Recently, information appeared in the media that the Ministry of Defense lost a plot of land in Odessa. This fact is made scandalous by the fact that the land of the Ministry of Defense allegedly became the property of a citizen of the Russian Federation.
The accusations are indeed serious, therefore, in order to thoroughly understand this case, we studied dozens of documents presented by the parties, finding out that the situation looks completely different from what is presented in the media.
Let's start with the fact that several years ago the prosecutor's office filed a lawsuit on this matter, but the Supreme Court rejected it. Now another prosecutor’s office, of a lower level, is making a new attempt to “promote” this case.
In fact, the deal in question was carried out back in 2004 - and on completely legal grounds— the file contains a notarized power of attorney issued by the Minister of Defense.
Property complex located on the street. Promyshlennaya 37 in Odessa (note that we are talking specifically about a property complex, and not about a land plot) was not donated, not seized, but rather sold. The buyer, Basko LLC, bought the object, and the seller, represented by the Ministry of Defense, received money for it in the amount of its market value.
Then, in 2008, part of the property came into the possession of the Atlant private enterprise.
As for the fact of selling an object to a citizen of the Russian Federation, which during the war was practically equated to high treason, this is pure manipulation.
According to information from the Register, the Atlant enterprise is entirely Ukrainian, registered under Ukrainian legislation, and its the final beneficiary is not a citizen of the Russian Federation, but a citizen of the United States of America.
POSITION OF THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
Let us note that all the statute of limitations in this case have passed, and already at this stage the topic could be closed. However, there is a legal incident here - according to the law, the court is obliged to refuse the claim if the statute of limitations has passed, but does not have the right to refuse to accept such a claim for consideration.
What is the basis of the prosecutor's claim? The department claims that the head of the Central Directorate of the Ministry of Defense, Dmitry Isaenko, did not have the right to sign the purchase and sale agreement on the part of the Ministry of Defense, since his power of attorney to sign such documents was revoked.
However, the available documents convincingly prove that Isaenko’s power of attorney was valid both at the time of the sale and for another year and a half after the transaction - until April 2006!
The notary, who certified the power of attorney and then canceled it, provided information that the Ministry of Defense approached her for cancellation of the power of attorney only on April 01.04.2006, XNUMX. The register of powers of attorney says the same thing.
Consequently, the transaction was carried out in full compliance with the law, which is confirmed by its complete transparency.
Moreover, for two decades after the sale of the facility, the Ministry of Defense made no attempts to appeal it through the courts, which indicates that the military department agreed with the terms of the sale agreement. Over these decades, the Ministry of Defense has repeatedly carried out inspections and inventories of real estate, which recorded that the mentioned object is no longer in their possession.
In particular, the State Property Fund officially reports that already in 2006, in the list of property provided to the Fund by the Ministry of Defense, property on the street Promyshlennaya, 37 in Odessa, there was no. That is, the Ministry it was known that this property was no longer his property.
Thus, it can be stated that in 2004 the Ministry of Defense gave its consent to the alienation of the property it owned absolutely officially. and since then has not considered this property to belong to the department. The Ministry of Defense itself did not file a lawsuit regarding this matter and for some reason only the prosecutor’s office is trying to get involved in this case, again initiating legal proceedings against the Basco NGO and the Atlant private enterprise.
UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEE
It is interesting that the lawsuit was filed by prosecutors on the same grounds and facts as before. A new aspect is related to the assessment of the value of the object. The prosecutor's office claims that the value of this property is 697 thousand hryvnias, as in the 2004 agreement. However, it is natural that over 20 years it has grown significantly in price - according to the official assessment of the property complex as of December 2022, its value is already exceeds 9 million hryvnia.
In this context, it should be noted that, despite the significant discrepancy in estimates, the prosecutor's office, acting as a plaintiff, paid a court fee of only 10,5 thousand hryvnia, which is 1,5% of the cost it claimed of 697 thousand hryvnia.
In turn, “Basco” appealed to the court with a request that the prosecutor’s office pay a court fee of 145 thousand, based on the current value of the property at the time of filing the claim. However, the court rejected this requirement, which already indicates that the prosecutor was given an advantage over other persons and, in the future, may rightly raise questions about the transparency and equality of the trial process.
ODDITIES OF THE CASE
The sudden active desire of the prosecutor's office, at any cost, to “revive” this old case raises many questions - especially considering that the Basco company belongs to the mother of Vadim Cherny, whose business, after his death, was attacked by raiders.
Therefore, it cannot be excluded that this activity is associated with new attempts by the raiders to achieve their goal. Perhaps they are looking for new ways to implement their plans, including by trying to lift off the shelves even long-closed and unpromising court cases against their opponents. And it is likely that the noise made in the media is part of a larger plan by the raiders to seize another business owned by the Cherney family.
