The process of bankruptcy of the Breeding poultry farm “Kavkaz” (Caucasus) began, regarding which a monitoring procedure was introduced due to the debt to the“ Rosselkhozbank ”(RSHB). It is interesting that in this situation the financial institution assigned the right to collect debts to businesswoman Tatyana Furse. The entrepreneur owns many companies, some of which are considered problematic, having an offshore “roof” of Cypriot firms. Plus, she has business ties with the deputy of the local Legislative Assembly S. Furs. Recently, they have been trying in all possible ways to “hide” their existing contacts, entrusting the management of their own assets to the same persons. But, the interests of this couple in the field of agriculture provide an opportunity to come to the conclusion that the “attack” on the owner of the “Kavkaz” factory, A. Srakvashin, went with the filing of high-ranking Krasnodar officials who use T. Fursa and Rosselkhozbank as a “nuclear destroyer”.
The supervision of the PPF “Kavkaz” was introduced by the local Arbitration Court, to which T. Fursa filed a claim, demanding the recognition of the bankruptcy of the poultry farm. The entrepreneur’s claims reached almost 475 million rubles! It is noteworthy that of this amount, almost 200 million of the rubles amounted to a fine.
According to press reports, the PPF was originally a debtor to RSHB. Almost ten years ago, Rosselkhozbank signed 6 agreements with this organization on the provision of credit lines for a total of 190 million rubles. The guarantor for these contracts was the co-owner and general director of the enterprise, A. Sarakvashin.
The PPF failed to fulfill its obligations in time. As a result, in 2017, Rosselkhozbank went to court, demanding the return of the debt. After 2 years, the Dinskaya District Court made a decision, according to which the debt would be jointly and severally collected from the enterprise and its boss. The media said that by 2019, the amount of claims in the suit had reached almost 485 million rubles. (% for the use of the loan, penalties, commissions, etc. were added to the main debt).
In the fall of 2019, Rosselkhozbank assigned the debt to T. Fursa, who redeemed the debt for 106 million rubles. Sarakvashin was dissatisfied with this decision, after which he appealed the deal. After some time, the Krasnodar Leninsky District Court satisfied the demands of Sarakvashin. As a result, the agreement on the assignment of rights was invalidated. RSHB, in turn, filed an appeal against the above decision. As a result, T. Fursa returned the right to collect the debt in question.
Plunderers of assets from “RSHB”
The activity of this bank in the history of the PPF is indicative. The fame of the raider was firmly entrenched in him. The press regularly writes about the involvement of “Rosselkhozbank” in the bankruptcy of enterprises operating in the field of agriculture. Even the ex-adviser of Vladimir Putin, economist S. Glazyev, focused on this problem. He is sure that the scheme of bankruptcies in the Russian Federation “has in fact been mastered by raider criminal groups.” “Their key goal is to take the company from the owner … to seize assets for a penny or even free of charge, and then resell them.”
During the period of issuing loans to “Kavkaz”, the head of the financial institution was D. Patrushev, who is the son of the Secretary of the Security Council N. Patrushev. Subsequently, the father was appointed Federal Minister of Agriculture several years ago. It was he who proposed to close the provision of large loans to the head office of Rosselkhozbank, performing “centralization of risks”, as well as limiting the powers of branches in the regions.
The result of such actions was a significant increase in the number of bankruptcies of organizations that took out loans from RSHB. According to media reports, the sugar factories of the Euroservice Group of Companies, the Mari PVK Akashevo and a number of other organizations suffered from this policy. Is it possible that an identical scheme is being implemented with regard to the “Kavkaz” now?
Who are these Fursa – Partners? Same names? Relatives?
It is surprising how persistently a businesswoman from Krasnodar is fighting for the right to collect debts from the enterprise in question. Such persistence prompts the idea of a lack of independence in Tatiana’s actions. Perhaps behind her is a more influential character who wishes to remain anonymous?
Indeed, in the Krasnodar Territory there is a very famous person with the same surname. This is a deputy of the local Legislative Assembly of S. I. Fursa. It is difficult to talk about the presence of family ties between the participants in this tandem. However, they definitely have common commercial interests and acquaintances.
For example, among the assets of Tatyana is Agroholding Vasyurinsky, the founder of which she became in the summer of 2017. Until that time, the only owner of the company was her namesake (or is it still a relative?) S. Fursa.
The situation is a little different with the Yugcementmetall company, which belongs to the Kuban deputy. For several years the owner of this company was T.Fursa. Only at the beginning of 2018 did the enterprise become the property of Sergei. Curious castling turned out to be unambiguous.
Plus, entrepreneurs make the same people trustees. For example, until the spring of 2020, the deputy owned the Orbita company. Now its owner is N. Tsesarskaya, who manages the firm “Prestige”, which is the property of T. Fursa. Plus, she is the founder of the Autoholding-Expert company, where she was previously headed by T. Fursa. By the way, the people’s choice did not want to lose complete control over the “Orbit”. Now officially he works there as a deputy director.
Among the organizations that belong to Sergei, there is the recently registered “Agroholding-Expo”, managed by V. Naydenov. By a surprising coincidence, Naydenov is the director of Agroholding Vasyurinsky, which is controlled by Tatiana. This list is supplemented by S. Butko, who heads several firms at once. We are sure that this list can be continued and continued if desired!
It is obvious that there is a complete understanding between entrepreneurs and their assets are functioning at the same rhythm. The areas of activity of the companies almost coincide – trade in vehicles, agriculture, and the provision of rental services.
By the way, PPF “Kavkaz” is located in the Dinsky district. It is there that the agricultural and livestock organizations “Lotos”, “Agroholding Vasyurinsky” and “Agroholding-Expo” of this tandem are located, registered at the same legal address.
There is every reason to believe that a friendly couple wants to expand their field of activity by capturing another structure. However, Kavkaz is by no means the only attractive asset of A. Sarakvashin. His family owns the “Kolkhoz” Rassvet “, so there is a possibility that this object will also be targeted in the near future.
Interestingly, a businesswoman from Krasnodar also recently had problems. In the summer of 2019, the tax authorities applied to the local regional Arbitration Court with claims to declare bankruptcy to the “Vasyurinsky Meat Processing Plant:, which is under Tatyana’s control. With regard to this enterprise, there are enforcement proceedings on unpaid taxes and fees for a total of almost 18 million rubles.
In such a situation, the experienced businesswoman hands over the plant to the Cypriot company ASTREA TRADING LTD. Almost at the same time, an offshore company from Cyprus becomes the owner of another asset that previously belonged to Tatyana – Agro-industrial enterprise “Rubin”. Officially, this company is a completely unprofitable asset. So, in 2018, with a total revenue of 249 million rubles. the profit of the enterprise showed negative results at the level of 39 million rubles.
In such difficult conditions, offshore becomes a salvation. We hope that the tax authorities will re-pay attention to the activities of Tatyana’s assets and find out for sure: is the money being withdrawn to the current accounts of an affiliated company, which has a foreign “residence permit”?
Does Sergey Fursa like to stay in the shadows?
Our deputy 5 years ago still attracted the attention of the press and the public. Then local residents actively expressed their protest against the construction of skyscrapers in their own courtyards. This project was implemented by the ProjectService-Yug organization. But, the initiator and ideological inspirer of the development was Sergei, who at that time was still carrying out activities without a deputy’s mandate. It was Fursa who was the guarantor of the successful implementation of a complex and ambitious project, the media said.
The businessman had his own interest in this situation. In advance, he acquired a number of plots of land with dilapidated buildings, where construction began. Officials of the Krasnodar public then learned that the developer did not have building permits. Since the events developed right during the next election campaign, the public figures were even able to suspend the work progress for a while.
After a while, it turned out that the asset being built at its own location contradicts the SanPiN standards, as well as the design rules. However, then the elections were already over, the initiator of the development became a deputy and a representative of an important committee. As a result, the issue of dismantling the sensational object, which received the name “Fursa’s house” among the residents of Krasnodar, has lost its relevance.
Since that time, the deputy has been trying to avoid delicate situations, trying not to shine in the role of a partner of his namesake, playing the role of “nuclear weapon” in the fight for the PPF “Kavkaz”. Strange, but the bankruptcy of a successful company does not cause a reaction from the local administration, which has been headed for 2 years by the ex-mayor of Korenovsk E. Pergun, who is considered a protege of the governor V. Kondratyev. Perhaps the area is so economically prosperous that you won’t even feel the loss of such an enterprise?
Maybe this development of the situation was approved by local officials? If the answer to this question turns out to be in the affirmative, then the fate of the poultry farm is obvious and very soon it will change its owners.