January 24 Main results of the day

The Vakhitovsky Court of the city of Kazan completely acquitted the client of lawyer Alexander Pogodin, in a criminal case of fraud with damages in the amount of 11 million rubles. The Investigative Committee and the prosecutor’s office accused Alexander Pogodin’s client of fraud in two episodes, the first of which is related to the combination of positions — according to investigators, from 2004 to 2017, he fictitiously held two positions at once. The second episode deals with the overpricing of the contract. The state prosecution requested 6 years and 7 months in a general regime colony for the Defendant, as well as a fine of 700 thousand rubles. During the investigation, Alexander Pogodin’s client was under house arrest for a year, was removed from his duties, and a ban on transactions was imposed on his property by the court. The Defendant did not admit guilt from the first day, most of the witnesses from the prosecution testified in his favor. The Defendant’s lawyer, Member of the Bureau Presidium Alexander Pogodin, acted as a Defender throughout the investigation, it was at his request that the criminal case was returned twice for additional investigation, a large volume of documents confirming the Defendant’s innocence was examined, and independent experts were involved to conduct an accounting examination.  As a result, after almost 4 years, the court found him completely innocent of both episodes for lack of corpus delicti, recognized the right to rehabilitation, canceled the preventive measure in the form of a subscription not to leave, and also lifted the arrest from his property.

https://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/620914

The Moscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the claims of the counterparty of the Principal of the Bureau for the recovery of losses under bank guarantees of more than 7 million rubles. The Bureau’s lawyers were able to prove that, despite the Principal sending a notice of suspension of work under the contract, this requirement was not fulfilled by the Subcontractor, and the work was continued. At the same time, in violation of the terms of the security agreements, the fulfillment of obligations for the period of work (bank guarantees for the period after notification of suspension) was not provided. Due to the terms of the contracts, bank guarantees ensured the fulfillment of all obligations under the contracts, including the obligation to extend guarantees for the period of work, and not providing guarantees entailed liability in the form of a fine. Thus, senior lawyer Ilsur Zakirov managed to prove the legality of writing off guarantees as a fine.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal rejected the opponents’ claim against the owner of non-residential premises (the Principal of the Bureau) for unjustified rental claims. The Principal turned to the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” with an order to protect his interests as the owner in a dispute with an imaginary tenant, who insisted that he had the right to use commercial premises for a fee until 2042 on the basis of a lease agreement dated 1993. The complexity of the case was that, for a number of reasons, it was impossible to question the very fact of concluding a contract due to the prescription of the event, despite the fact that the contract was never executed by the parties, there was no act of its termination. The Bureau’s lawyer was able to prove that the lease agreement was never executed by the parties; in the foreseeable past, the parties were connected by rental relations based on short-term contracts, which were terminated at the initiative of the landlord before the claim was filed. Prolonged non-fulfillment of a long-term lease agreement created conditions for its termination without drawing up a joint act. In addition, the Plaintiff missed the statute of limitations and incorrectly chose the method to protect the violated right. The court of first instance agreed with the arguments of the Bureau’s lawyer and refused to satisfy the claim in full. The opponents did not agree with this court decision and filed an appeal, but already in the appellate court they abandoned the claim completely. The interests of the owner were defended by Konstantin Tkachenko, head of the practice of legal support of entrepreneurship at the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

By the decision of the Noginsky District Court dated January 24, 2023, the Bureau’s Principal’s demands to recover the loan amount from the debtor with interest and fines were fully satisfied. The court recovered the debt in the amount of 1.5 million rubles from the debtor and foreclosed on the mortgaged car under the loan agreement, which the debtor managed to sell during the trial. The interests of the Principal were represented by senior lawyer Sergey Bibikov.