Judges block execution of decisions of the Anti-Raider Commission

Judges block the execution of decisions of the Anti-Raider Commission. 28.12.21/4677/5 The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine adopted Decision No. 28.12.2021/4677 dated December 5, XNUMX “On satisfying the complaint” on the cancellation of the registration actions of the notary Dombrovskaya and on the return of stolen assets to CZI. In order to prevent the execution of the Decision of the Ministry of Justice No. XNUMX/XNUMX raiders and prosecutors filed claims in various courts of Ukraine. Eight judges made deliberately unjust decisions and imposed pre-trial arrests prohibiting the implementation of the Ministry of Justice decision.

Arrests made:

• Judge Ivanov V.V., Primorsky District Court of Odessa, case No. 522/22174/21;
• judge Vinskaya N.V., Kominternovsky district court, Odessa region, case No. 504/158/22;
• Judge Guseva N.D., Artsyzsky District Court, Odessa Region, case No. 492/25/22;
• -judge Butenko A.V., Odessa District Administrative Court, case No. 420/518/22;
• -judge S.V. Stasyuk, Economic Court of Kiev, case No. 910/2281/22;
• -judge T.G. Ilyeva, Pechersky District Court of Kiev, case No. 757/21736/22-k;
• -judge Anisimova N.D., Belgorod-Dniester court, Odessa region, case No. 495/7512/22;
• -judge Kotkov O.V., Economic Court of Kiev, case No. 910/11679/22.

Case No. 522/22174/21, judge V.V. Ivanov, Primorsky District Court of Odessa.

In the process of a raider takeover of the assets of TsI investigative judge of the Primorsky District Court of Odessa Ivanov V.V. provided judicial cover for raiders and assistance in the legalization of stolen assets.

For this purpose, Judge V.V. Ivanov, realizing the seriousness of the consequences of violations of the requirements of the current criminal procedural legislation, on November 19.11.2021, XNUMX, issued a deliberately illegal ruling on the seizure of the corporate rights of “Galatea”, “Basari”, “Compromise”, owned by CZI. The real purpose of property seizures was to prevent their return to the rightful owner after a raider seizure. Among the important procedural violations when considering this petition in court, it should be noted:

• fixation was not carried out using technical means. At the same time, in order to somehow justify the lack of recording, which, according to the requirements of Part 4 of Art. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine in such cases is mandatory; the case materials contain a certificate stating that the consideration of the petition was allegedly carried out in the absence of participants.  However, the reliability of this certificate was refuted by the investigating judge V.V. Ivanov himself, noting in the Resolution that the petition of Golova V.A. was considered at the court hearing “with the participation of the representative of the civil plaintiff - lawyer Podberezskaya N.V., the prosecutor - Golubkov M.V.,” and also that “the representative of the victim Golova V.A. – lawyer Podberezskaya N.V. at the court hearing, she supported the petition to seize the property and asked for it to be granted on the grounds given. The prosecutor at the court hearing did not object to the motion being granted.... After hearing representatives of Head V.A. – lawyer Podberezskaya N.V. the investigating judge comes to the conclusion that the petition must be satisfied...”, “...at the court hearing, the victim’s representative provided documents justifying the damage caused to her.”
• in violation of the Law, the Resolution does not indicate information about the person whose property is seized by this determination, in particular, from the list of persons specified in Part 6 of Art. 170, part 7 art. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, as well as their procedural status in criminal proceedings.
• The right of the victim to file a petition to seize property at the stage of pre-trial investigation arises only after notification of suspicion if there are grounds specified in Art. 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine. There was no such notice.

These procedural violations were established by the Odessa Court of Appeal and recorded in the ruling dated April 06.04.2022, 522 (case No. 22174/21/1, proceedings No. 522-ks/12014/21/XNUMX).

On January 4.01.2021, 4677, on the basis of the Decision of the Ministry of Justice No. 5–2, in order to restore the violated rights of the DZI and cancel the illegal arrest, a petition was submitted to Judge Ivanov to cancel the said arrest. However, the investigating judge Ivanov V.V. violated the established part 174 of Art. 07.02.2022 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine is a three-day period for consideration of such a petition. Ivanov V.V. considered the petition only on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, a month later. The investigating judge groundlessly refused to satisfy it. Investigating judge of the Primorsky District Court of Odessa Ivanov V.V. intentionally, in violation of the Law, did not consider the petition to lift the arrest in order to give the raiders time to impose new arrests. During this time, the raiders imposed three new pre-trial arrests:

• 14.01.2022/420/518 pre-trial arrest was imposed by judge of the Odessa District Administrative Court Butenko, case No. 22/XNUMX/XNUMX.
• 18.01.2022/504/158 pre-trial arrest was imposed by the judge of the Kominternovsky District Court of the Odessa Region Vinskaya N.V., case No. 22/XNUMX/XNUMX;
• 18.01.2022/492/25 pre-trial arrest was imposed by the judge of the Artsyzsky District Court of the Odessa Region Guseva N.D., case 22/XNUMX/XNUMX;

A complaint against Judge V.V. Ivanov was filed with the VRP, however, due to the long inaction of this body, the complaint has not yet been considered. An application against Judge Ivanov was sent to NABU, but NABU refused to initiate a case on this application. Case No. 504/158/22 Judge of the Kominternovsky District Court of the Odessa Region Vinskaya N.V.

17.01.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX, Agaev V.V. appealed to the Kominternovsky District Court of the Odessa Region with a claim against T.G. Ispanyuk.

And the essence of the claim:

• November 30.11.2021, 25 A loan agreement was concluded between Agaev and Ispanyuk, according to which Agaev transfers XNUMX million grams in debt to Ispanyuk.
• November 30.11.2021, 100 A Pledge Agreement was concluded between Agaev and Ispanyuk. The pledge is 129% of the authorized capital of Basari LLC (nominal value XNUMX million UAH).
• The deposit must be returned in installments, according to the schedule: 2 million gr - until 13.12.2021/2/29.12.2021; XNUMX million gr. - until December XNUMX, XNUMX; etc.

If Ispanyuk violates the debt repayment schedule, then Agayev has the right to submit the Loan Agreement for forced collection in court, and also to collect a fine from Ispanyuk in the amount of 75 million UAH. Ispanyuk violated the debt repayment schedule. Simultaneously with filing the claim, Agayev sends to court Application for securing a claim and asks to seize Basari LLC and all real estate owned by Basari.

18.01.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX (very quickly - the next day after filing the claim), judge Vinskaya N.V. issues a decree on seizure. In the reasoning part, the judge correctly writes that The court must make a decision on seizure taking into account the following evidence:

However, 18.01.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX Judge Vinskaya imposes arrest

Did the judge have the right to impose a pre-trial arrest?

-Yes, I did.

Should the judge have imposed a pre-trial arrest?

-No, I shouldn’t have, because... the evidence provided by the Claimant does not support his claims.

The court in its ruling noted that the Kominternovsky District Court of the Odessa Region is proceeding with a civil case on the claim of Vladimir Vladimirovich Agayev against Taras Alekseevich Ispanyuk, with the participation of a third party who does not declare independent claims on the subject of the dispute: Limited Liability Company "BASARI" for foreclosure on the subject of bail, that is, he indicated that the proceedings in the case were open.

Meanwhile, according to data from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, there is no court ruling on opening proceedings in case No. 504/158/22, which means that proceedings in this case were not opened at the time the appealed ruling on securing the claim was issued.

In violation of the law, the court did not apply countersecurity.

As evidence of the debt, the Plaintiff submitted to the court: the Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement. Both contracts were concluded on the same day - November 30.11.2021, XNUMX. But, for some reason, the Pledge agreement is notarized, and The loan agreement is not notarized. The Loan Agreement is not notarized, because... there is no evidence of transfer of 25 million grams, there are no copies of bank statements about the transfer of money, there is no receipt from the recipient of the cash. The money was transferred before the contract was signed. On what basis were they transferred? There is no evidence that Agayev V.V. (TIN 2675201177) of the specified funds:

• Agaev V.V. is not a private entrepreneur;
• Agaev V.V. does not have any personal property (according to the information certificate from the state register of property rights to real estate No. 297010243 dated January 30.01.2022, XNUMX)

Ispanyuk does not have any property registered in accordance with the procedure established by law. Ispanyuk T.A., the recipient of the loan, acts as an individual, and not as a legal entity. Why does an individual need so much money? Why is the recipient of the loan not a legal entity? Why does Ispanyuk need a loan? The agreement says that the loan was transferred on November 30.11.2021, 13.12.2021, and already on December 2, 2 (in just 25 weeks!) Ispanyuk must return XNUMX million. A very strange business. The terms of the Loan agreement do not correspond to the size of the Loan; such a primitive agreement is not concluded for a loan of XNUMX million.

The contract does not indicate Ispanyuk’s current details (the address from which he left long ago is indicated); where is Agayev going to look for Ispanyuk? A strange fine is triple the size of the loan; in real contracts there are no such fines. So, an agreement for the transfer of 25 million grams. concluded between two individuals, both officially do not have any real estate, the recipient of the money is not registered at any address, there is no confirmation of the transfer of 25 million UAH.

The Loan Agreement has all the characteristics of being fictitious.

3.08.2022 Agayev sends a petition to the court to postpone the consideration of the case, in which, in particular, he writes:

A strange statement from the Plaintiff, who demands the return of a multimillion-dollar debt. This Petition indicates that it is only important for Agayev to impose a pre-trial arrest, and in court for the return of a huge debt, he does not even intend to contact a lawyer. This also indicates that Agayev’s claim is far-fetched. The defendant in the claim, Ispanyuk T., showed complete indifference to this claim. Neither he nor his lawyers were present in court and did not provide any materials.

This lawsuit was brought not for the purpose of returning the debt, but solely for the purpose of imposing a pre-trial arrest in order to prevent the execution of the Order of the Ministry of Justice. The arrest imposed by judge Vinskaya N.V. was canceled by the decision of the Odessa Court of Appeal on August 15.08.2022, XNUMX. Case No. 492/25/22 judge of the Artsyzsky District Court of the Odessa Region Guseva N.D. On January 17.01.2022, XNUMX, S.M. Buzyka appealed to the Artsyzsky District Court of the Odessa Region. with a claim for debt repayment.

The essence of the claim:

• 10.08.2021/40/XNUMX between Buzyka S. and Ispanyuk T. A loan agreement was concluded, according to which Buzyka lent Ispanyuk XNUMX million grams.
• 8.12.2021 Buzyka gave Ispanyuk another 40 million grams.
• Refunds must be made according to the schedule: 10 million grams until 24.12.2021/10/10.01.2022, 10.04.2022 million until XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, etc. until April XNUMX, XNUMX
• If Ispanyuk violates the money return schedule, he must pay a fine of 80 million UAH.
• On December 8.12.2021, XNUMX, Guarantee agreements were concluded.
• Ispanyuk violated the terms of debt repayment.

Also, 17.01.2027/XNUMX/XNUMX Buzyka submits to the court an Application to secure the claim (seizure). 18.01.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX Judge of the Artsyzsky Court of the Odessa Region Guseva N.D. imposed pre-trial arrest.

Comments:

• automatic distribution of cases between judges occurred after the end of the court's working hours. Only one judge, Guseva, took part in the auto distribution.
• the judge violated Part 6,7 of Article 187 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine - she did not send a request to the Plaintiff’s registration authority and did not receive a response about his registered place of residence;
• in the case materials there is no evidence of the fulfillment by the parties of the loan agreement - the fact of transfer of money. If the money is not transferred, then the contract is void;
• the Loan agreement has all the signs of fictitiousness;
• the judge did not take into account letter 132214/SK-3599-21/33.1.2 dated 31.12.2021/XNUMX/XNUMX from the director of the department of the anti-raiding office of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine;
• the judge did not present any arguments about what specific actions the defendants are taking aimed at selling 100% of the shares in the authorized funds;
• judge Guseva N.D. violated the right of a party to schedule a court hearing through video conferencing and access to an electronic file. Considering the remote location of the court from Odessa and the current weather conditions (snow and ice), the judge actually prevented the participation of representatives of the Center for Judicial Investigation in the trial;
• The judge did not impose countersecurity.

Who is Buzyka Sergei Martinovich, born in 1988, who so easily lent 80 million? Buzyka lives in a small village in the Artsyz district of Odessa region. Does not work, has no property

On February 5.02.2010, 4, he was sentenced to XNUMX years in prison for theft.

In 2014, (case 492/976/14-k) he was again tried for stealing a pan worth 310 grams. and sentenced to 3 years in prison:

Buzyka S. had problems with the law, also in 2018, and in 2021.

Buzyka S. has an unfulfilled obligation to Privatbank for enforcement proceedings 65942015 dated July 1.07.2021, 150 - he did not repay the bank a loan of XNUMX thousand UAH.

The fictitiousness of the claim is also evidenced by:

• existence of a Loan agreement between Ispanyuk and Agaev;
• Surety agreement No. 3, in which the guarantor is Istus LLC (“Istus” does not belong to Ispanyuk);
• all contracts (for 80 million grams) are not notarized and are drawn up in a primitive manner;
• there is no evidence of the transfer of 80 million grams, there is no copy of bank statements about the transfer of money, there is no receipt from the recipient of the cash;
• the money was transferred before the contract was signed. On what basis were they transferred?
• Ispanyuk does not have a place of residence on the territory of Ukraine registered in accordance with the procedure established by law and does not have any property; the contract does not indicate Ispanyuk’s current details (the address from which he left long ago is indicated); where is Buzyka going to look for Ispanyuk?

So, an agreement for the transfer of 80 million grams. concluded between two individuals, both officially do not have any real estate, the recipient of the money is not registered at any address, there is no confirmation of the transfer of 80 million UAH. The Loan Agreement has all the characteristics of a fictitiousness. These facts indicate the fictitiousness of the case filed by Buzyka S.M. claim and illegality, accepted by judge Guseva N.D. Resolutions on the imposition of pre-trial arrest. The automatic distribution, in which Judge Natalya Dmitrievna Guseva was appointed as a judge in this case, took place after the end of the court’s working hours at 17.06.

Judge Guseva N. was the only judge who participated in the auto-distribution. Procedural violations of Judge N.D. Guseva:

• opened a case on a claim in violation of Article 187 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine;
• illegally imposed security for the claim;
• violated the right of the parties to conduct a court hearing via videoconference and access to an electronic case;
• failed to timely submit a court decision to the Unified State Register of Real Estate;
• illegally delays the consideration of the case.

The defendant in the claim, Ispanyuk T., showed complete indifference to this claim. Neither he nor his lawyers were present in court and did not provide any materials.

6.10.2022 By the decision of the Odessa Court of Appeal Resolution of Judge Guseva N.D. the seizure was cancelled.

This lawsuit was brought not for the purpose of returning the debt, but solely for the purpose of imposing a pre-trial arrest in order to prevent the execution of the Order of the Ministry of Justice. Complaint against judge N.D. Guseva filed with the VRP, but due to the long inaction of this body, the complaint has not yet been considered. Application to judge N.D. Guseva was sent to the SBI, but the SBI refused to initiate a case on this application.

In May 2023, Buzyka filed a statement with law enforcement agencies, in which he said that he did not know Ispanyuk and had not given him any money. Judge Guseva imposed an arrest and considered Buzyka’s claim without his participation. When Buzyka found out about the hearing and came to court, Judge Guseva did not allow him to participate in the hearing and dissuaded him from contacting law enforcement regarding the facts of a fictitious claim. It follows from this that Judge Guseva knew about the fictitiousness of the claim. Case No. 420/518/22 judge of the Odessa District Administrative Court Butenko A.V.

On December 31.12.2021, XNUMX, Istus LLC and Ispanyuk T.A appealed to the Odessa District Administrative Court. with a claim for recognition as illegal and cancellation of the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine No. 4677/5 dated December 28.12.2021, XNUMX

Case No. 420/122/22 after automatic distribution came to judge Khursa A.A.

In accordance with the court's ruling dated January 06.01.2022, 6.01.2022, the plaintiffs did not pay the court fee, did not properly certify copies of the statement of claim, and did not identify third parties and did not add copies for them, as a result of which the claim was abandoned. The plaintiffs did not pay the court fee in the case before Judge A.A. Khurs, and on January XNUMX, XNUMX. re-filed the same lawsuit. And, again, they did not pay the court fee.

Case No. 420/306/22, after automatic distribution, came to judge A.A. Levchuk.

The judge found out on January 10.01.2022, 420 that a claim with the same subject and on the same grounds had already been filed and the question of opening proceedings in this case, in case No. 122/22/XNUMX the issue of opening proceedings had not been resolved, a decision had not been made on opening or refusal to open proceedings on the case, return of the statement of claim or leaving the claim without consideration. According to the court, Participants in a trial and their representatives must exercise procedural rights in good faith. Abuse of procedural rights is not permitted. Based on these grounds and on the basis of paragraph 5 of Part 4 of Art. 169 CAS of Ukraine, the statement of claim was returned to the plaintiffs.

The fact that the plaintiffs failed to pay the court fee twice indicates that the plaintiffs did this deliberately in order to manipulate the composition of the court that will hear their case.

Judges and lawyers call this "broadcasting": the plaintiff files a lawsuit, but does not pay the court fee. If, after the automated distribution, the plaintiff gets an “out-of-pocket” judge, then the plaintiff withdraws the claim and re-files it. The plaintiff files lawsuits until the case reaches a “pocket” judge; Next, the plaintiff pays the court fee and the judge opens proceedings.

The third time, on January 11.01.2022, 420, the plaintiffs registered the same claim in the Odessa District Administrative Court. Based on the auto-distribution, case No. 518/22/XNUMX went to judge Andrey Vladimirovich Butenko.

According to clause 2, part 2 of Art. 45 of the CAS of Ukraine, the court may recognize as an abuse of procedural rights actions that are contrary to the task of administrative proceedings, in particular: 2) filing several claims against the same defendant (defendants) with the same subject and on the same grounds, or submitting several claims with a similar subject and on similar grounds or committing other actions the purpose of which is to manipulate the automated distribution of cases among judges;

If the filing of a complaint, application, or petition is recognized as an abuse of procedural rights, the court, taking into account the circumstances of the case, has the right to leave without consideration or return the complaint, application, or petition. The court is obliged to take measures to prevent abuse of procedural rights. In case of abuse of procedural rights by a participant in a trial, the court applies to him the measures determined by this Code. (Parts 3 and 4 of the same article).

However, Judge A.V. Butenko did not return the filed claim and the application for securing the claim without consideration and did not take measures to prevent manipulation of the automated distribution, thereby violating the above norms. The next day, 11.01.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX. The plaintiff submits an Application to secure the claim (imposition of pre-trial arrest)

From 11.01.2022/26.01.2022/XNUMX to XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, nothing allegedly happened to the case, and according to the Unified Social Democratic Socialist Republic of Russia no procedural decisions were made in this case. But actually, 14.01.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX judge Butenko A.V. granted the raiders' application for pre-trial arrest. No wonder the raiders filed a lawsuit three times and paid the court fee only after the case came to Judge A. V. Butenko. Judge Butenko is connected with the raiders. Other violations of Judge Butenko A.:

• the rule of jurisdiction of disputes was violated, since this dispute is subject to the jurisdiction of economic and local courts in accordance with the subject composition. The administrative court should not have considered this claim;
• stopping the action of a contested order is an improper way to secure a claim, since the court, without examining the circumstances and evidence, decided the issue of the illegality of the contested order, and, according to established judicial practice, securing a claim in a way that replaces a court decision is prohibited;
• the court, satisfying the application for securing the claim, acted not in the interests of the plaintiffs, but in the interests of persons who are not participants in this legal dispute;
• the court did not take measures to prevent manipulation of automated distribution;
• The court did not allow TsI to participate in the case and did not resolve the issue of TsI's claim.

The arrest imposed by Judge A.V. Butenko was canceled on June 1.06.2022, XNUMX. Judge of the Odessa District Administrative Court Kravchenko M.M. due to the fact that this case is beyond the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court and should be considered in the Economic Court.

A complaint against Judge A.V. Butenko was filed with the VRP, however, due to the long inaction of this body, the complaint has not yet been considered. Subsequently, the raiders filed the same claim with the Economic Court of Kiev. Case No. 910/2281/22 judge of the Economic Court of Kiev Stasyuk S.V.

14.02.2022/4677/5 Agaev V.V. filed a lawsuit with the Economic Court of Kiev to declare illegal and cancel Order No. 15.12.2021/XNUMX of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, issued on the basis of the Decision of the Central Board of the Ministry of Justice dated December XNUMX, XNUMX. The grounds for recognizing the Order as illegal, V.V. Agayev indicated:

• he was not invited to the meeting of the Board of the Ministry of Justice on December 15.12.2021, XNUMX;
• 14.12.2021/522/23860 The Primorsky District Court of Odessa opened case 21/XNUMX/XNUMX based on the claim of Yu.E. Zarichanskaya. to Fool S.V. This case demonstrates a dispute between the same parties, on the same issues that the Ministry of Justice considered.

Claims in support of Agayev’s demands were also filed by other participants in the raid: Ispanyuk and Istus (founder Katsuba). Agaev V.V. did not pay the court fee and 16.02.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX. judge Stasyuk S.V. decided to leave Agayev's claim without progress. On the same day, Agaev V.V. paid the court fee. Probably the right judge was found.

18.02.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX judge S.V. Stasyuk opened proceedings on this claim. The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine filed a response to Agayev’s claim with detailed objections. Eg:

— in response to Agayev’s complaint that he was not invited to the meeting of the Board, the Ministry of Justice indicated:

— in response to Agaev’s complaint about the existence of a dispute on the same grounds, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine indicated:

Thus, the materials of the case clearly show:

• facts of raider seizure and legalization of stolen assets, with the participation of Agayev and Ispanyuk;
• the fictitiousness of the claim of Durach-Zarichanskaya’s wife against Durach, which was opened on 14.12.2021/XNUMX/XNUMX the day before the meeting of the Collegium.

Agayev’s lawsuit pursues 2 goals:

• urgent - impose a ban on the execution of the Order of the Ministry of Justice;
• strategic - to recognize as illegal the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

On June 23.06.2022, XNUMX, Judge Stasyuk granted Agayev’s claim and imposed a pre-trial arrest on the execution of the Order of the Ministry of Justice. Judge Stasiuk’s entire argument was contained in 1 paragraph:

7.09.2022 This decision of Judge Stasiuk was overturned by the Decision of the Northern Court of Appeal in Kyiv.

26.09.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX Judge S. Stasyuk re-seizures the execution of the Order of the Ministry of Justice:

Case No. 757/21736/22-k, judge Ilyeva T. G., Pechersky District Court of Kyiv.

Judge Ilyeva T.

On August 16.08.2022, 1488, the prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General Pilipenko S.N. sent a Petition to the Pechersky District Court of Kiev with a request to seize corporate rights, within the framework of UD_XNUMX (at the request of V.A. Head). Motivating his petition, prosecutor Pilipenko:

• completely repeated the text of Golova V.’s statement to the police about the initiation of UD_1488;
• indicated that “subsequently, the officials of the DP “Kompromis” on November 29.11.2021, 139706443.10 re-registered in favor of the LLC “Largent” controlled by them the real estate that belonged to them. In this regard, the amount of damage to the victim (V.A. Head) amounted to XNUMX UAH.”
• attached all the documents attached to the statement of Golova V., but did not attach any documents relating to the actual circumstances of the raider seizure with the help of the Poltava notary Dombrovskaya.

Prosecutor Pilipenko gave the court false information that registration actions dated November 29.11.21, XNUMX. were not carried out on behalf of the Head, and caused significant harm to her damage.

Actually:

• 26.11.21 notary Dombrovskaya illegally rewrote the corporate rights of “Compromise” to “Dagda-2013” ​​(founders Golova and Durach);
• 29.11.21 Odessa notary O. S. Yankovskaya assures:
• signatures of Fool and Head on Minutes No. 19 of the general meeting "Dagda-2013" on the Decision: to introduce "Compromise" into the founders of "Lagrent" and to add real estate owned by "Compromise" to the Charter Fund of "Largent" (Business Center "Kyiv" and 9 apartments ).
• signatures of the director of “Lagrent” Ispanyuk and the director of “Compromise” Katsuba on the Acceptance and Transfer Certificates.

On 29.11.2021/15/38, ownership of the specified property from 07:16:41 to 43:XNUMX:XNUMX was registered by state registrars: Bakhova V.I., Karpukhina L.V., Eremenko I.N. (Legal Department of the Odessa City Council) on "Largent"

26.08.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX the judge of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv adopted the Resolution on the imposition of arrests, at the request of the prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General S.N. Pilipenko.

Judge Ilyeva seized all property:

But this was not enough for Judge Ilyeva. Also, Ilyeva:

One may be surprised at the ban on changing the director. How to change the director, and how to operate the enterprise if the director quits? Obvious illegal creation of obstacles in economic activity.  One may be surprised at the arrests imposed on the Galatea DP, which in no way appears in the materials of criminal case No. 1488, in which this arrest was imposed. The court has seized corporate rights, which are intangible assets and cannot serve as material evidence. An arrest can only be made after Suspicion has been raised. No one has been charged with suspicion in this criminal case. No norm of the criminal procedural law provides for the powers of the investigating judge to establish a ban on an indefinite circle of persons (including government bodies and institutions), who are not participants in criminal proceedings, to perform actions within their competence by law, or to oblige them to perform certain investigative judge of the action.

The requirement to prohibit the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine from making changes to information about a legal entity contained in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Formations is nothing more than an attempt to prevent the implementation of Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated December 28.12.2021, 4677 No. 5/ 26.08.2022 “On satisfaction of the complaint of the NGO “Center for the Protection of Disabled Persons”. Despite obvious violations by Judge Ilyeva of many articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, this Decision dated August XNUMX, XNUMX has not yet been canceled and the fight against this Decision continues in the Pechersk and Appeal Courts of Kyiv. Case No. 495/7512/22, judge Anisimova N.D., B. Dnestrovsky District Court of Odessa Region.

Judge Anisimova N.D.

26.09.2022/160/XNUMX Oleg Georgievich Monari filed a lawsuit in the B. Dnestrovsky court of the Odessa region. Defendants in the lawsuit: Ispanyuk, “Basari”, “Compromise”, “Largent”, “Istus”. The cost of the claim is XNUMX million UAH.

Monari O.G.

The essence of the claim:

• On August 10.08.2021, 40, a Loan Agreement was concluded between Buzyka and Ispanyuk, according to which Buzyka transferred XNUMX million grams to Ispanyuk.
• On December 8.12.2021, 40, an Additional Agreement was concluded between Buzyka and Ispanyuk to this agreement on the transfer of another XNUMX million grams.

Thus, the total amount of debt was 80 million UAH. According to the terms of the agreement, Ispanyuk had to repay the debt in installments: 10 million by December 24.12.2021, 10, 10.01.2022 million by January 80, 8.12.2021, etc. In case of violation of the terms of debt repayment, Ispanyuk must pay a fine of 1 million UAH. To ensure compliance with the terms of the Loan agreement, 2/3/4. between Buzyka, “Basari”, “Largent”, “Komprmis”, “Istus” Surety agreements No. XNUMX, No. XNUMX, No. XNUMX, and No. XNUMX were concluded, according to which these companies became joint and several debtors.

Ispanyuk did not repay the debt within the terms specified in the Loan Agreement. 15.06.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX an agreement on the assignment of rights was signed between Monari and Buzyka debt claims under the Loan agreement dated 10.08.2021/8.12.2021/6 and Addendum to the Loan agreement dated XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. Also, Monari indicated that Ispanyuk owns a XNUMX-hectare plot of land in the B. Dniester region, Monari asks the court to recognize his ownership of this plot. In connection with this circumstance, he considers it possible to file this claim in the B. Dnestrovsky Court of the Odessa Region. Monari filed an Application for Securing the Claim with the court, demanding that all property be seized.

Comments:

In the case materials there is no evidence that the parties to the Loan Agreement (Buzyka and Ispanyuk) fulfilled the fact of transfer of money. If the money is not transferred, then the contract is void; The loan agreement has all the signs of being fictitious. The Agreement on Assignment of the Right to Claim Debt states:

• 3.1. The total cost of assignment rights is established by the parties in the Additional Agreement to this agreement.
• 3.2. By signing this Agreement, the Parties confirm that the new Lender (Monari) has paid the Lender (Buzyka) the full cost of the Rights to Claim the Debt under the Agreement before signing this agreement.”

There is no copy of this Agreement in the case file. Also there is no confirmation of payment made between Monari and Buzyka. The claims of Buzyka and Monari were filed on the basis of the same agreements: the Loan agreement (between Buzyka and Ispanyuk) and the Surety agreements. Buzyka has already applied to the court with an Application to secure the claim and this application was granted by the judge of the Artsyzsky Court, Guseva. The amount of the claim security must correspond to the amount of the Applicant's claims. Monari indicated the amount of the claim at 100 million, and the total value of the property for which he asks to be seized is much more than his claim.

Ispanyuk acquired the property that Monari demands to be seized an hour after the raider seizure on November 26.11.2021, 4677. Order No. 5-206 of the Ministry of Justice canceled this registration action. The actions of Ispanyuk, Buzyka and Monari show signs of crimes under Article 2-209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal taking of property) and Article XNUMX of the Criminal Code (legalization of property obtained by criminal means). The duty of the judge is to study and evaluate the available evidence before making a decision.

28.09.2022/XNUMX/XNUMX Judge B. Dniester Court Anisimova made a decision to impose pre-trial arrest.

About Judge Anisimova N.:

On October 31.10.2017, 258, judge Anisimova N. was detained by law enforcement agencies on suspicion of creating a terrorist group, fraud and forgery of documents. Currently, she is accused under Article 3-1 Part 190 (creation of a terrorist organization), Article 4 Part 358 (fraud on an especially large scale), Article 3 Part XNUMX (forgery of documents) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Although the court case against the judge is ongoing, she continues to work as a judge.

During court hearings, Judge Anisimova repeatedly used her criminal experience, namely: she made decisions and then refused to recognize them. For example, during the meeting on November 23.11.2021, XNUMX. Judge Anisimova recused herself from the case; but later stated that this did not happen. The secretary of the court session responded to the lawyer’s request The video recording of the video conference was not saved, working and archival copies of video phonograms were not created and the file is from a recording of a video conference, which is preserved in a technical manner video recording of daily expenses. Regarding this fact, the lawyer sent a request to the GSA State Enterprise “Center for Judicial Services” and received the following response:

Subsequently, Judge Anisimova recused herself from this case, and the Chairman of the Belgorod-Dnestrovsky Court, Boyarsky A., was appointed as the new judge. In May 2023 Buzyka filed a statement with law enforcement agencies that he did not know Monari, had not entered into agreements with him and had not received money from him. Case No. 910/11679/22, judge of the Economic Court of Kiev Kotkov O.V.

1.11.2022 The Economic Court of Kiev received a claim from Largent LLC (founder Ispanyuk) to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to declare illegal and cancel Order No. 4191/5 of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated September 30.09.2022, 3.11.2022. The claims are based on the fact that the Order is illegal, because the complaint was considered in the absence of authority of the Ministry of Justice to consider it. The plaintiff did not pay the court fee. On this basis, on November 17.11.2022, XNUMX, Judge O.V. Kotkov. decided to leave the claim without progress. However, apparently Ispanyuk “approved” Judge Kotkov. The court fee was paid and on November XNUMX, XNUMX. judge Kotkov O.V. accepted the claim for consideration. Soon, Judge O. Kotkov granted Ispanyuk’s application and prohibited the execution of Order No. 4191/5 of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated September 30.09.2022, XNUMX. In July 2023 Judge O. Kotkov made an unjust decision, which canceled the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.