Robbed miners “congratulated” Usmanov on his anniversary

The German Constitutional Court will deal with the Kremlin oligarch



While Alisher Usmanov is receiving distinguished (and not so distinguished) guests from Moscow in Tashkent on the occasion of his 70th birthday, the miners of the Lebedinsky GOK congratulated him in oriental style. As reported by the source of the telegram channel VChK-OGPU and Rucriminal.info, minority shareholders of the Lebedinsky GOK, who lost their shares during a forced buyout at a cheap price, which was made by the structures of Alisher Usmanov, sent sincere wishes of peace to the hero of the day Usmanov and reminded him that his company bought shares of LGOK through a unilateral transaction at a reduced price. According to the miners, Metalloinvest underestimated the value of the seized shares by 3-4 times the market price, as required by the Law, and used a fraudulent scheme with double valuation.



We have already written about the conflict between the minority shareholders of the Lebedinsky GOK dispossessed by Metalloinvest, which now may result in a new scandal involving a Western bank.

Moreover, minority shareholders of LGOK (the largest iron ore producer) filed a statement of claim with the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany against the oligarch’s company, defining its actions as fraudulent in carrying out a forced buyout of minority shares of shareholders, with the participation of Deutsche Bank.

Obviously, a new international scandal is coming for Deutsche Bank and other Western credit institutions that were indirectly involved in the legalization of income of Russian companies that achieved financial success through the “legalized” seizure of property of Russian citizens through forced redemption. Or simply robbery for three rubles, as for example, the Rottenbergs did with alcohol producers.

If successful in the German courts, for the disadvantaged miners of Metalloinvest, as well as for all citizens of Russia, the hitherto unshakable electorate of the unchangeable president, who somehow fell under the steamroller of the money-grubbing friends of Putin, a precedent may be created for achieving justice in the courts of Europe.



Statement

Andrey Burkin, the official representative of the group of former minority shareholders of the Lebedinsky mining and processing plant, which is the main production asset of the Metalloinvest holding with beneficiaries:

Alisher Usmanov – 45%;

VTB Bank – 20% (in fact – V. Putin);

Ardavan Farhad Moshiri – 5% (close friend of Alisher Usmanov and custodian of sanctioned assets).



In 2007, our shares in Lebedinsky GOK JSC were taken away through a forced buyout by Gazmetall/Metalloinvest as the majority shareholder. According to the new amendments to the law on joint stock companies, the majority shareholder, in order to force the redemption of our shares, assessed the value of our enterprise on the basis of deliberately underestimated data on its profitability.

We could not agree with the undervaluation of our company and proposed to Alisher Usmanov (document 1), as the main beneficiary and majority shareholder, to reconsider the value of our seized shares taking into account the actual profitability that was hidden in the offshore companies controlled by him. There was an immediate response with a firm promise to review the value of our selected shares based on a fair and objective valuation.

Instead of fulfilling this promise, as it turned out, the company’s lawyers were playing for time in order to miss the statute of limitations in our case (6 months). These tricks forced us to file a lawsuit and conduct our own investigation into the circumstances of the buyout and obtain an objective independent assessment of the Lebedinsky GOK. Two independent assessments confirmed we were right! However, by that time the entire judicial system of the Russian Federation was absolutely corrupt at all levels.

The unique documents that we were able to collect indicate transfer pricing and the concentration of 75% of our company’s export revenue on the offshores of the main beneficiaries. None of these documents, including actual export contracts, were even accepted for consideration by any court of the Russian Federation, since this obligated the judge to initiate a criminal case under the article “Tax evasion on a particularly large scale.” Moreover, the documents at our disposal (Recommended Cash Offer by FMC for Europe Steel PLC) indicate tax evasion in the EU and UK by companies of the main shareholders registered in your jurisdiction.

Realizing the futility of our attempts to achieve justice in the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, we turned to the London Law Firm (ILaw) for help, which, together with the Barrister of the Royal Council, Paul O'Docherty, pointed out to us clear signs that fall under the definition of fraud. Namely: in one short (about 6 months) period, the Metalloinvest Management Company ordered and received two official assessments of our enterprises with different initial data, completely different results, for different target audiences and for different purposes.

The first assessment of Lebedinsky GOK and OEMK was carried out by a company with an extremely low reputation (Gorislavtsev and Co. Valuation) for the purpose of forced redemption, and the second valuation of our enterprises was carried out by the London branch of Deutsche Bank AG for the purpose of an IPO on the London Stock Exchange.

On January 30, 2022, we received an official document, the Metalloinvest Finance Eurobond Prospectus, with real financial data of our Plant. This document was created to attract investment with the participation of the world's leading credit institutions led by Deutsche Bank (document attached).

The role of Deutsche Bank in our case deserves special attention! A year ago, we asked Deutsche Bank to disclose to us, as shareholders*, information about the assessment of our company, providing the Bank's management with evidence of the forced write-off of our shares from our DEPO accounts by order of Metalloinvest. To our first request, we received a response from the Bank about its non-involvement in the criminal offense. A second official statement received by the Bank on July 16, 2023 addressed to Dr. Jörg Muecke, Head of the Legal Department and Mrs. Christina Hentke, Lawyer of Deutsche Bank, remained unanswered.

We believe that the actions of Deutsche Bank officials may fall within the definition of Section 263(1) of the German Criminal Code: a person who, with the intent of obtaining an unlawful financial benefit for himself or a third party, damages the property of another person by causing or perpetuating a mistake by misrepresenting facts or distorting or concealing the true facts is subject to prosecution.

Betrug ist in § 362 StGB geregelt. Gemäß § 263 Abs. 1 StGB ist strafbar, wer in der Absicht, sich oder einem Dritten einen rechtswidrigen Vermögensvorteil zu verschaffen, das Vermögen eines anderen dadurch beschädigt, daß er durch Vorspiegelung falscher oder durch Entstellung oder Unterdrückung wahrer T atsachen einen Irrtum erregt oder unterhält.



In view of the above, and our firm commitment to seek justice and protection of our private property rights in German jurisdiction, we request:

- oblige Deutsche Bank to provide us with documents on the assessment of Lebedinsky GOK, compiled in 2008 by order of Metalloinvest. Documents are stored in the Deutsche Bank archive for 15 years.

By helping us restore our right to private property, you can set a precedent for protecting the rights of disadvantaged Russian citizens in the jurisdiction of Western democracies, with significant implications for the security of Europe. By doing this you will not only restore justice, but also stop fraudulent financial flows going to finance the bloody, monstrous war in Ukraine.







Yours sincerely,

Andrey Burkin and a group of shareholders

Timofey Grishin



To be continued

Source: www.rucriminal.info

How Alisher Usmanov's top manager bought a judge

And at the same time he set Metalloinvest's security service on a woman with children



Rucriminal.info and the telegram channel of the Cheka-OGPU talked about how the judge of the Simanovsky court Kuleshova V.A. sent a 13-year-old girl to a psychiatric hospital for no reason. As it turned out, the Qualification Board of Judges constantly receives complaints against this judge. At our disposal was such a complaint filed by Ekaterina Gosteva - at the time of the events, the wife of the top manager of Metalloinvest (owned by the Kremlin oligarch Alisher Usmanov) Sergey Gorin. The couple divorced and Gorin threw all his strength to leave Ekaterina without money. He enlisted Metalloinvest's security service to spy on her, and then turned to his friend Judge Kuleshov. What happened next can be found in Ekaterina's appeal to the qualification board.

“I am compelled to turn to you with this complaint against the actions of V. A. Kuleshov, judge of the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow, because I believe that he committed deliberate actions that grossly violate civil procedural legislation, which entailed a violation of my civil rights.



On August 19, 2015, Judge Kuleshov V.A. issued a decision on the claim of WEST PROVINCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED against Gorin S.A., Gosteva E.A. and Abdullaeva L.A. for the recovery of solidary debts under loan agreements (civil case No. 2- 5088/15). The claims were satisfied in part. From Gorin S.A. and Gosteva E.A., the court ruled to recover jointly and severally a sum of money in the amount of 2,333,029 (Two million three hundred thirty-three thousand twenty-nine) dollars 38 US cents in rubles at the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation on the day of execution of the court decision. I strongly disagree with this decision of the court.

I understand very well that the qualification board is not directly studying the legal aspects of the content of the case itself, but for the sake of clarity of the situation and the fact that the issuance of this unlawful decision by Kuleshov V.A. is natural, I must briefly state the circumstances of the case.



The circumstances of the case are as follows. I, E. A. Gosteva, was in a registered marriage with S. A. Gorin. The marriage was annulled between us. In July 2013, I applied to the Nikulinsky Court of Moscow with a lawsuit against Gorin S.A. on the division of jointly acquired property and the recognition of transactions for the alienation of immovable property acquired in marriage without the consent of the spouse, invalid. For my part, options for concluding a settlement agreement were repeatedly proposed, but the ex-husband did not want to finish resolving the dispute amicably. After some time, S.A. Gorin filed a counterclaim for the division of joint property and the recovery of funds from me under supposedly concluded agreements with the offshore company WEST PROVINCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED. Loan agreements between WEST PROVINCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED and S.A. Gorin were attached to the counterclaim. case materials. I note that to date, the dispute in the Nikulinsky Court of Moscow has not yet been considered. All this happens through the fault of S.A. Gorin, who files endless complaints to the Moscow City Court against each court ruling. Most of the time, the case on the division of property is actually in the Moscow City Court in the appellate instance. Gorin S.A. by any means delays the consideration of the case on the merits in the Nikulinsky Court of Moscow with the sole purpose of obtaining a decision in favor of the offshore company in the Simonovsky Court of Moscow. And he got it!

The fact that the Cypriot offshore company WEST PROVINCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED filed a lawsuit against me and Gorin S.A. in the Simonovsky Court of Moscow became known to me by a coincidence in May 2014. The fact that I learned about the discovery of such a lawsuit, filed with violation of jurisdiction, bypassing Nikulinsky to Simonovsky, was an unpleasant stun for the representative of the plaintiff and for the defendant Gorin SA.

I immediately had legitimate questions: why about the lawsuit, which, as it turned out, was filed with the Simonovsky court in February 2014, I was not notified by the court, and only in May 2014, when my representative appeared, was the court served a statement of claim with annexes to it (applications are copies of those documents that were attached to loan agreements in the Nikulinsky court by S.A. Gorin); why the court accepted the case for proceedings with violation of jurisdiction.

On June 24, 2014 Judge Kuleshov V.A. refuses to satisfy the request to transfer the case to the Nikulinsky Court of Moscow. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant Gorin S.A. object to the transfer of the case by jurisdiction to the Nikulinsky Court of Moscow, despite the fact that these agreements are the subject of a dispute there.

My representative filed a private complaint against the ruling of the court (private complaint is attached). August 04, 2014 private complaint was satisfied voren by the Moscow City Court. The case was sent to the Nikulinsky Court of Moscow.

Further events develop as follows. Instead of collecting funds in the Nikulinsky Court of Moscow from the debtor under the agreement, as a normal creditor should, the offshore company continues to persistently apply to the Simonovsky Court. And in August 2014, in the Simonovsky Court of Moscow, Judge Kuleshov V.A. again raises a lawsuit with similar claims against Gorin S.A. and Gosteva E.A., repeating word for word the previous statement of claim with the only difference that as a defendant, the citizen Abdullaeva L.A., registered on the territory of the Simonovsky Court of Moscow, who is allegedly a cohabitant of Gorin S.A. at the present time, was also involved. The plaintiff asks to recover jointly and severally from three of the funds that Gorin S.A. must pay to WEST PROVINCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED under loan agreements. At the same time, all property acquired by Gorin and Gosteva in marriage is listed. From a similar claim, the goal of the plaintiff (and in fact an offshore company owned by Gorin S.A.) is clearly traced to receive funds from Gosteva, despite the fact that Gorin S.A. is the debtor under the loan agreement. as a defendant serves only as a basis for applying to the Simonovsky Court of Moscow on jurisdiction. There is no legal argumentation of her involvement in the lawsuit. There is a complete unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff and defendant Gorin S.A. to consider the case of debt obligations in the Nikulinsky court, where the case on the division of property of the spouses is located.

At the same time, the case under the claim of WEST PROVINCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED against Gorin S.A. and me, which returned in August 2014 from the Moscow City Court after satisfaction of a private complaint about the direction of the case under jurisdiction by the court apparatus, was not sent to the Nikulinsky Court of Moscow, and was sent only in November 2014.

I applied to the Simonovsky Court of Moscow with a motion to leave the newly filed claim of WEST PROVINCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED without consideration, since the Nikulinsky Court is in the process of a similar case sent there under jurisdiction on the basis of the appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court (the petition is attached).

On December 19, 2014, the Simonovsky Court of Moscow satisfies the petition and leaves the claims without consideration.

In May 2015, while browsing the website of the Moscow City Court with a view to returning to the Nikulinsky Court of Moscow the case on the division of property after another complaint by Gorin S.A. Moscow dated December 19, 2014, that is, 5 months after its issuance. And the case was returned to the Simonovsky court for consideration. Again, in my opinion, an absolutely incomprehensible situation is taking place in terms of finding this dispute precisely in the Simonovsky Court of Moscow. With the statutory period for appeal of 15 days after the issuance of the ruling, the ruling is not appealed within this period, but after 5 months it is canceled on appeal.

The case is returned to the Simonovsky Court of Moscow and scheduled for hearing on August 19, 2015. On August 17, 2015, I send a telegram to the court stating that I ask that the hearing of the case be postponed due to my illness and the impossibility of being present at the court session to state my position on the case. The fact that the telegram reached the court is confirmed by a notice of receipt with the signature of a court employee dated August 17, 2015 (a copy of the telegram and notice is attached).

On August 19, 2015, Judge Kuleshov V.A. makes a decision on the claim of WEST PROVINCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED against Gorin S.A., Gosteva E.A. and Abdullaeva L.A. for the recovery of debt under loan agreements, which decides to recover funds from Gorin S. A. and Gosteva E. A. For obvious reasons, in terms of collecting money from Mrs. Abdullaeva, it was refused, which was 100% predictable. After all, the purpose of this lawsuit is the decision to recover money from me.

It is noteworthy that the court considered the case on the merits in my absence, recovering from me a huge amount of money under loan agreements to which I was not a party, depriving me of the right to speak my position in court.

On September 18, 2015, without waiting for the case to be submitted to the court office, I file an appeal, indicating that I will file a reasoned complaint after reading the minutes of the court session and the court decision.

Literally a few days later, information appears on the website of the court that the case was handed over to the office as early as September 3! But on September 18, 2015, the case was not in the office, and I could not get a decision. September 25, 2015 I go to court and receive a court decision. When I got to know it, everything became clear to me. Kuleshov V.A., in the framework of this case, actually divided the debts between the spouses instead of considering the dispute under a general civil agreement concluded between the credit rum and the debtor, on the recovery of funds. Actually, that was the goal. The legal justification for disagreeing with such an innovative decision in terms of law and judicial practice will be indicated by me in the full appeal.

When reviewing the case file, I discovered that my telegram with a request for adjournment was missing from the case file. She simply does not exist, despite her admission to the court!

After reading the minutes of the court session, which fit on two pages, everything became obvious. The court, recovering a huge amount of money from me, did not even consider it necessary to study in detail my position on the case, set out earlier in a written petition, where I indicated that I was not the proper defendant in the case, to postpone the case to receive explanations from me, to ask questions the side of the plaintiff and the side of the defendant Gorin S.A.

Although everything is clear here, Gorin S.A. and his offshore company - the plaintiff (of which I have evidence) pursued the goal of obtaining a decision to recover funds for non-existent debts from me, and submit to the Nikulinsky Court of Moscow that entered into force decision of the Simonovskiy Court of Moscow. But by a coincidence, I became aware of the existence of a lawsuit in the Simonovsky court, which has nothing to do with the place of residence of either mine or Gorin SA, and the case was sent to the jurisdiction. But Gorin S.A. achieved his goal and got the solution he needed.

Kuleshov V.A. makes an unlawful decision. The judge initially accepts the case with violation of jurisdiction, refuses to satisfy the request to refer the case to jurisdiction. Does not exercise proper control over the case. After returning from the Moscow City Court, the case is not sent to the Nikulinsky Court of Moscow for several months. My telegram, sent to the court in advance, mysteriously disappears. I cannot say with full confidence that this telegram was deliberately not included in the case file, or that this was done due to the negligence of the court employees, but in any case, the result was that my failure to appear was not recognized as valid and the case was considered in my absence and I was charged a huge sum of money. For me, this situation is catastrophic. I alone am raising two small children, fighting off the endless attacks of Gorin S.A., now I have to have more troubles associated with a debt that did not really exist, but is only the fruit of the revenge of my ex-spouse, who, due to his position in business, is able to fabricate loan agreements with an offshore company that is subordinate to him.

My non-participation in the case, despite the fact that all measures were taken on my part to postpone the case, entailed a gross violation of my rights in the form of the impossibility of representing my interests personally in the court session - observing one of the most important principles of the civil process as oral and spontaneity, and as a result, an unlawful decision by the court.

The judge is obliged to control and take appropriate measures to comply with and fulfill the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation by employees of the court apparatus, in particular, the secretary of the court session and secretaries of the court.

According to the Code of Judicial Ethics, a judge is obliged to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its laws, other normative legal acts, must conscientiously fulfill his professional duties, take all necessary measures for the timely consideration of cases, and require conscientiousness and dedication from the court staff and his immediate subordinates.

On the basis of the foregoing, I ask the QUALIFICATION BOARD OF JUDGES OF THE CITY OF MOSCOW to look into this issue and bring Judge V. A. Kuleshov of the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow to disciplinary responsibility.”





To be continued

Timofey Grishin

Source: www.rucriminal.info