At the end of last year, the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District adopted a precedent resolution dated October 31, 2014 No. F05-12000/14 in case No. A40-28598/13: the court recognized the companies as interdependent and recovered tax arrears from the company, which is not the founder of the debtor , nor its subsidiary, that is, from a company that, according to formal characteristics, is not dependent.
After making this decision, Russian companies new tax risks have emerged in matters related to transfer pricing, and the tax authorities have a new method of action. Taxpayers should keep in mind that:
- recognition of the parties to the transaction as interdependent is possible Not only on the basis of formal signs, but also on the basis of other facts revealed by the court;
- application of the rules for recognizing persons as interdependent, established by Ch. 14.1. Tax Code of the Russian Federation, possibly for transactions carried out before 01/01/2012, i.e. before the new Section V.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation comes into force, since these norms do not worsen the situation of the taxpayer;
- application of the provisions of Art. 20 Tax Code of the Russian Federation and ch. 14.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation on interdependent persons is possible in order to collect tax debt in court from dependent companies in case of non-payment of tax in accordance with Art. 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.
Let us consider in more detail the circumstances of the precedent court decision.
Facts of the case
In 2011 - 2012 The tax authorities conducted an audit of CJSC Royal Voda, a large supplier of soft drinks in the Moscow region, as a result of which the taxpayer was assessed a total of about 327 million rubles. CJSC "Royal Water" did not fulfill its obligation to pay additional taxes, penalties and fines and declared bankruptcy. The tax authorities tried to collect the arrears within the framework of the application of Art. 46, 47 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, but to no avail.
At the same time, Royal Water LLC was registered with other participants, but with the same name, type of activity, website and other characteristics.
Then the tax authority, on the basis of clause 2 of Article 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, declared a demand to recognize CJSC Royal Water and LLC Royal Water as interdependent entities and, as a result, to collect the amount of tax debt from the interdependent LLC Royal Water.
The court of first instance rejected the claim of the tax authorities, since it did not see formal signs of interdependence of the companies, such as direct participation of one person in the capital of another person. In addition, the court noted that the provisions of Art. 20 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the norms of Ch. V.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not allow the collection of amounts of arrears on taxes of a taxpayer at the expense of an interdependent person. These rules, according to the court, provide for the recognition of persons as interdependent only for the purpose of monitoring the market value of transaction prices.
However, during the subsequent consideration of the case, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court - the demands of the tax authorities were satisfied in full size.
When reviewing the case, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal found that CJSC Royal Water, in order to avoid paying arrears, transferred all its activities to a specially created new company, LLC Royal Water. The reasons for making this decision were the following factors:
- Korolevskaya Voda LLC was registered during the on-site tax audit of Royal Voda JSC;
- Korolevskaya Voda LLC and Royal Voda CJSC have identical actual addresses, contact numbers, information websites, types of activities, and trademarks;
- The assets of CJSC Royal Water have been rapidly decreasing since the start of the on-site tax audit;
- Korolevskaya Voda LLC renegotiated contracts with buyers of goods from Royal Voda JSC, including by assigning rights of claim;
- All employees of Royal Voda CJSC transferred to Korolevskaya Voda LLC;
- Revenue was transferred to LLC "Royal Water" by organizations that had previously transferred revenue to CJSC "Royal Water".
Based on the above factors, the court recognized CJSC Royal Water and LLC Royal Water as interdependent. It also established that failure to fulfill tax obligations through the bankruptcy of Royal Water CJSC, the transfer of all previously concluded agreements to new organization LLC "Royal Water" and the transfer of proceeds to LLC "Royal Water" by organizations that previously transferred revenue to CJSC "Royal Water" in accordance with paragraphs. 2 p. 2 art. 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation are the grounds for collecting arrears of CJSC Royal Water from its interdependent company LLC Royal Water.
When recognizing the companies as interdependent, the court was guided by the provisions of Art. 20 and ch. V.I. Tax Code of the Russian Federation. And, despite the fact that Ch. V.I. Tax Code came into force only on January 1, 2012, the court decided that its provisions can be applied to transactions carried out before 2012, since they do not worsen the taxpayer’s position.
Legal analysis of the issue
In mid-2013, in pp. 2 p. 2 art. 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, provisions were introduced according to which, if the tax authority establishes that the transfer of proceeds for goods sold (work, services), transfer Money, other property are made to organizations recognized by the court as otherwise dependent with the taxpayer for whom the arrears are registered, then the arrears can be recovered from such an interdependent person ( the federal law dated June 28, 2013 No. 134-FZ).
In accordance with paragraph. 9 pp. 2 p. 2 art. 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, when applying the provisions of this subclause, recovery can be made within the limits of the proceeds received by the main (predominant, participating) companies (enterprises), dependent (subsidiaries) companies (enterprises), organizations recognized by the court as otherwise dependent on the taxpayer for whom the arrears are registered for goods sold (work, services), transferred funds, and other property.
Despite the fact that the new norms were introduced later, than the tax audit of CJSC “Royal Water” was carried out, the courts in their decisions are guided by a mechanism similar to the norms of paragraph 2 of paragraph 2 of Art. 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. This allows us to consider the case considered a precedent and confirms the effectiveness of the new provisions of Art. 45 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, aimed at preventing the avoidance of repayment of tax debts by transferring assets to interdependent persons. The support of the tax authorities by the court suggests that this practice will subsequently expand.
Previous jurisprudence on recognition of interdependence
Obviously, the court can recognize persons as interdependent if the circumstances of the tax dispute so require. But the procedural aspects of this issue are this moment are not completely clear. What are the limits of the tax authority's decision in this matter? Is there a need for a separate trial to address the issue of establishing interdependence?
In our opinion, a decision on interdependence outside of the formal grounds directly listed by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation can only be made by a court. Tax authorities are constrained by strict requirements and criteria that directly and literally established by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in the applicable period (for the powers of tax authorities in different periods, see Figure 1).
Their broad interpretation in the absence of a directly proven formal connection by tax authorities cannot be carried out categorically. Case law generally supports this conclusion, even in fairly complex cases where a connection between companies is clearly implied. It should be noted, however, that the practice relates to the period before 2012 and is focused on the application of Art. 20 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. For example:
- Companies are connected through trust agreements (“nominee service”)
The courts came to the conclusion that the inspection did not prove the interdependence of society and the company, and did not substantiate how the company had or could have influenced the conditions or economic results of the counterparty’s activities. Acts: Resolution of the FAS Moscow District dated June 23, 2014 No. F05-5887/2014 in case No. A41-26943/13, Resolution of the FAS East Siberian District dated March 5, 2012 in case No. A19-12088/2011.
- The coincidence of the founder in one person was not recognized as a criterion of interdependence in the absence of other evidence:
The tax authority has not proven the influence and its degree on the relations developing between companies in which the founder is the same person, and they are not interdependent. Acts: Resolutions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow Region dated December 8, 2009. In case No. KA-A41/13351-09, Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District dated February 22, 2008. In case No. A56-8142/2007, Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated April 8. 2013 in case No. A40-46089/12-20-247.
- The court did not recognize the interdependence of persons on the basis that they are related labor relations:
The inspection did not prove the interdependence of the company and did not justify how employees of the companies associated with labor relations with both companies can influence the decisions made by the companies. Act: Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga District dated February 27, 2007 in case No. A12-8023/2006) .
- Other criteria
The same accountant, the same legal address, current accounts in the same bank, the founders of the parties to the transaction are close relatives - the court rejected these circumstances as evidence of the interdependence of the parties to the transaction. Act: Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the East Siberian District dated October 4, 2013 in case No. A78-10238/2012.
Thus, it is clear that in the absence of formal signs of interdependence provided for in Art. 20 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the court, as a rule, takes the side of the taxpayer, refusing the claim to the tax authorities. Meanwhile, not all cases were resolved in favor of the taxpayer.
- Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District dated February 24, 2015 in case No. A29-459/2014.
The court based on paragraph 2 of Art. 20 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation recognized the taxpayer and his counterparty as interdependent, establishing the following circumstances:
- the counterparty purchased the equipment, vehicles with funds received under loan agreements from the taxpayer, purchased equipment and vehicles were used by the taxpayer in its activities;
- the taxpayer received a loan from a bank, the counterparty and its manager acted as guarantors under the loan agreement;
- the counterparty received a loan from the bank, the guarantor under the loan agreement was the taxpayer, its director and the director of the counterparty;
- officials of the counterparty during their leadership were simultaneously employees of the taxpayer;
- both organizations had the same legal address and had one accounting company.
The court came to the conclusion that the taxpayer and his counterparty carry out a single production process and have a single acceptance center management decisions, the initial financing of the activities carried out by the counterparty was provided by the taxpayer. Taking into account the above, the court concluded that the tax authority had grounds for checking the price of transactions concluded between the taxpayer and the counterparty, in accordance with Art. 40 Tax Code of the Russian Federation, for compliance market price, and recognized as legitimate the additional assessment of taxes in connection with the identified deviation of the prices for transport services applied by the parties to the transaction from the market ones.
- Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District dated January 23, 2015 N F01-5900/2014 in case N A11-556/2014
The court recognized the position of the tax authority as lawful regarding the recognition of the parties to the transaction as interdependent on the basis that they are located in the same administrative building and are in contractual relations under a number of agreements on the provision of various services to each other and the provision of property for rent. In addition, one of the board members of one party is an employee and founder of the other party.
Examples from judicial practice comparison you can find in Figure 2 below.
Thus, depending on the totality of the criterion, the same circumstance may or may not be recognized as evidence of the interdependence of the parties in court (for example, the same legal address or the same accountant). The court always considers all criteria in relation to each other, and the more criteria the relationship between the parties to a transaction meets, the higher the risk of recognizing the parties as interdependent persons.
Thus, the court decision against JSC Royal Water creates a precedent for the interpretation of certain rules of law. And is already used by the courts, for example, Definition Supreme Court RF dated 02.11.2015 N 305-KG15-13737 in case N A40-153792/2014, in which the courts recognized the position of the tax authority as legitimate, establishing the fact of interdependence and affiliation of companies on the basis that the parties have a common founder and general director, one actual address, contact numbers, information website, type of activity. It was proven that the company's actions were aimed at transferring assets, personnel, and existing business contracts in order to evade actual tax obligations. Thus, the courts found that the inspection proved a set of conditions under which tax debt is collected from a dependent person who received the entire business from the debtor, including fixed assets and working personnel.
Taking into account the above, taxpayers need to plan operations within the group even more carefully, since the practice when tax obligations the taxpayer's liability is borne by his related party is becoming wider.
BRIEF INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASES UNDER CONSIDERATION: |
|
| Main case number: | No. A40-28598/13 |
| Participants: | CJSC "Royal Water", LLC "Royal Water", Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service of Russia No. 1 for the city of Moscow |
| Main region: | Moscow, Russia |
Key legal provisions: | Art. 20 Tax Code of the Russian Federation and ch. V.I. Tax Code of the Russian Federation |
Passed levels: | Arbitration Court of Moscow, Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, Arbitration Court of the Moscow District |
| Latest judicial act in the case: | Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated October 31, 2014 No. F05-12000/14 |
| The decision came into force: | September 18, 2014 |
| Taxpayer experience: | The taxpayer lost! |
The released founder of companies that produce and sell the popular “Royal Water” said that his enterprises were seized by hired managers, taking advantage of his arrest in a fraud case.
According to Joseph Badalov, hired managers took control of the enterprises, taking advantage of his arrest in a fraud case. The entrepreneur, who stopped this case, wrote a statement to the Investigative Committee. Badalov’s partners claim that he himself brought the business to bankruptcy.
According to Joseph Badalov, upon leaving the pre-trial detention center, he found out that he had actually been deprived of his business. Badalov blamed the raider takeover former top managers CJSC "Royal Water" of Alexei Groza, Dmitry Nekrasov and their lawyer Maxim Gusev, who, taking advantage of his arrest in a fraud case, allegedly falsified constituent documents companies. As a result, Joseph Badalov claims, Dmitry Nekrasov became the 100% owner of Royal Water LLC, to which the assets were transferred from the closed joint-stock company. Joseph Badalov wrote a statement to the Investigative Committee, which is conducting a pre-investigation check on it.
The lawyer of Alexei Groza and Dmitry Nekrasov, Alexander Khrapov, told Kommersant that his clients are extremely surprised by statements that they are to blame for Joseph Badalov’s loss of control over his business. “Groza is the director of Chek LLC and Ritm LLC, and Nekrasov runs Royal Voda LLC,” explained Mr. Khrapov. “These are partners of Royal Voda CJSC, which was led by Joseph Badalov, leading him to bankruptcy.” According to lawyer Khrapov, Badalov really lost control over the closed joint-stock company, but not because of a raider takeover, but as a result of the initiation of a bankruptcy case for the enterprise and the appointment of a bankruptcy trustee there.
In turn, lawyer Gusev, on the contrary, was not surprised by the statement of his former client. “I am one of those lawyers who achieved the dismissal of Badalov’s criminal case for fraud,” Mr. Gusev told Kommersant. “However, instead of gratitude, he never paid us.” Maxim Gusev declined to comment further, citing “legal ethics.” At the same time, he noted that Joseph Badalov must understand that his accusations “smack of slander.”
Currently, the Investigative Committee is investigating a case of tax evasion amounting to 300 million rubles against Joseph Badalov. (he has already paid off part of this debt). And the entrepreneur found himself under investigation for fraud in April 2014 at the request of the previously convicted head of the Zashchita law firm, Dionisy Zolotov, who posed as a relative of the first deputy head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He promised the owner of Royal Water for $6 million to solve his problems with taxes in the Investigative Committee, and so that Joseph Badalov would not refuse to pay for services, he insisted on him signing loan agreements, according to which he allegedly took money from the lawyer himself. Then Dionisy Zolotov wrote a statement to the police against Badalov saying that the borrower did not repay the debt.
As a result, the case against Joseph Badalov was dropped for lack of evidence of a crime, and Dionisy Zolotov found himself under investigation.
Alexey Sokovnin
Original material: "Kommersant"
"Kommersant" , 08/13/14, “Fixer” collected incriminating evidence on himself
As Kommersant learned, employees of the Investigative Committee and the FSB detained the well-known “fixer” - the head of MGKYu Zashchita LLC, Dionisy Zolotov, aka Denis Tumarkin. In the case of a lawyer previously twice convicted, dozens of hours of video recordings were seized, recording his meetings with law enforcement officers, at which issues of initiating and terminating criminal cases were discussed. It is assumed that one of the victims of Dionisy Zolotov could have been entrepreneur Joseph Badalov, whose company produces and sells the popular “Royal Water”. Having turned to the “fixer” as a well-known lawyer, he not only found himself in custody, but also lost control over part of the business.
Dionisy Zolotov was detained by FSB officers in a restaurant in the center of Moscow. His security, consisting of active security officials, having learned that they had come for the boss from Lubyanka, not only did not interfere with the special event, but, on the contrary, assisted their colleagues, reporting that they themselves were “developing” the “fixer”. Then Zolotov was taken to the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, where a decision was made to bring him into custody as a suspect in committing a crime under Part 5 of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (mediation in bribery). In addition, according to the materials available to the investigative authorities, Dionisy Zolotov could have been a participant in numerous fraudulent transactions (Part 4 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code).
As part of this case, searches were carried out not only in the house and office of the detainee, but also in some departments metropolitan police, however, their results are not yet known. The Investigative Committee of Kommersant confirmed the very fact of the criminal prosecution of Dionisy Zolotov, but refrained from commenting, citing the fact that the investigation had just begun.
Meanwhile, according to Kommersant, this case, if it is promoted, could lead to a major corruption scandal - Dionisy Zolotov, allegedly, for subsequent blackmail, recorded on video his numerous meetings (electronic drives were seized) with clients in the “Defense” meeting room ", during which businessmen and lawyers on the one hand and law enforcement officers (police officers, investigators and prosecutors) on the other agreed to make mutually beneficial decisions on criminal and civil cases. They say that Zolotov got burned in one of these cases about lifting the seizure of property for a reward.
Let us note that Dionisy Zolotov was previously convicted twice as a citizen of Russia and Israel Denis Tumarkin. In the first case, he came under investigation as a member of a group that stole goods from truckers. Under the guise of FCS employees, scammers stopped trailers crossing the border and then confiscated cargo that allegedly had irregularities in its registration.
The second sentence to Denis Tumarkin was handed down by the Nikulinsky District Court last year in a special manner. He found the “fixer”, who still had the status of a lawyer at that time, guilty of committing a crime under Part 4 of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Then the lawyer, having learned from “his people” at the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Moscow about a series of searches conducted at the owner of FKG Delta and ZAO MFA Dmitry Danilov, offered him 52 million rubles. organize the return of seized documents and termination of the case. He did not fulfill his obligations and disappeared - he was declared a international search and was arrested in absentia. True, then Denis Tumarkin voluntarily appeared before the investigative authorities, allegedly repaid the damage to the victim and admitted guilt, which allowed him to avoid real punishment, but receive, in addition to the suspended sentence, a probationary period, which has not yet expired.
Again, law enforcement agencies became interested in Denis Tumarkin, who changed his last name to Zolotov, this year. Moreover, at first the repeat offender turned out to be the victim. Based on his statement to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Western District of Moscow, entrepreneur Joseph Badalov, whose company produces and sells the popular “Royal Water,” was detained. Joseph Badalov, who was under investigation for tax evasion, was recommended by his friends to turn to Dionisy Zolotov, who introduced himself as a well-known lawyer and relative of the former head of the presidential security service, and now the first deputy head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, Viktor Zolotov. However, it turned out differently.
Taking advantage of the fact that Joseph Badalov is suffering from severe mental illness, lawyer Zolotov, according to the defense of the owner of Royal Water, received from him promissory notes for $4 million and €1.5 million for a year secured by real estate. And since it turned out to be registered offshore, Dionisy Zolotov, knowing about this, turned to the police as a victim. As a result, Joseph Badalov was placed in custody by the same judge who at one time actually acquitted Zolotov-Tumarkin in the fraud case. Moreover, the judge categorically refused to attach to the new case the sentence he himself handed down and provided by Joseph Badalov’s defense to the applicant.
Now the case of Joseph Badalov has been transferred for further investigation to the Investigative Committee, but the entrepreneur is still in custody. His lawyer Sergei Starovoitov told Kommersant that he hopes for the objectivity of the investigation, especially given the new circumstances related to the victim Zolotov. At the same time, Mr. Starovoitov noted that while his client’s case was going through the investigative authorities, the former general director of Royal Water Dmitry Nekrasov, who previously owned 1% profitable business in Russia, suddenly became its owner, and this despite the fact that 99% of the company’s shares were registered in a foreign offshore and remained on it. And after the news of the detention of Dionisy Zolotov, Dmitry Nekrasov unexpectedly went on vacation.
The investigator of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Western District of Moscow, Alexey Alekseev, who opened the case against Joseph Badalov, told Kommersant that he was not aware of the problems that arose with the applicant. And Zolotov’s lawyer, Lyubov Blagushina, told Kommersant that her client has not been charged, and she cannot discuss his case, since he did not give her permission to do so. In turn, Anna Fadeeva, a representative of the Basmanny Court, told Kommersant that they had already received a petition from the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee for the arrest of Dionisy Zolotov. It will be reviewed at nine this morning.
Nikolay Sergeev, Alexey Sokovnin
No, Kuindzhi's kidnappers will still not explode when trying to remove the painting from the wall. But they still came up with some traps for them.- 10.07.2019 On July 13, the Literary Fund presents an auction collection of paintings, graphics and decorative arts, assessed by experts at total amount over 15,000,000 rubles
- 09.07.2019 The catalog contains 463 lots: paintings, graphics, porcelain, glass, silverware, jewelry, etc.
- 08.07.2019 The traditional twenty lots of the AI Auction are thirteen paintings and seven sheets of original graphics
- 05.07.2019 Sold 60% of the catalog. All lots went to Moscow and St. Petersburg
- 04.07.2019 On July 9, 2019, the auction “The Golden Age of Russian Literature. From a private European collection"
- 06.06.2019 The premonition did not disappoint. Buyers were in good mood, and the auction went great. On the very first day of “Russian week” the top 10 auction results for Russian art were updated. Almost $12 million was paid for Petrov-Vodkin
- 23.05.2019 You will be surprised, but this time I have a good feeling. I think that purchasing activity will be higher than last time. And the prices will most likely surprise you. Why? There will be a few words about this at the very end.
- 13.05.2019 Many believe that such a high concentration of very wealthy people inevitably creates adequate demand in the domestic art market. Alas, the scale of purchases of paintings in Russia is by no means directly proportional to the amount of personal wealth
- 24.04.2019 Surprisingly, many of the previous predicted IT breakthroughs did not come true. Maybe for the better. There is an opinion that instead of helping, the world's Internet giants are leading us into a trap. And only a small part of the richest population figured out in time what was what
- 29.03.2019 The Stroganovka students who met in the morgue were destined to become the inventors of Sots art, the instigators of the “bulldozer exhibition”, traders of American souls and the most recognizable representatives of independent Soviet art in the world
- 13.06.2019 Works of art created using artificial intelligence. Among the participants is the French art group OBVIOUS, who managed to effectively monetize this work
- 11.06.2019 In the Gallery of Art of Europe and America of the 19th–20th centuries. from June 19 it will be possible to see selected works A. Giacometti, I. Klein, Basquiat, E. Warhol, G. Richter, Z. Polke, M. Cattelan, A. Gursky and others from the collection of Fondation Louis Vuitton, Paris
- 11.06.2019 From June 19 to September 15, queues will line up in the Main Building of the Pushkin Museum on Volkhonka, 12, for an exhibition of about 150 works from the collection of Sergei Shchukin - paintings by Monet, Picasso, Gauguin, Derain, Matisse and others from the collections of the Pushkin Museum. Pushkin, Hermitage, Oriental Museum, etc.
- 11.06.2019 About 170 works by Goncharova from museums and collections from all over the world, including Russia, were brought to London for the exhibition.
- 07.06.2019 Until the end of June, the Tsereteli Gallery on Prechistenka is hosting a large personal exhibition of Konstantin Aleksandrovich Batynkov, who is celebrating his 60th birthday this year.
Moscow. December 24. website - The founder and main owner of the Royal Water company, Joseph Badalov, asks for management Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation to initiate a criminal case regarding the raider takeover of its enterprise.
“We are seeking to open a criminal case, transfer materials to the Investigative Committee and conduct a comprehensive objective investigation,” said the businessman’s lawyer Vladimir Kalinichenko on Wednesday at a press conference at Interfax.
According to the lawyer, the corresponding appeals were sent to the head of the Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, and the head of the FSB of Russia, Alexander Bortnikov.
“The crime statement was written by Badalov’s relatives back in the summer of this year, then by himself at the end of October. Since then, an investigation has been underway, the results of which have not been reported to us,” Kalinichenko said. He recalled that the pre-investigation check can last, according to the law, no more than a month.
“Currently, my former subordinates have taken possession of my entire holding, they do not allow me into production, into the Moscow warehouse and office, depriving me of my property through forgery of documents, fraud, arrest and criminal prosecution,” Badalov said at the same press. -conferences.
He claims that he is currently being monitored, his phones and the phones of his relatives are being tapped.
Badalov said that he has video and audio recordings from surveillance cameras and microphones that he had previously installed in the office premises, which, he believes, confirm his version of the events that took place in the company.
“I am ready to hand over these materials to the investigative authorities, as well as make them available to the media. They show how the people I indicated are discussing the upcoming seizure of my business. Two provocations have already been organized against me. My relatives and I fear for our lives and freedom.” , - said Badalov.
As the entrepreneur’s lawyer Kalinichenko said, the seizure of the enterprise began back in 2012. According to him, the evidence he collected and interviews with witnesses suggests that Badalov became a victim of the actions of lawyer Dionisy Zolotov, who is called the “fixer” in the media.
The latter is currently under arrest on charges of mediation in bribery, and Badalov is a witness in this case. Zolotov had previously been convicted of fraud, but paid damages and received a suspended sentence.
“When Badalov suspected something was wrong and began to sort things out with Zolotov, he filed a statement that Badalov had fraudulently obtained an amount of $4 million and 1.5 million euros,” the lawyer said.
This amount was indicated in the loan agreement with the pledge of property, which Badalov entered into with Zolotov to pay for the services of a lawyer in a tax case initiated against the Royal Water company for 330 million rubles.
According to Badalov, Zolotov suggested that the head of Royal Water resolve problems with the tax authorities and introduced himself as a close relative of a high-ranking Russian security official. “It turned out to be a lie, he had nothing to do with this person,” the businessman emphasized.
As a result, in April 2014, Badalov was placed in custody for six months in pre-trial detention center No. 3, after which he was released from arrest on October 20, and the criminal case against him was dropped.
“During this time, all the assets of my companies were stolen. At the time of the arrest, I owned 99% of the company’s shares, my director had 0.1%. While I was in jail, this 0.1% turned into 100%,” he said Badalov.
“My company pays the tax claim, but I am not allowed into the enterprise and are not allowed to do this. The state is deprived of this money. This in itself is a crime that the state must pay attention to,” the businessman believes.
The Royal Water company was founded in 1994. Now this is one of the largest enterprises on the bottled water market in Russia, the CIS countries and the UAE.
As Kommersant learned, yesterday entrepreneur Joseph Badalov, whose company produces and sells the popular Royal Water, was released from a pre-trial detention center. The businessman was arrested six months ago when he sought advice on his tax case from the head of the Zashchita law firm, Dionisy Zolotov, who posed as a relative of the first deputy head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. As a result, Joseph Badalov was accused of fraud and almost lost his business. The investigation eventually came to the conclusion that his actions did not constitute a crime.
Yesterday morning, Alexey Glukhov, an investigator from the Main Investigation Department (GSU) of the Investigative Committee for Moscow, arrived at pre-trial detention center No. 3, where Iosif Badalov was under arrest, and was in charge of the businessman’s case. He announced to Joseph Badalov that his criminal prosecution in terms of “especially large-scale fraud” (Part 4 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) was terminated due to the lack of corpus delicti. In this regard, Joseph Badalov, according to him, is being released from custody. However, since a criminal case had previously been opened against the entrepreneur for “tax evasion” (Article 199 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) for 300 million rubles, committed, according to the investigation, during the sale of “Royal Water”, Mr. Glukhov took from a former prisoner undertaking not to leave Moscow and proper behavior.
Such a preventive measure, as noted by the entrepreneur’s lawyer Sergei Starovoitov, was not at all necessary, since his client regularly attended interrogations before his arrest and even began to pay off his existing tax debt.
Joseph Badalov was arrested by decision of the Nikulinsky District Court in April current year after the head of the law firm "Zashchita" Dionisy Zolotov, a well-known "fixer" in the capital, contacted the Department of Internal Affairs of the Western District of Moscow.
Joseph Badalov consulted Dionisy Zolotov about his tax case. However, as the defense believes, taking advantage of the fact that the owner of “Korolskaya” suffers from a serious psychiatric illness “associated with increased suggestibility,” the “fixer” used the current situation to his advantage.
As follows from his statement, Joseph Badalov entered into two interest-bearing loan agreements with him in February and March of this year, receiving $4 million and €1.5 million secured by real estate in the Moscow region, which turned out to be registered not in the name of the borrower, but in an offshore company. Considering himself deceived, Dionisy Zolotov turned to the police, who opened a criminal case. At the same time, neither the investigation nor the judge for some reason paid attention to the fact that the “fixer” had previously been convicted twice by the same Nikulinsky District Court for various frauds.
While, at the request of Joseph Badalov’s defense, the capital’s Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee was accepting the fraud case for its proceedings, combining it with the tax case, Dionisy Zolotov’s people tried to take over the enterprises involved in the production and sale of Korolevskaya. The implementation of the scam was prevented by the arrest in August of this year of the head of “Defense” - Dionisy Zolotov was taken into custody by the Basmanny District Court at the request of the central Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee for committing a crime under Part 5 of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ("Offer of mediation in bribery"). According to the investigation, he brought one businessman together with the head of the investigative unit of the Internal Affairs Directorate for Southern district Moscow by Oleg Zimin, who for $50 thousand had to lift the arrest from the property of his company.
Moreover, the Investigative Committee, together with the “fixer,” obtained an archive of video recordings that were made in the “Defense” meeting room: dozens of meetings of Dionisy Zolotov with various entrepreneurs and law enforcement officers were recorded, at which issues related to the initiation and closure of criminal cases, raider takeovers and etc.
However, the decision on the episode related to Joseph Badalov was not immediately made by the Moscow Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. Initially, the Presnensky District Court extended his arrest in the already consolidated case for three months, and then the owner of Korolevskaya was sent for an examination to the Serbsky Institute, which confirmed his illness, but declared him sane for criminal prosecution.
Noting that in the case there was no corpus delicti under Part 4 of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, investigator of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Glukhov recognized Joseph Badalov’s right to rehabilitation. The entrepreneur himself, according to his defenders, is not yet planning to use it - first he plans to deal with the problems that arose due to the raider attack on his company and rest. In turn, lawyer Starovoitov noted that the Investigative Committee and the FSB officers who provided operational support for the investigation figured out who exactly was the victim in the fraud case.
The investigator of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Western District of Moscow, Alexey Alekseev, who initiated the case against Joseph Badalov, did not want to comment on his termination to Kommersant, saying only that he did not make this decision. And Dionisy Zolotov’s lawyer, Lyubov Blagushina, was not aware of this event. So far she does not know whether or not a new episode related to “Royal” has appeared in the case of the head of “Defense,” since the next investigative actions with Dionysius Zolotov are scheduled only for Tuesday.
Nikolay Sergeev, Alexey Sokovnin