Petr Aven will look for president on Khachaturov

The Moscow Arbitration Court rejects claims for the recovery of funds from the former owners of Rosgosstrakh, the co-owner of Alfa Bank wrote.
Alfa-Bank co-owner Peter Aven asked President Vladimir Putin to instruct the Prosecutor General’s Office to check how the law is observed when arbitration courts consider disputes between Rosgosstrakh and former co-owner of insurer Danil Khachaturov. This is stated in the letter Aven sent to Putin in April. It is the president’s resolution: “Consider [Attorney General] Chaika Yu. Ya.” "Vedomosti" read the document. The letter says that A1 (like Alfa Bank, part of Alfa Group) has entered into a partnership agreement with Rosgosstrakh. According to it, Alfa-Group assists in the return of assets and money “illegally withdrawn from Rosgosstrakh” by the former owner, Danil Khachaturov.

“I do not comment on my letters to the president,” Aven told Vedomosti. In order to protect the interests of “Rosgosstrakh”, A1 sent a number of requests to state bodies with a request to give a legal assessment of the committed Khachaturov transactions. “One of the requests signed by A1 representative Peter Aven was sent to the president,” said A1 representative. “The said request was submitted to the General Prosecutor’s Office for consideration.” The representative of Rosgosstrakh said that in addition to full-time employees, the company attracts specialists from outside organizations, including A1. Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, declined to comment. Requests "Vedomosti" in the Prosecutor General's Office and the owner of "Rosgosstrakh" - the bank "FC Opening" remained unanswered.

Experience did not help

In December 2016, Khachaturov agreed to exchange the insurer and its associated assets for a share in the owner of FC Otkritie - Otkrytie Holding. And in August 2017, the Central Bank took the bank for reorganization. But under the terms of the transaction, Khachaturov continued until mid-October 2017 to maintain control over the companies of the Rosgosstrakh group, according to the letter of Aven. In 2018, “a whole series of obviously unprofitable transactions and actions of the previous Rosgosstrakh management were revealed. Their essence consisted in the withdrawal of property and money in favor of the companies of Khachaturov and his brother Sergey. The insurer suffered damage of at least 1.5 billion rubles. Aven listed several such transactions: Rosgosstrakh bought bonds of enterprises in a pre-bankrupt or bankrupt state for 700 million rubles; “Practically free of charge” gave up the share of ownership of a network of medical institutions worth at least 800 million rubles; A number of structures of Sergey Khachaturov used the Rosgosstrakh trademarks at significantly reduced prices. “Since the new owner of Rosgosstrakh in the person of Otkritie FC is owned by the Bank of Russia, the execution of the described transactions can be viewed as causing damage to a state company,” wrote Aven.

Rosgosstrakh appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court. “Despite the obvious nature of the abuses committed, the unprofitableness and illegality of the transactions made by the former management of Rosgosstrakh, the courts denied claims, ignoring the basics of the law and the circumstances of the cases. Court decisions are made solely in favor of Mr. Khachaturov’s companies, and the cases themselves are considered with gross procedural violations, ”wrote Aven. The letter also states that “a uniform, biased and lawless approach of courts of different instances may indicate a possible non-procedural influence on judges by persons associated with Sergey Khachaturov. Alfa Group, represented by Alfa Bank and A1, has a wealth of experience in collecting debts and recovering the withdrawn assets, and AlfaStrakhovanie is an industry expert in the field of insurance, but even their joint efforts are not enough to restore the violated rights of Rosgosstrakh. connection with the alleged illegal influence on the decisions made by arbitration courts ”.

Aven asked to instruct the Prosecutor General’s Office and “other relevant state bodies” to check compliance with the requirements of the law, including for evidence of elements of a crime when arbitration courts consider disputes between Rosgosstrakh and Khachaturov’s structures, as well as prisoners of the former Rosgosstrakh leadership »Transactions that are appealed by the insurer.

Khachaturov happy

“I am pleased with the appearance of this letter and especially the presidential resolution on it,” Danil Khachaturov told Vedomosti. “Because the more attention is drawn to my personal conflict with [President of FC Otkritie Mikhail] Zadornov, the higher the likelihood that it will end with an objective investigation. Including on the most important court cases, which we lost for unknown reasons, but most importantly - on the blatant content of my brother’s arrest on charges of economic crimes against himself. ” He adds that the connection of the Prosecutor General’s Office should set in motion a real objective hearing. “As for Pyotr Olegovich [Aven], then complaining to the president that Alpha could not make money through mediation in court is, of course, hard, but embarrassing!” Said Khachaturov.

“I pleaded with“ Discovery ”only under two lawsuits - the return of a donated bank and thousands of real estate objects, - the businessman continues. - Both claims in the aggregate of more than 30 billion rubles. I lost in all instances outright. " In June 2018, the Cyprus RGS Capital, which, according to the Central Bank for 2017, belonged to Sergey Khachaturov, filed a lawsuit against FC Otkritie. The plaintiff contested the sale of shares of RGS-Bank and claimed that the amount of the transaction was understated - 2.54 billion rubles. instead of 14.53 billion. In the court of first instance, appeal and cassation, RGS Capital lost, in May she filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.

Rosgosstrakh loses

Rosgosstrakh itself also tried to challenge several transactions concluded with Khachaturov companies, follows from the card file of arbitration courts. In August 2017, Rosgosstrakh’s subsidiary affiliated to it in October 2018, Capital Re filed a lawsuit against RGS Med-Invest: it tried to challenge the transfer of that 100% to Medis in return by 3.9% in the RGS Med-Invest. At the same time, Capital Re filed a lawsuit against its former CEO, Daur Genia, demanding compensation for the loss of 827.6 million rubles. from this deal. The claims were denied. In April, Rosgosstrakh filed a complaint with the Supreme Court against the decision on the lawsuit to Jenia, in May the Supreme Court requested the case file.

“Capital re” also filed a lawsuit against the former company Khachaturov “RGS Life” (now “Capital Life Insurance”), in which it demanded to invalidate the purchase from it of bankrupt “RGS real estate” for 481 million rubles. In the lawsuit, the court also refused, filed a cassation appeal.

It was not possible for Rosgosstrakh to challenge the purchase of Capital Life (the subsidiary of RGS Life, merged with Capital Life Insurance) of Otkritie FC Eurobonds for 59.2 million rubles. In May, the Supreme Court requested materials on this case.

In August 2018, Rosgosstrakh combined claims against RGS Medinvest, Capital Life Insurance and Capital Life in one lawsuit. In it, he demanded to invalidate another contract for the sale of securities with Capital Life for 264 million rubles, but the court of first instance refused to satisfy this claim. Rosgosstrakh filed a cassation appeal.

Last year, Rosgosstrakh also tried to sue 150 billion rubles from RGS Zhizn. for using his brand, however, was refused. The Court of Appeal at the end of April also refused to satisfy the complaint of Rosgosstrakh.

TA Legal Consulting's partner, Ivan Tertychny, was surprised by Aven’s complaints against the capital’s judges: “You rarely see such things in Moscow, often with problems in the regions with the courts.” “And two instances are not the end of the world, there is still a cassation and the second cassation is the Economic Chamber of the Supreme Court,” he continues. “It is not clear which resource could be used to influence all four instances.”