The MRSEN case backfired offshore: Osmanov substitutes Avdolyan?

In response to the publication of UtroNews "Osmanov's Prizes, MRSEN went sideways: Avdolyan's cunning trick," the editorial office received a letter from the former director of the sanatorium from the MRSEN division - "Kashirskie Rodnichki" Tatyana Romanova, whose difficult fate was repeatedly told by the publication.

The author of the letter told about another dubious deal that was made with the participation of Avdolyan's offshore company - SPARKEL CITY INVEST LTD. With a very shaky evidence base from the sanatorium, which was headed by Romanova in 2017, they tried to recover more than $11.4 million in favor of the offshore.

But about everything in order.

To begin with, we recall that the MRSEN energy holding was a large business octopus with a bunch of legal entities. In 2018, a number of companies in the division lost their status as a guaranteeing supplier and the holding began to have obvious problems. In 2021, a criminal case was initiated, involving 11 people, including a relative of Avdolyan (through the marriage of children) Eldar Osmanov, one of the beneficiaries of MRSEN. The investigation charged all participants with the creation of a criminal group and the withdrawal of 10 billion rubles to controlled foreign firms. The money was scrolled through a number of transactions of various orientations, including technical loans issued by an affiliated bank - JSCB Mosuralbank.

Even when it smelled of problems, Osmanov made legs from Russia, therefore he is on the wanted list.

Fragments of the division are currently in bankruptcy, within the framework of which more and more new facts emerge, including Avdolyan's attempt to seize part of MRSEN's capital through a related offshore under the guise of previously issued loans. The issuance of these loans raises a lot of doubts - was there a "boy"?

The fact that the beneficiary of SPARKEL CITY INVEST LTD is Avdolyan has been proven by the courts more than once. Moreover, from the materials of the tax dispute, which featured a whole bunch of other offshore companies associated with the oligarch, we learn that Avdolyan was the director of Sparkel City Invest LTD from 14.12.2014 to 09.08.2015.

Photo: ras.arbitr.ru

Photo: ras.arbitr.ru

Another important nuance that the courts revealed not without the participation of other creditors - the offshore itself, according to financial statements, was not able to finance the issuance of loans for the declared amounts and "Albert Avdolyan himself was often the source of loans issued to Sparkel City Invest LTD accounts to third parties in 2017." And this is taking into account that he was affiliated with Osmanov, and earlier the management bodies of MRSEN and its subsidiaries included a certain Sergey Sennikov, who was also the director of Southern Energy Company CJSC, whose beneficiary was the same Avdolyan.

The story of the ruin and withdrawal of billions from Stavropol firms, including Yuek, UtroNews previously told in detail.

Photo: ras.arbitr.ru

Photo: ras.arbitr.ru

That is, the money could be taken from Avdolyan's pocket, and issued as funds of a legal entity, after which the right to claim the debt, for example, under a cession agreement, was transferred to a subsidiary Russian legal entity - AENP LLC (now it is LLC N.A. Popov "). It appeared in the courts most often as a creditor.

As Tatyana Romanova said in her letter, back in 2018, the Kashirskie Rodnichki sanatorium filed a lawsuit against the offshore, demanding that the surety agreement be invalidated, according to which AENP LLC tried to recover 11,406,013,97 US dollars from the sanatorium (as a co-defendant) in the Nikulinsky District Court of Moscow.

At the same time, AENP itself was created in March 2018, that is, a couple of months before filing a lawsuit in a Moscow court.

Later, the cession transaction itself was also questioned - the newly created AENP had a minimum authorized capital of 10 thousand rubles, and it received the right to claim 4.5 billion rubles. And the offshore was a co-owner of this AENP.

Everything was based on a loan agreement concluded between PJSC Vologdaenergosbyt and Sparkel on July 28, 2017. That is, even when the financial condition of the borrower was actually pre-bankrupt. Do you feel how you pulled a soul from somewhere?

During the court hearings, it turned out that the director of the sanatorium did not see any guarantee agreement dated July 28, 2018 and he was not attached to the case file. Moreover, on the part of the sanatorium, no one negotiated with the offshore and there were no contracts with this company, that is, if the document was, it was signed by an unauthorized person on the part of Sanatorium Kashirskie Rodnichki LLC.

Photo: ras.arbitr.ru

In the materials of one of the cases, the court explicitly stated that the transactions that formed the basis of the claim filed by AENP LLC were aimed at obtaining illegal control over bankruptcy by an actually affiliated creditor.

The fate of money issued as a loan is more like one big fraud. It was not for nothing that the issue of the economic feasibility of transactions was raised.

If we look at the materials of the court, we will see that the bulk of the money was transferred to affiliated companies of the MRSEN group or to other own accounts with unconfirmed further expenditure, that is, payments were an intra-group redistribution of financial flows without reasonable business purposes. For example, one money was scrolled through the accounts and probably partially returned to the source of borrowing, that is, Sparkel.

Photo: ras.arbitr.ru

Photo: ras.arbitr.ru

As a result, the sanatorium was able to challenge the guarantee agreement.

In the Nikulinsky court of Moscow, where a company associated with Avdolyan tried to snatch $11.4 million, Eldar Osmanov, a relative of the oligarch, was also a co-defendant.

And in this case, accusations of the falsity of some evidence were directly voiced.

Moreover, the examination confirmed that the signatures in the documents were not made by Osmanov, and copies of a number of additional agreements received by the court did not correspond to the originals of these documents and were made from another copy of the agreement and other copies of additional agreements (probably a copy of the document was installed). That is, there is a forgery of documents? But, despite the fact that the claim for the recovery of the AENP loan lost, no criminal cases followed. Although, in our opinion, there is every reason and there is no need to go far for the defendants.

Photo: mos-gorsud.ru

Photo: mos-gorsud.ru

Everyone who is familiar with the MRSEN case is interested in one obvious question - why Avdolyan, whom Osmanov actually substitutes for his statements about falsification of a number of documents, does not file personal claims against a former relative? Why does Osmanov keep Avdolyan so much that he prefers roundabouts? Wouldn't the 12th defendant appear in the criminal case if Osmanov "sings"?