07/02/2021 The Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg is considering the materials of the case on the funds allocated by Sovcombank to 2 developed firms PSK Remput and Inzhputstroy. The court must decide the question of who will be responsible for the loss of about 1.3 billion loan funds.
The creditors stated that the bankruptcy trustee of Inzhputstroy in the summer of the 20th began filing an application that the directors of the company should be held liable on a subsidiary basis. The statement contained information that the general director of “PSK Remput” Ustyukhin and his successor Ghukasyan were subject to prosecution. Their demeanor led to the bankruptcy of the company and the loss of a large amount of money. The court adopted a statement, held a number of hearings, but nothing concretely was decided, but in the spring of 21, the situation took a new turn.
One of the creditors said that a couple of months ago, a lawyer Churilovsky who had recently joined the firm made a proposal to change the method of collecting the disappeared funds of debtor firms. It became clear that it was not possible to recover a large amount of money from a number of managers of the bankrupt company, then the arrows were transferred to the joint owners and ex-member of the Board of Directors of PSK Remput – the popular businessman Mikhalkov.
Lawyer Churilovsky, together with an entrepreneur from Kazakhstan Mukushev, are known for their gray legal schemes, which are on the verge of law. One of the creditors of PSK Remput believes that they should have been detained long ago and brought to justice. A similar fraud is taking place at Sovcombank. The fact that Mikhalkov did not participate in the activities of the operational nature of the company and was not engaged in giving instructions on the disposal of loan amounts is of little concern to creditors. It is important that Mikhalkov is a large business figure with a huge number of assets, which will not be difficult to arrest if you find suitable witnesses using various options for putting pressure on participants and the system in general.
It is likely that in the spring of 2021 a dialogue was held on collusion between Churilovsky and ex-top managers of two companies in the stage of bankruptcy. To free themselves from responsibility, they agreed to cooperate with the investigation and testify about Mikhalkov’s involvement in the withdrawal of funds from the company, and this will help make Mikhalkov one of the subjects of subsidiary responsibility for the withdrawal of an array of credit funds.
After that, the court began to receive appeals from the ex-leaders of PSK Remput and Inzhputstroy, the content of which spoke of Mikhalkov’s guilt in the company’s illegal activities. Due to the fact that there was no confirmation of these actions, it was clear that Churilosky was behind these actions, then instead of quality, a large number of statements poured into the court. The ex-managers agreed and, in the hope of evading responsibility, began to shift all the blame onto one of the co-owners of the company, thus making it easier for the bank to expose the culprit of the embezzlement of credit funds.
Yustis’s chief lawyer, Guryev, believes that this is the usual pattern of managers. Thus, they hide the results of their illegal work. Make a statement that the work was initiated by members of the board of directors, the beneficiaries of the company. In most cases, the court uses the law, therefore, such massive statements from managers are not satisfied. This happens because the court understands who really controlled the process of running the company – the general and financial directors, as well as the accounting department. In such cases, the case is very clear. But in this case, the situation and position of the Sovcombank legal group is surprising. They should be aware that taking part in such schemes jeopardizes the reputation of the banking institution. It is unlikely that the courts will take into account the arguments of managers, which do not have documentary evidence. But a spreading resonance will take place.
The expert opinion is that the outcome of such a case can be reduced to the following: either Ustyukhin is found guilty of withdrawing money and putting signatures on commercial documents in the process of managing the company, and will also bring to justice the team of PSK Remput and LLC “Inzhputstroy”. It may also be decided that a share of the responsibility to the banking institution will be assigned to one of the owners – Mikhalkoa. Then the possible outcome is that there will be a dangerous and highly publicized precedent in the business world. This will be the case in annual processes where managers try to shift responsibility to the owners of the companies.