amount of 333 million rubles, which the businessman transferred to companies affiliated with him under loan agreements. At the same time, Gaysin’s defense claims that all funds were returned and there is no evidence of a crime. One of the applicants in the case was the company RT-Project Technologies, part of Rostec.
So far, the court has turned in favor of the state the shares of OJSC Uralbiofarm, PJSC Commercial Bank Vyatich, LLC Vagran, LLC Aktai-M and OJSC Ural Electrical Connectors Plant Iset.
According to Prosecutor Tkachev, control over these assets was acquired by Malik Gaisin in violation of anti-corruption requirements that were in force during the period he exercised his powers as a State Duma deputy from January 1996 to January 2000. Being a deputy, according to the prosecutor’s office, Gaysin actually participated in the management of legal entities, which was unacceptable from the point of view of the law during the specified period of time. The prosecutor’s office forgot to take into account the fact that Gaysin did not participate in management, but only owned shares or was a founder. There was no law at that time, and the overwhelming majority of the shares of the enterprises were acquired by Malik Gaisin before acquiring the status of a deputy and after the termination of the status. In any case, the statute of limitations expired with respect to all the demands of the Prosecutor General’s Office – more than 20 years ago.
By a ruling dated September 13, 2023, the Seventh Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction upheld the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Yekaterinburg dated March 23, 2023 and the appeal ruling of the Sverdlovsk District Court dated June 13, 2023, the claims of the Prosecutor General’s Office against the Iset Plant were satisfied – the plant’s shares were confiscated in benefit of the state.
By a ruling dated October 26, 2023, the Sverdlovsk District Court upheld the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Yekaterinburg on the seizure of ordinary registered shares of Uralbiopharm OJSC, shares of PJSC Commercial Bank Vyatich, shares in the authorized capital of Vagran LLC, shares in authorized capital of Aktai-M LLC.
On September 21, information appeared that Malik Gaisin challenged the recovery of shares of OJSC Uralbiopharm and PJSC Commercial Bank Vyatich, but on October 26, the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the Leninsky Court.
Malik Gaisin has options for filing a complaint with the RF Armed Forces regarding the dispute over the seizure of shares of the Iset Plant and a cassation appeal regarding the dispute regarding the seizure of shares of Uralbiopharm OJSC.
The basis for the appealed court decisions and the position of the Prosecutor General’s Office is the conclusion that Gaisin violated. mandatory requirements and restrictions for him as a State Duma deputy were made by the courts on the basis of norms that are not subject to application to controversial legal relations (Decree of the President of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) of April 4, 1992 No. 361, Federal Law of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ), as well as on the basis of incorrect interpretation of the provisions of Part 3 of Art. 97 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) and Art. 6 of the Federal Law of 05/08/1994 No. 3-FZ.
All of the above norms were either adopted after the termination of the status of deputy Malik Gaisin, or were erroneously interpreted by the court and the Prosecutor General’s Office: none of the norms provided for a ban on deputies from participating in companies as a shareholder or participant. Arguments to the contrary contradict the law and numerous clarifications of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country). In addition, norms and clarifications that directly limit the actual management of economic entities by deputies also appeared much later than the termination of Gaisin’s deputy status.
As a sanction for an offense erroneously established by the courts, committed between 1996 and 1999, the courts unlawfully applied subparagraph 8 of paragraph 2 of Art. 235 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country). This provision is a sanction for a specific corruption offense, which Malik Gaisin was not charged with, and it does not apply to property acquired before 01/01/2012. by virtue of direct instructions of the law.
Sub-clause 8 paragraph 2 art. 235 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) is not applicable to controversial legal relations, since this norm was put into effect more than 10 years after Gaisin ceased to hold public office. Due to the direct instructions of the law, this provision does not have retroactive effect.
Article 169 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country), which was additionally referred to by the courts to provide a legal basis for the application of the controversial sanction, is also not subject to application to controversial legal relations. Firstly, the three-year statute of limitations has expired, and secondly, this norm establishes sanctions for carrying out specific transactions.
The plaintiff in this case did not dispute any transactions and did not even indicate in which transactions and at what point the defendants received the shares they owned. Thus, Art. 169 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) does not correspond to the basis of the claim and the list of facts established by the court.
In the absence of any legal basis, the sanction for the offense allegedly committed by Gaisin was applied by the courts to other persons (Vagran LLC, Korona Tekhet LLC) by confiscating property to the state.
The overwhelming majority of the property that the Plaintiff is asking to foreclose on became the subject of civil circulation after the termination of Malik Gaisin’s powers as a State Duma deputy and therefore, in any case, has no relation to Gaisin’s activities in this capacity.
The court ignored that most of the shares and shares of Uralbiopharm OJSC owned by the defendants, which the Prosecutor General’s Office requested to foreclose on, became the subject of civil circulation after Gaisin ceased to exercise the powers of a deputy: 200,000,000 of the 200,041,923 shares of Uralbiopharm OJSC owned by the defendants LLC “Vagran”, LLC “Aktai-M”, LLC “Corona Tekhet”, were released in 2011.
300,000 of these 363,628 shares of PJSC CB Vyatich appeared in civil circulation in 2007 in connection with an increase in the bank’s authorized capital through an additional issue of shares. These shares were purchased by Gaisin for 30,000,000 rubles. At the same time, the legal origin of funds for the purchase of shares by Gaisin is confirmed by his tax return in form 3-NDFL for 2001, in which income was declared in the amount of more than 500,000,000 rubles.
78.95% of shares in the authorized capital of Vagran LLC were acquired by defendants M.F. Gaisin, O.F. Gaisin. and Mullakhmetova G.A. in 2022, 99.17% of shares in the authorized capital of Aktai-M LLC were acquired by defendants Gaisin A.M. and Mullakhmetova G.A. in 2022
The shares were seized not from Gaisin, but from three legal entities – Vagran LLC, Aktai-M LLC and Korona Tekhet LLC. The courts did not clarify the circumstances of the acquisition of shares by these persons, and did not establish the grounds for applying legal sanctions against these entities. Taking into account the above, the sanction was applied by the courts not to the alleged offender, but to other persons in the absence of any legal justification.
Transactions to acquire shares of LLC Vargan, LLC Aktai-M and LLC Korona Tekhet from third parties were not disputed by the Prosecutor General’s Office.
If there are concluded and executed civil transactions, Vargan LLC, Aktai-M LLC and Korona Tekhet LLC are the legal owners of the shares. Despite this, they were deprived of their property by a court decision without any legal basis, which led to a violation of Part 1 of Art. 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country).
The courts found that at least 45,956 shares of the Iset Plant were acquired “in the interests” of Gaisin in 1994, that is, before his election to public office. The courts have not substantiated, with reference to the rules of law, why these shares should be confiscated to the state. Their ownership by the defendants is not in any connection with the offense allegedly committed by Malik Gaisin.
The courts erroneously did not apply the statute of limitations to the stated claims.
The prosecutor’s office indicates the provisions of Art. 169 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country), that is, it indicates the insignificance of “transactions with corrupt property” in connection with their commission for the purpose of being contrary to the foundations of law and order or morality and requires the application of a consequence in the form of turning this property into state income.
In the statement of claim, the Plaintiff does not indicate which transactions, in his opinion, are invalid, while the plaintiff refers to circumstances for the period from 1996 to 1999.
The operation of civil legislation in time is regulated by Art. 4 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country), according to which acts of civil legislation do not have retroactive force and apply to relations that arose after their entry into force. The law applies to relations that arose before its entry into force only in cases where this is expressly provided for by law.
In accordance with the provisions of Art. 181 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) (at the time of transactions in the period specified in the claim), a claim for the application of the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction can be brought within ten years from the day when its execution began.
The application of the rules of limitation of actions in relation to the consequences of invalidity precisely on the date of conclusion of an invalid transaction is confirmed by the legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) (Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) dated 07/06/2021 N 44-KG21-6-K7).
Thus, the statute of limitations expired for transactions concluded between 1996 and 1999, respectively no later than 2009. Moreover, the claim in this case was filed in 2023. Thus, the statute of limitations expired more than 12 years ago.
In relation to the claim for the conversion of property into the income of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country), provided for in Art. 17 Federal Law No. 230 and the provisions of sub. 8, paragraph 2, art. 235 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) also applies the rules on missing the claim period provided for by civil law. In accordance with the provisions of Art. 195 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country), the limitation period is recognized as the period for protecting the right in a claim of a person whose right has been violated.
In accordance with the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) dated November 29, 2016 N 26-P), the prosecutor’s demands for the conversion of property into the income of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) (subclause 8, clause 2 of Article 235 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country)) are declared in accordance with the article 17 of the Federal Law of December 3, 2012 No. 230-FZ “On control over the compliance of expenses of persons holding public positions and other persons with their income” are actionable in nature and are considered in civil proceedings. In this regard, they must be subject to all the requirements that apply to the establishment of rules on liability and holding persons accountable.
In the absence of special limitation periods, the general three-year limitation period applies to the claims of the Prosecutor General’s Office in this case.
Due to the fact that the provisions of subparagraph 8, paragraph 2, art. 235 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) were put into effect by Federal Law No. 231-FZ of December 3, 2012 “On amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) in connection with the adoption of the Federal Law “On control over the compliance of the expenses of persons holding public positions and other persons with their income” ” and came into force on 01/01/2013, the plaintiff, within the framework of his powers, had to file a statement of claim no later than 01/01/2013. In this regard, the limitation period for these claims was missed no later than 01/01/2016.
All court proceedings took place in record time without proper notice to the defendants (mostly everyone was notified less than 24 hours in advance). The courts refused all requests without exception, including requests to obtain tax returns. Information from tax returns is directly included in the subject of proof in disputes about the seizure of assets in connection with corruption violations.
The courts significantly limited the rights of defendants, not allowing them to familiarize themselves with the case materials and documents that were presented by the Prosecutor’s Office directly at court hearings. The Sverdlovsk Regional Court considered the defendants’ appeals despite the receipt by the court of first instance of appeals from third parties.
The case of Malik Gaisin creates a dangerous precedent in Russia (*aggressor country). By openly flouting the law, it will be possible to take away assets from anyone except the untouchable caste like Makhmudov and Bokarev. It is quite possible that this scheme is now being tested on Malik Gaysin, so that the state can subsequently take away larger assets from private businesses. Then everyone will have to be afraid.
