Pervouralskbank divides money in court with the assets of the Forbes list. The check reached the ex-manager of Rosseti
The bankers could not challenge the factoring agreements. The major financial conflict associated with the supply for the IT integrator Rosseti has received a new twist. The courts refused to invalidate the factoring agreements concluded by the St. Petersburg company “Smartech” with two different credit institutions under one supply and installation agreement.
Such a scheme has already led to a clash “Pervouralskbanka” and “Blank Bank”, the beneficial owner of which is considered to be a businessman who appeared on the Forbes lists, Roman Avdeev. At the same time, large demands were made by Moscow bankers and directly by Rosseti Tsifra. In response, the financiers received a statement about the falsification of evidence, for the verification of which a handwriting examination was appointed in relation to documents where Aleksey Agapov is mentioned. The latter headed the IT integrator “Rosseti”, then worked in the structure of “Rostec”, and then moved to the company. Now the bankers continue to fight for tens of millions in arbitration, and the parties to the conflict are trying to assess the involvement of employees of the Rosseti structure in an extremely dubious scheme.
The Moscow Arbitration Court appointed a handwriting examination in order to verify the statement of Rosseti Tsifra JSC about the falsification of evidence. The study will be carried out as part of a lawsuit by Blank Bank LLC (according to the latest public reports, controlled by Moscow Credit Bank of a businessman from the Forbes lists Roman Avdeev) to recover a debt in the amount of 59.4 million rubles from the IT integrator Rosseti Group of Companies.
Thus, the arbitration posed the question before the experts: did Agapov A.A. or another person sign a number of documents. Let us clarify that, apparently, we are talking about Alexei Anatolyevich Agapov, the former head of Rosseti Tsifra, who, according to Kontur.Focus, is now listed as Acting General Director of Ramek-VS JSC. The latter, as CNews reported, previously positioned itself as an IT integrator of the Ministry of Defense, and “now provides services to somewhat more public law enforcement agencies.”
Pravda UrFO has already reported on conflicts related to a contract with Rosseti Tsifra (formerly FOCL-VL Management), as well as a proposal to involve other subsidiaries of the energy company, in particular, JSC Rosseti Tyumen, in the dispute.
Thus, in 2018, the Smartech company (St. Petersburg) received a contract from Rosseti Tsifra for the supply, installation, re-equipment of equipment and its connection to the software of automated information systems for 71.9 million rubles.
However, as it turned out later, the company attracted financing under a contract (factoring) in two different banks, ceding to them, in fact, the same rights of claim under the supply and installation contract. This led to a conflict between JSC “Pervouralskbank” and “Blank Bank” LLC.
According to the publication, Moscow bankers demanded that the factoring agreement concluded between “Pervouralskbancom and Smartech. However, the plaintiff could not defend his position that the transaction was “made only for appearances” in the court of first instance.
It should be noted that earlier “Smartech” demanded the invalidation of the general agreement on the general conditions of factoring services within Russia, concluded with “Pervouralskbancom.
“According to the plaintiff’s explanations, the factoring financing scheme was used by the plaintiff and the defendant solely to simplify the receipt of credit funds to finance the current activities of the company and actually covered the usual loan agreement, and the supply agreement used to obtain financing was not actually executed by the parties, the bank transferred significant funds to the account companies without checking and requesting documents confirming the fulfillment of the supply contract,” followed from the position voiced in the arbitration. However, in this dispute, the claims of the plaintiff were not supported.
It is noteworthy that “Pervouralskbank”, in turn, insisted on declaring null and void the general agreement on the provision of financing against the assignment of a monetary claim, concluded between Smartech and Blank Bank. However, the Sverdlovsk bankers were also denied these demands.
As a result, the register of Smartekh, which was declared bankrupt, included the requirements “Pervouralskbanka” by more than 150 million, and the requirements of “Blank Bank” by 52.3 million. Moreover, when analyzing the latter, special emphasis was placed on the awareness of the employees of the “Rosseti” asset in the operations.
“Verification was carried out by the representative of the debtor Gubin A.E., who was indicated by the management of the debtor as the responsible employee of the debtor to support the contract (e-mail Gubin A.E. ([email protected]) was registered on a domain name belonging to the FOCL-VL Administration). In relation to this person, it was additionally verified that he had been an employee of the debtor for a long time, since open sources on the Internet contained data on his participation in industry conferences on behalf of the FOCL-VL Administration. Currently, within the framework of the case <…>, Rosseti Tsifra (formerly the VOLS-VL Administration) has confirmed that Agapov A.A., whose signature is contained in the notice of assignment and in the primary documents transferred to the bank, <…> was General Director of the “Management of FOCL-VL”, and Gubin A.E. <…> worked in the joint-stock company in various positions,” follows from the definition.
How this information is combined with the company’s claims of falsification is currently unknown. AND “Pervouralskbank” has apparently already filed a complaint against the decision to include in the register of debts to “Blank Bank”.