15 APR 2014 Perovsky court of Moscow sentenced a group of citizens who have been accused of housing fraud.
Organized criminal group was the chief accountant of GUP DEZ presnenskogo district Elena Lebedeva and realtor Svetlana Butorin. The group also included Director DES A. Kasatkin, engineer DEZ landscaping Aleksey Kulikov, glassblower Karelin, driver Il’ichev, courier Below disabled hyles, pensioner Yakushonok, and, as stated in the verdict, other established and unspecified a consequence persons.
As the verdict, in total criminals have stolen 18 apartments.
Just a sin not to steal an apartment in this house.
Butorina, Lebedev, and several others were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, someone got probation, but Kasatkin and waders, apparently, made a deal with the investigation, and their cases were severed.
Here the most interesting members of the group: as you can see, the first cast was made by the staff of the Directorate of single customer, i.e. the organization, which until recently was engaged in maintenance of our homes. And even Disinformation to maintain records of citizens living on the territory entrusted to them, and were obliged to inform the city authorities about the apartments, which for a long time no one lives.
In other words, employees Dezov was to identify vacant apartments to the city authorities could distribute them among the waiting city.
Nice to know that our apartments are under constant supervision drummers of housing and communal services after the next reform of the housing legislation became known as management companies. We, simpletons, think that they themselves control their apartments, and in fact, employees of the management companies know about our square metres more than we do.
* * *
So, one stolen by crooks apartments at the Zoological street, 26, in July 2010 supposedly bought one Tatiana Kulikova. I guess she is the daughter of the already mentioned engineer des Alexey Kulikov. Why “allegedly bought” because the seller of this apartment, as found by the court, was a fictional character V. S. Leonidov. Scammers have produced fake court decision that non-existent citizen of the Leonids is the owner of the apartment, and on his behalf in June 2010 registered the right of ownership.
After eleven months, i.e. in June 2011, Kulikova sold “his” apartment Olga Savina. When Savina Kulikov asked why she sells the apartment, she replied that she decided to buy a home elsewhere. Well, the usual explanation. This is because, as you know, is not prohibited by law.
photo: From personal archive
And in October 2012 Savina found out that her apartment is in the list of apartments, stolen by strikers and communal labour.
Savin called the senior investigator of the GUS GU MVD in Moscow major Maslennikov. Olga told, under any circumstances, bought an apartment on Zoologicheskaya street. Then it was several times summoned to the GSU. Finally, the calls stopped, and in the end she came to the conclusion that to worry her about.
And until October 2016 with no worries she lived with her son in his apartment.
And October 3, 2016 the Department of city property of Moscow (hereinafter — the OCMA) has addressed in court with the claim about withdrawal of the apartment Olga Savina in favor of the city. In the statement of claim, DGI was written that this apartment is the escheated property that is owned by the city.
Those who do not know what it is, explain: in case of death of an apartment owner who has no heirs, this apartment property is recognized by the state. It’s called unclaimed property.
You know: if the apartment belonged to a lone man, his personal data, including name and surname, of course, known and stated in all documents. A creature with no name to be a landlord cannot, by definition, it only happens in horror movies. However, as it turned out, yet it happens in Moscow.
So: in the statement of claim DGI to Olga Savina absent information about a deceased person, for which the city allegedly has inherited an apartment on Zoologicheskaya street. In principle, this can not be, because, well, in fact, the late owner of the apartment as it was called, and his last name was, and passport. And if he lost, the data on the passport is not lost after all…
However, I imagine it’s out of the ordinary circumstance no bother! And 5 April 2017, the judges decided to withdraw the apartment from Savina and pass it on to Moscow.
The arguments to the court. First: despite the lack of information about the dead owner of the apartment is the escheated property. There is no information, and the apartment-I mean…
Second, the DGI has not missed the Statute of limitations, which by law must be calculated from the moment when it became aware of the violation of the right of ownership of the city. The OCMA and the court found that regarding the law became known on 24 June 2014, after the entry into force of the verdict of the Perovsky court.
The court rejected the argument Olga Savina on what story apartment became known to the OCMA before, namely in March 2012. That’s when DMI was recognized as a victim in a criminal case with the housing fraud. Time was recognized as a victim — then everything became known. It turns out, not all?
Third: Savina is not a bona fide purchaser.
Like this? It’s very simple: she bought the apartment through 11 months after it was acquired by the previous owner Kulikova. According to the court, it all happened suspiciously quickly and Savina was supposed to guard, but she will not be alerted. Furthermore, it does not have insured the deal.
But Savina still not able to comprehend the meaning of these arguments. Lawyers, too, are confused.
* * *
Let’s start with the name of the deceased owner of the apartment. Imagine the situation: a person comes to the notary and declares that he has inherited an apartment from a man without a name and surname. Anyone who has ever been a notary, understands, or he would call the psychiatrist, or, most likely, will take the broom and kicked “heir”. It turns out that it is impossible for the layman, it is permissible for the representatives of the state.
As for the Statute of limitations for state representatives, apparently, there is a special event. Since the state argues that the deadline is missed, then the way it is.
Now, what about a bona fide purchaser. The law is one who when buying property does not know and cannot know what the seller of the property impersonating the real owner, but it is not. Here is Savina does not know what she did wrong? After all, before the registration of the transaction it requested the building at the information about the owner of the apartment. And on behalf of the state received an official response signed and sealed. And according to this answer by the owner of the apartment was Tatyana Kulikova. What is Olga Savina was to doubt it?
According to the logic of the court leaves that question followed in the documents issued by a public authority?
As for 11 months, since the purchase of an apartment Kulikova, — what the law says which day we can sell the apartment? In any.
Also there is no law which says that transactions with apartments, you need to insure. Well, there’s nothing like it in the law. Not-that. And in the court decision in the case of Olga Savina is.
And despite all the strangeness, 28 November 2017, the court of second instance upheld that decision in force. With special attention to the fact that the question of good faith of Olga Savina doesn’t matter. That is escheat is possible to select all, someone has managed to acquire, even if you’re three conscientious person.
photo: From personal archive
Olga Savina’s son Maxim and his cat Hero.
* * *
I have written many times about the fact that it is unclear how information on vacant apartments gets to the fraudsters.
And in the case of Olga Savina just seems to be clear: the employees of Deza, taking advantage of his official position, information about the vacant apartments used to their advantage.
But I’m curious. The court of first instance sent to the OCMA requested, for what purpose staff of the Department Yulia Butina, Marina Kozhina and Svetlana Cherkashina in the period from 2010 to 2012, eight times requested information about the apartment on Zoologicheskaya street. A certificate of Federal registration service on the queries related to its flat, presented to the court Olga Savina.
And DMI responded to the court: this information is publicly available, and solicit their anyone – so we asked. Twice we asked for, and six times because we asked for from the “City centre housing subsidies” and “Engineering service of area”.
That is three times the apartment became interested in the Center of housing subsidies — despite the fact that no subsidies in this apartment no one was received. And three worried engineering service of the area — why?
Questions every minute is added, and the answer is no. And at your own risk it is necessary to draw conclusions on their own.
The last ten years, I am constantly writing essays on housing fraud. And I regularly fall into the hands of the help of Rosreestr in the stolen apartment, which for some reason was interested in the staff of the OCMA. But the first time I read the explanation of the OCMA, where everything is in date. And from that explanation clearly implies that there is no official need for inquiries to the Federal registration service at the staff of the DGI were not.
And if so, comes to mind is a bad idea that some members of the OCMA may be involved in the theft of city apartments. And what else may come to mind, given the fact that all information about city property is fully concentrated in the property Department?
* * *
Studying the documents in the case of Olga Savina, I read the sentence Perovsky court, who begin these notes.
You know, there are moments when you read the document and begin to doubt their own capacity. Seems to be all clear, but it seems to be clear not fit. And begin agonizing over what to do with it?
I wanted to write another judicial essay, but I realized that people get stuck in the endless listings of names, dates, addresses, etc. and then I decided just to quote some fragments of this decision.
First, here are the addresses of the apartments, the abducted employees of GUP DEZ presnenskogo district and their accomplices: Mantulinskaya street, house 10, apartment 35, Mantulinskaya street, house 10, apartment 47, Mantulinskaya street, house 10, apartment 64, Mantulinskaya street, house 10, apartment 66, Mantulinskaya street, house 10 apartment 86, mill proezd, Dom 9, korpus 1, apartment 72, Bolshaya Gruzinskaya street, house 62, apartment 104, ulitsa trekhgornyy Val, house 10, apartment 12, Gruzinsky pereulok, house 10, flat 48, ulitsa Zoologicheskaya, house 26, building 2, apartment 69, street Khodynka, the house 16, apartment 62, ulitsa podvoyskogo, house 20, apartment 1, ulitsa podvoyskogo, house 20, apartment 3, Shelepikhinskoe shosse, house 5, apartment 43, Shelepikhinskoe shosse, house 5, apartment 64, Shelepikhinskoe shosse, house 5, flat 65, 2nd Krasnogvardeysky proezd, building 4, apartment 60, Krasnogvardeyskiy Boulevard, building 3, building 1, apartment 12.
You see, at Mantulinskaya street 10 (built in 1926) was stolen from several apartments, on the street podvoyskogo in the house 20 — the same as on Shelepihinskii highway in house 5. That is, the criminals have done painstaking work in identifying gold-bearing areas.
Realtor Svetlana Butorin, “as the organizer of a criminal group… were carried out the finding of the funds necessary to ensure that criminal activities of the organized criminal group… getting in the state bodies and institutions of the documents of the apartment, required for illegal state registration, the organization of the manufacture of counterfeit documents, the formation of a set of legal documents and their submission to the office rosreestra in Moscow, organization of the process of illegal state registration, search and attraction of individuals — buyers of apartments with a view of legalisation of illegally acquired ownership rights…”
The same thing was done, and the Director of GUP DEZ, A. A. Kasatkin and the chief accountant of GUP DEZ E. Lebedeva.
“Also Butorina, S. G., participation in an organized criminal group involved undetermined by the investigation officers of bodies of state registration, which, using his official position, took an active part in activities of a criminal group, involving the transfer partners of the criminal group information about the possible existence of superimposed encumbrances or restrictions of the rights to the apartment… obtained through in their possession a database of Unified state register of rights to immovable property and transactions therewith, in the formation of a set of legal documents, organization of the process of smooth conduct of illegal state registration…”
“Pursuant to the planned crime of the unidentified consequence partners of an organized criminal group for the illegal acquisition of property (for a flat at the address: Zoological street, 26, building 2, apartment 69. — O. B.)… in an unknown place result… made a fake decision… of the court of 9 February 2010, under which the right of ownership of the apartment… recognized as the privatization procedure for a fictional person — Leonidov, V. S.”.
“Lebedev E. V., being the chief accountant of GUP DEZ… Kasatkin A. A., as Director of GUP DEZ… and Butorin, S. G., received from unidentified consequence of participants of an organized criminal group information about the apartment, located to the address: street Khodynka, the house 16, apartment 62… collected details of the apartment above, according to which the property is unclaimed property, ownership of which belongs to the state represented by the JP, and also that the said flat was Demushkin A. T., which it does not reside for a long period of time after which said information is undetermined by the investigation members of the criminal group who are members of the body of state registration, and received information about the absence of encumbrances imposed…
Pursuant to the conceived plan undetermined by the investigation partners in the unspecified consequence of place… under mysterious circumstances… produced a fake death certificate in the name of Damaskinos A. T. series 1-TP n 029450 issued by the Department of registration of acts of civil status of the Zhytomyr city Department of justice of the Republic of Ukraine… containing false information that Demushkin A. T. died on March 1, 2006… a copy of which is assured pristannoe informed of crime counterfeit seal of a fictional notary of Moscow A. V. Nesterov and submitted to the Department of the district Presnensky OUFMS in Moscow on 5 April 2010, having misled employees of the said Department…”
When we are talking about Moscow apartments, anything is possible. Nothing at all. See how simple it is: if there is no true owner of the apartment, figure out if you like the apartment someone is registered, prescribe the death certificate, and in another country.
We, the mugs, naively believe that the document received in the office of Rosreestr, certified by the seal of the state and there is no reason not to trust him, and in fact the opposite is true: there is no reason to trust him! Any paper, any print and any of the signature is easily forged and all are accepted on hurrah.
And because it is just one sentence of many such. But we learn about them only when misfortune falls on the head of a particular person, when usually it is too late. So, with the participation of officials officials, as well as ghosts and countless unidentified accomplices in Moscow is housing terror.
It is not a separate crime, with separate apartments, it is an activity well-oiled deadly car spare parts in unlimited quantities provided by the state.
Olga Savina, which was selected in good faith acquired an apartment, of course, will fight. Go there, go here — and it turns out that the apartment Boas took away from her not only housing, but also a piece of life, one and very short.
Get short formal newsletter the best in the “MK” – subscribe to our Telegram.