The High Court of London considered the statement of Igor Mints about the cancellation of the blocking of his assets and upheld the obligation to non-alienation of property within $ 572 million. RBC got acquainted with the court decision. The plaintiffs in the case against Mintsev are Otkrytie Bank and Non-core Assets Bank Trust. Igor Mintz also asked for the blocking of his stake in the management company EG Capital Advisors (which manages the assets of the MF Trust family trust) and his rights as a trustee of the family fund.
The judge in his decision concluded that the plaintiffs had grounds for accusing the defendants of fraud, and also pointed out that in the summer another judge recorded the risk of hiding assets. He also noted that Igor Mints, as the trustee of the family MF Trust, can manage the distribution of assets in favor of others. Igor Mints objected that he could only do what the trusts indicated to him (a person representing the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust. - RBC). There is no risk of hiding assets, he said.
“This decision once again confirms our innocence in this dispute. The judge made it clear that he considered it highly likely that this scenario would be hidden if assets were unblocked. We intend to prevent this and return the withdrawn money, ”said Alexander Sokolov, chairman of the bank’s board, whose words were conveyed by the Trust press service.
RBC sent a request to Stephenson Harwood, representing the interests of Igor Mints.
In June 2019, Trust and Otkritie, which the Central Bank owns through the Banking Consolidation Fund, filed a lawsuit against Boris Mints, the owner of O1 Group. The defendants are also the eldest son of Boris Mints, Dmitry and the two youngest sons, the twins Alexander and Igor. Then the court froze the assets of businessmen around the world in the range of $ 572 million.
In July, Boris, Dmitry and Alexander Mintsy tried to challenge this decision, but their lawyers spoke “without evidence”, it follows from the decision of the High Court of London. Then they managed to achieve only milder security measures: the court replaced the freezing of assets (WFO) with a commitment to undertaking their non-exclusion (undertaking). WFO is an injunction that implies a ban not only on disposals, but also on the disposal of assets.
Igor Mintz’s lawyer at the time of the court session said that if asset freezing around the world could not be removed right now, he would take the time to prepare a “full statement with evidence”. As a result, hearings on his statement were held in December.
However, the court again refused. The representative of the Trust claims that now the defendants will be able to challenge the obligation to non-alienation of property only if there is a significant change in the actual circumstances of the case.
What assets were blocked
Open Media, citing a court decision, wrote that the High Court blocked eight companies in the UK from Mintsev, including firms that own the Elstree Moat House Hotel and Stoke-on-Trenton House Hotel, Bolton Moat House and DoubleTree by Hilton Cheltenham, as well as Summerwinds, Montague House and Lethendy Tower. The ultimate beneficiary of Lethendy is Boris Mints's Mints Family Trust, wrote RBC in 2018. All hotels and Lethendy itself are mortgaged to banks, according to documents from the British company registry.