Who would have thought even for a moment that to this day in Russia there are people who not only do not have the law, but who go beyond the limits of moral principles and public order simply because they can! Andrey Zinovievich Prokip is just that. A person with huge money acquired by criminal labor creates lawlessness and closes criminal cases due to connections and huge money. Andrei Prokip and the story of the ex-lover he tortured literally blew up the network a few years ago. Today we recall the shameful story of Andrei Zinovievich Prokip.
Love can bring not only to madness, but also to prison. However, it depends on many factors. In Moscow, the ex-lover of a major businessman Andrei Prokip accused him of death threats, violence and bullying. Prokip’s fortune is estimated at hundreds of millions of euros. The former mistress of a major shadow capital businessman accuses the entrepreneur of death threats. According to the girl, he swore to brutally deal with her parents. At the same time, there are all audio recordings of threats that Andrey Zinovievich Prokip could well bring to life. With such evidence and filmed beatings, it will be very difficult for the lawyers hired by Prokip to clean up.
You can watch the video story of the girl tortured by Andrei Prokip on RenTV:
At first there was love, which everyone envied, but overnight everything changed. Julia’s relationship with the dollar multimillionaire Prokip cracked when this formerly gallant and adequate gentleman became jealous of the girl in a drunken stupor literally for every pillar. Moreover, after it turned out that his former mistresses more than once ended up in a hospital bed after attacks of jealousy by Andrei Zinovievich Prokip. The person involved in the criminal case immediately admitted that he could drink too much and use his fists, but now he calls some facts far-fetched. However, the story itself is creepy and instructive. Even instructively creepy. Especially considering the connections that Prokip A.Z. has. with the Chechen mafia.
After some time, the “beloved” beat Yulia, and then Andrei Prokip, together with armed men, demanded the keys to the safe. They literally turned the apartment upside down. They took everything: fur coats, diamonds, shoes and dresses worth 15 million rubles. Andrei Prokip and his thugs stole documents from the car and even the keys to the apartment.
Who is Andrey Prokip and why so many girls?
Yulia’s ex-boyfriend, Andrey Prokip, is a big businessman. His fortune is estimated in millions of euros. The man says that he did not give any gifts to his girlfriend, but simply gave things to the girl for a while. The merchant, apparently, is a real ladies’ man, albeit a criminal. He was already married twice, but at the same time he constantly twisted novels on the side and made new acquaintances on the Internet. He rented luxurious apartments for his mistresses so as not to invite them to his place.
SOLUTION
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Moscow city April 15, 2019
The Presnensky District Court of the City of Moscow, composed of the presiding judge Zenger Y.I., with the secretary Egorova V.A., with the participation of the plaintiff, the representative of the plaintiff, the defendant and her representative, as well as the representative of a third party Shcheglov V.A., having considered in open court civil case No. 2-1727/19 on the suit of Andrei Zinovievich Prokip against Olga Valentinovna Shcheglova on the division of jointly acquired property, the allocation of a share in the vehicle and foreclosure on it,
SET UP:
Prokip A.Z. filed a lawsuit against Shcheglova Oh.The. on the division of jointly acquired property, the allocation of a share in the vehicle and the foreclosure on it.
In support of the stated requirements, the plaintiff indicated that he is the defendant’s creditor by decision of the Presnensky District Court of the city of Moscow dated 27.11.2012, in accordance with which Shcheglova Oh.The. in favor of Prokip A.Z. collected funds in the amount of 2,039,000 rubles, a fine in the amount of 200,000 rubles, court costs for paying the state fee in the amount of 28,590 rubles. On the basis of the writ of execution by the bailiff-performer Presnensky department of bailiffs UFSSP Russia in Moscow in relation to Shcheglova Oh.The. enforcement proceedings No.… dated August 19, 2015, the balance of the debt as of January 11, 2019 is 1,927,704.72 rubles. During the court execution, it was established that the defendant’s personal property was not enough to cover the debt. However, the Defendant Shcheglova Oh.The. and Third party Shcheglov V.A. are married, which is confirmed by a marriage certificate dated September 29, 1990. …issued by the Krasnopresnensky department of the registry office of Moscow. The following property is jointly owned by the Defendant and the Third Party: LAND ROVER FREELANDER-2 car, vehicle registration platedate of registration 05.07.2013, year of manufacture of the car 2012, VIN VIN code. In accordance with the current legislation, when dividing common property, the shares of the spouses are recognized as equal, therefore, the share of Shcheglova O.V. may be 450,000 rubles. According to paragraph 1 of Article 38 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, the division of the common property of the spouses can be carried out both during the period of marriage and after its dissolution in the event that the creditor claims the division of the common property of the spouses in order to levy execution on the share of one of the spouses in the common property of the spouses. According to paragraph 1 of Article 45 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, for the obligations of one of the spouses, recovery can only be levied on the property of this spouse. If this property is insufficient, the creditor has the right to demand that the debtor spouse’s share, which would be due to the debtor spouse in the division of the spouses’ common property, be allocated in order to levy execution on it. According to paragraph 1 of Article 39 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, when dividing the common property of the spouses and determining shares in this property, the shares of the spouses are recognized as equal, unless otherwise provided by the agreement between the spouses. The Plaintiff does not know of any other circumstances for deviating from equality of shares. These circumstances served as the reason for the plaintiff’s appeal to the court with this claim, in which the plaintiff asks the court to make a division of joint property Shcheglovoj Oh.The. and Shcheglova V.A. in the form of a vehicle brand LAND ROVER FREELANDER-2, vehicle registration plate, as follows: the share of the defendant Shcheglova Oh.The. – ½ vehicle brand LAND ROVER FREELANDER-2, vehicle registration plate, share of a third party Shcheglova V.A. – ½ vehicle brand LAND ROVER FREELANDER-2, vehicle registration plate, allocate a share of Shcheglova Oh.The. in the right of common ownership of the car and to foreclose on it, in repayment of the debt to Prokip A.Z.
The plaintiff and his representative by proxy appeared at the hearing, supported the claims in full, asked the court to satisfy them.
The defendant and her representative, as well as a representative of a third party Shcheglova The.A. appeared at the hearing, the claims were not recognized, according to the arguments set out in detail in writing, and also indicated that on March 26, 2019 between Shcheglova Oh.The. and Shcheglov V.A. an agreement was concluded for the allocation of a share in the ownership of a car, the sale and purchase of a ½ share in the ownership of a car, in accordance with which the parties carried out the division of the vehicle LAND ROVER FREELANDER-2, vehicle registration plateafter the division, the parties are recognized as owners of ½ shares in the ownership of the above car, while on April 15, 2019, the plaintiff received from the defendant for the sale of ½ shares in the ownership of the LAND ROVER FREELENDER-2 vehicle, vehicle registration platein repayment of financial debt to Prokip A.Z., in accordance with the decision of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow dated November 27, 2012 in the amount of 220,900 rubles, for which a corresponding receipt was drawn up.
Third parties did not appear at the hearing, they were notified.
Based on Art. 167 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court considers it possible to consider the case at this appearance.
The court, after hearing the persons participating in the case, having studied the case materials, comes to the following.
According to Art. 255 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the creditor of a participant in shared or joint ownership, if the owner has insufficient other property, has the right to present a demand for the allocation of the debtor’s share in the common property for foreclosure. If in such cases it is impossible to allocate a share in kind, or the other participants in shared or joint ownership object to this, the creditor shall have the right to demand that the debtor sell his share to the other participants in common property at a price commensurate with the market value of this share, with the proceeds from the sale being used to repay the debt. If the other participants in the common property refuse to acquire the debtor’s share, the creditor shall have the right to demand in court that the debtor’s share in the common property right be foreclosed by selling this share at public auction.
In force with h. 3, 4 Article. 256 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, for the obligations of one of the spouses, execution can be levied only on property owned by him, as well as on his share in the common property of the spouses, which would be due to him upon division of this property. The rules for determining the shares of spouses in common property during its division and the procedure for such division are established by family law.
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 38 The IC of the Russian Federation may divide the common property of the spouses both during the period of marriage and after its dissolution at the request of any of the spouses.
By virtue of item 1 And paragraph 2 of Art. 39 When dividing the common property of the spouses and determining the shares in this property, the shares of the spouses are recognized as equal, unless otherwise provided by the agreement between the spouses. The court has the right to deviate from the beginning of the equality of the shares of the spouses in their common property based on the interests of minor children and (or) based on the noteworthy interest of one of the spouses, in particular, in cases where the other spouse did not receive income for unjustified reasons or spent the common property of the spouses to the detriment of the family.
The court established and confirmed by the case file, that the plaintiff is the defendant’s creditor by decision of the Presnensky District Court of the city of Moscow dated 27.11.2012, in accordance with which Shcheglova Oh.The. in favor of Prokip A.Z. collected funds in the amount of 2,039,000 rubles, a fine in the amount of 200,000 rubles, court costs for paying the state fee in the amount of 28,590 rubles.
The decision of the court entered into force.
On the basis of a writ of execution issued by the Presnensky District Court of Moscow, in pursuance of the court decision that has entered into force, the bailiff-executor of the Presnensky department of bailiffs of the UFSSP of Russia in Moscow in relation to Shcheglova Oh.The. enforcement proceedings No.… dated August 19, 2015, the balance of the debt as of January 11, 2019 is 1,927,704.72 rubles.
During the court execution, it was established that the defendant’s personal property was not enough to cover the debt.
wherein the Defendant Shcheglova Oh.The. and Third party Shcheglov V.A. are married, which is not contested by the parties.
The third party owns the following property: LAND ROVER FREELANDER-2 car, vehicle registration platedate of registration 05.07.2013, year of manufacture of the car 2012, VIN VIN code.
March 26, 2019 between Shcheglova O.V. and Shcheglov V.A. an agreement was concluded for the allocation of a share in the ownership of a car, the sale and purchase of a ½ share in the ownership of a car, in accordance with which the parties carried out the division of the vehicle LAND ROVER FREELANDER-2, vehicle registration plateafter the division, the parties are recognized as owners of ½ shares in the ownership of the above car.
On April 15, 2019, the plaintiff received from the defendant for the sale of her ½ share in the ownership of the LAND ROVER FREELANDER-2 vehicle, vehicle registration platein repayment of financial debt to Prokip A.Z., in accordance with the decision of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow dated November 27, 2012, in the amount of 220,900 rubles, about which a corresponding receipt was drawn up and not challenged by the plaintiff.
According to paragraph 1 of Art. 33 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, the legal regime of property of spouses is the regime of their joint property.
In accordance with the norms of family law, a change in the legal regime of the common property of spouses is possible on the basis of a marriage contract concluded between them (Articles 41, 42 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation), an agreement on the division of property (clause 2 of Article 38 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation), an agreement on the recognition of the property of one of the spouses as common joint or common shared property (Article 37 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation).
Paragraph 1 of Art. 7 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation provides that citizens, at their own discretion, dispose of their rights arising from family legal relations, including the right to protect these rights, unless otherwise established by the Code.
Consequently, the spouses have the right, at their discretion, to change the regime of common joint ownership of property acquired in marriage (or part of it, including the joint debts of the spouses), both on the basis of a marriage contract, and on the basis of any other agreement (agreement) that does not contradict family and civil law.
In accordance with part 1 of Article 45 According to the Family Code of the Russian Federation, for the obligations of one of the spouses, execution can only be levied on the property of this spouse. If this property is insufficient, the creditor shall have the right to demand that the share of the debtor spouse, which would be due to the debtor spouse in the division of the common property of the spouses, be allocated in order to levy execution on it.
In accordance with part 1 of Article 46 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, the spouse is obliged to notify his creditor (creditors) of the conclusion, amendment or termination of the marriage contract. If this obligation is not fulfilled, the spouse is liable for his obligations, regardless of the content of the marriage contract.
According to article 38 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, the division of the common property of the spouses can be carried out both during the period of marriage and after its dissolution at the request of any of the spouses, as well as in the event that the creditor claims the division of the common property of the spouses in order to levy execution on the share of one of the spouses in the common property spouses.
Paragraph 1 of Art. 237 The Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that the seizure of property by levying execution on it for the obligations of the owner is carried out on the basis of a court decision, unless a different procedure for levying collection is provided by law or an agreement.
According to Art. 69 Federal Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” foreclosure on the debtor’s property includes the seizure of property and (or) its sale, carried out by the debtor independently, or forced sale or transfer to the recoverer.
In the absence or insufficiency of the debtor’s funds, execution is levied on other property belonging to him on the basis of the right of ownership, economic management and (or) operational management, with the exception of property withdrawn from circulation and property that, in accordance with federal law, cannot be foreclosed, regardless of where and in whose actual possession and (or) use it is located. If the debtor has property belonging to him on the basis of common ownership, then the execution is levied on the debtor’s share, determined in accordance with federal law.
IN Definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation N 569-О-О dated April 21, 2011, it is indicated that the provisions of the Federal law “On Enforcement Proceedings” does not determine the procedure for foreclosing a debtor’s share in common property. The legal regime of common property, the features of the sale of a share in common property, as well as the procedure for foreclosing such a share are established by special rules articles 250 And 255 Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
According to Art. 255 The creditor of a participant in shared or joint ownership, if the owner has insufficient other property, has the right to present a demand for the allocation of the debtor’s share in the common property for levying execution on it.
If in such cases it is impossible to allocate a share in kind, or the other participants in shared or joint ownership object to this, the creditor shall have the right to demand that the debtor sell his share to the other participants in common property at a price commensurate with the market value of this share, with the proceeds from the sale being used to repay the debt.
If the other participants in the common property refuse to acquire the debtor’s share, the creditor shall have the right to demand in court that the debtor’s share in the common property right be foreclosed by selling this share at public auction.
According to 63 Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 17, 2015 N 50 “On the application by the courts of legislation when considering certain issues arising in the course of enforcement proceedings” in the absence (insufficiency) of the debtor’s other property, recovery may be levied on the debtor’s share in the total (share or joint) ownership in the manner prescribed article 255 Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
The bailiff, in order to execute the writ of execution, along with the debtor’s creditor (collector) has the right to demand in court that the debtor’s share in kind be separated from the common property and foreclose on it. In this case, other co-owners must be involved in the case.
If it is impossible to allocate the debtor’s share from the joint property in kind, the court should decide on the issue of determining the size of this share.
If it is impossible to allocate a share in kind or the other participants in the common property object to this, the interested co-owner has the right to acquire the debtor’s share at a price commensurate with the market value of this share (second paragraph of Article 255 Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Based on the provisions of the above norms, the basis for satisfying the stated in the order Part 1 Art. 255 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the requirement for the allocation of the debtor’s share in common property is the presence of a set of circumstances, including, in addition to the facts that the defendant has an unfulfilled monetary obligation to the plaintiff and the insufficiency of property to pay off the debt, the fact that the defendant owns the property, the allocation of a share in which the plaintiff requires , as well as the availability of the technical possibility of individualizing the share as an independent premises, the implementation of such individualization and the absence of objections to the allocation of a share in kind of the remaining participants in common shared ownership.
At the same time, the plaintiff did not take measures to collect the debt in compliance with the rules provided for Art. 255 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, guaranteeing observance of the right of pre-emptive purchase of a share by another participant in common property.
The Court, resolving the dispute, taking into account the explanations of the persons involved in the case, guided by the above rules of law, concludes that there are no grounds to satisfy the stated Prokip A.Z. claims.
In doing so, the court takes into account that the contract of 26.03.2019 Mr. Shcheglova Oh.The. and Shcheglov V.A. divided the property. The court also takes into account that Shcheglov The.A. is not a debtor to the plaintiff.
Moreover, on April 15, 2019, the plaintiff received from the defendant for the sale of her ½ share in the ownership of the LAND ROVER FREELANDER-2 vehicle, vehicle registration platein repayment of financial debt to Prokip A.Z., in accordance with the decision of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow dated November 27, 2012, in the amount of 220,900 rubles, about which a corresponding receipt was drawn up and not challenged by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s arguments were verified by the court when resolving the dispute, however, the circumstances to which the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s representative referred in support of the stated requirements were not confirmed and refuted by the evidence collected in the case.
Under such circumstances, taking into account the above, the court comes to the groundlessness of the claim, and therefore considers it necessary to satisfy the claims of Andrey Zinovievich Prokip against Olga Valentinovna Shcheglova on the division of jointly acquired property, the allocation of a share in the vehicle and foreclosure on it to refuse .
Based on the foregoing, guided by Article.Article. 194-198 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court
DECIDED:
To satisfy the claims of Andrei Zinovievich Prokip against Olga Valentinovna Shcheglova on the division of jointly acquired property, the allocation of a share in the vehicle and the foreclosure of it.
The decision can be appealed to the Moscow City Court by filing an appeal through the Presnensky District Court of Moscow within a month from the date of the decision of the court in final form.
Judge Yu.I. Zenger
SOLUTION
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Moscow city April 15, 2019
The Presnensky District Court of the City of Moscow, composed of the presiding judge Zenger Y.I., with the secretary Egorova V.A., with the participation of the plaintiff, the representative of the plaintiff, the defendant and her representative, as well as the representative of a third party Shcheglov V.A., having considered in open court hearing civil case No. 2-1727/19 on the claim of Andrey Zinovievich Prokip to Olga Valentinovna Shcheglova on the division of jointly acquired property, allocation of a share in the vehicle and foreclosure on it, guided by Art. 199 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation,
DECIDED:
To satisfy the claims of Andrei Zinovievich Prokip against Olga Valentinovna Shcheglova on the division of jointly acquired property, the allocation of a share in the vehicle and the foreclosure of it.
The decision can be appealed to the Moscow City Court by filing an appeal through the Presnensky District Court of Moscow within a month from the date of the decision of the court in final form.
Judge Yu.I.Zenger
In a luxurious mansion behind a high fence, businessman Andrei Zinovievich Prokip lives with his wife. Now, apparently, frightened by the anger of his mistresses, he practically does not go out into the street.
The victim wrote a statement to the police, and a criminal case was opened immediately. For robbery, the jealous man was threatened with up to eight years in prison, but later, for some reason, the article was replaced with “arbitrariness.” They say that Andrei Prokip knows how to resolve issues without too much fuss. He knows how to pressure the judge, he also knows how to bribe. In a word, Andrei Zinovievich Prokip has everything under control. Such is he – the criminal multimillionaire Andrei Prokip …
