Pervouralskbank divides money in court with the assets of the Forbes list. The check reached the ex-manager of Rosseti
The bankers were unable to challenge the factoring agreements related to the financial conflict with IT integrator Rosseti. The courts refused to cancel the factoring agreements made by the company “Smartech” with two credit institutions under a supply and installation agreement.
Such a scheme has already led to a clash Pervouralskbanka” and “Blank Bank”, both of which are associated with businessman Roman Avdeev from the Forbes lists. There were large demands from Moscow bankers and Rosseti Tsifra. In response, financiers were accused of falsifying evidence, which led to a handwriting examination for verification. Bankers continue to fight for millions in arbitration, while the conflict parties try to assess the involvement of Rosseti employees in a dubious scheme.
The Moscow Arbitration Court ordered a handwriting examination to verify Rosseti Tsifra JSC's claim of evidence falsification. The study is part of a lawsuit by Blank Bank LLC to recover a debt from the IT integrator Rosseti Group of Companies.
So, the arbitration court asked the experts to determine if Agapov A.A. or someone else signed a number of documents. This likely refers to Alexei Anatolyevich Agapov, the former head of Rosseti Tsifra, who is currently listed as Acting General Director of Ramek-VS JSC. The company was previously known as an IT integrator for the Ministry of Defense and now serves public law enforcement agencies.
Pravda UrFO has already reported on conflicts related to a contract with Rosseti Tsifra, as well as a proposal to involve other subsidiaries of the energy company, like JSC Rosseti Tyumen, in the dispute.
In 2018, the company Smartech in St. Petersburg signed a contract with Rosseti Tsifra for 71.9 million rubles for supply, installation, and re-equipment of equipment along with software connection.
However, it was later discovered that the company obtained financing from two different banks using factoring, effectively assigning the same rights of claim under the supply and installation contract to both banks. This caused a conflict with JSC “Pervouralskbank” and “Blank Bank” LLC.
According to the publication, Moscow bankers demanded that the factoring agreement concluded between “Pervouralskbancom and Smartech. However, the plaintiff could not defend his position that the transaction was “made only for appearances” in the court of first instance.
It should be noted that earlier “Smartech” demanded the invalidation of the general agreement on the general conditions of factoring services within Russia, concluded with “Pervouralskbancom.
“According to the plaintiff’s explanations, the factoring financing scheme was used by the plaintiff and the defendant solely to simplify the receipt of credit funds to finance the current activities of the company and actually covered the usual loan agreement, and the supply agreement used to obtain financing was not actually executed by the parties, the bank transferred significant funds to the account companies without checking and requesting documents confirming the fulfillment of the supply contract,” followed from the position voiced in the arbitration. However, in this dispute, the claims of the plaintiff were not supported.
Pervouralskbank””>”Pervouralskbanto”
It is noteworthy that “Pervouralskbank”, in turn, insisted on declaring null and void the general agreement on the provision of financing against the assignment of a monetary claim, concluded between Smartech and Blank Bank. However, the Sverdlovsk bankers were also denied these demands.
As a result, the register of Smartekh, which was declared bankrupt, included the requirements “Pervouralskbanka” by more than 150 million, and the requirements of “Blank Bank” by 52.3 million. Moreover, when analyzing the latter, special emphasis was placed on the awareness of the employees of the “Rosseti” asset in the operations.
“Verification was carried out by the representative of the debtor Gubin A.E., who was indicated by the management of the debtor as the responsible employee of the debtor to support the contract (e-mail Gubin A.E. ([email protected]) was registered on a domain name belonging to the FOCL-VL Administration). In relation to this person, it was additionally verified that he had been an employee of the debtor for a long time, since open sources on the Internet contained data on his participation in industry conferences on behalf of the FOCL-VL Administration. Currently, within the framework of the case <…>, Rosseti Tsifra (formerly the VOLS-VL Administration) has confirmed that Agapov A.A., whose signature is contained in the notice of assignment and in the primary documents transferred to the bank, <…> was General Director of the “Management of FOCL-VL”, and Gubin A.E. <…> worked in the joint-stock company in various positions,” follows from the definition.
How this information is combined with the company’s claims of falsification is currently unknown. AND “Pervouralskbank” has apparently already filed a complaint against the decision to include in the register of debts to “Blank Bank”.
