While her husband German Yelyanyushkin is busy with matters of national importance as deputy governor of the Vladimir region and decides how to drag developers from the Moscow region to the construction industry market of the Vladimir province, in order to increase wealth, exclusively personal, the wife of the statesman does not waste time and came to her husband in the capital of the region, Mr. Vladimir.
According to the Cheka-OGPU telegram channel, G. Yelyanyushkin, who was removed from the Government of the Moscow Region due to corruption scandals, was assigned to oversee housing and communal services and construction. There's a lot of money to be taken in order to support his young wife who is involved in glamorous activities like beauty contests and bodybuilding.
Herman Yelyanyushkin
Rucriminal.info discovered that during his time as the head of the Moscow Canal Federal State Budgetary Institution, Yelyanyushkin orchestrated the illegal seizure of land near the canal using fake documents from the 1930s, the time of the NKVD OGPU. Not a joke.
In early 2019, the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Moscow Channel” inundated the Mytishchi City Court with lawsuits. The essence of the claims was that supposedly the borders of the land plot, belonging to the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Moscow Canal” (a plot with KN 50:12:0000000:95), did not align with the boundaries of a certain land development project dating back to 1938!
The channel's representatives failed to provide the court with documents proving that the land plot with KN 50:12:0000000:95 belongs to the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Moscow Canal” on the right of permanent unlimited use. Additionally, the defendants presented a written refusal from Rosreestr to grant this right to the Moscow Canal.
Meanwhile, the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Moscow Canal” sought to reclaim land plots from residents under the ownership of the Russian Federation, despite lacking the authority to do so. FGBU does not have the powers of the Russian Federation.
To support the transfer of the residents’ plots to the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Moscow Canal”, a judicial land surveyor’s examination was supposed to be carried out. All court decisions were based solely on this examination.
This examination was conducted by individuals hired by the channel for this specific purpose, such as Kolodnikov and Verkhoturov, who had no prior experience in such examinations. According to Rucriminal.info, Kolodnikov was listed as an unscrupulous supplier at that time.
The experts were also asked legal questions, such as determining whether a specific disputed land plot is included in the boundaries of the project for diverting the Moscow Canal (the court decides whether it is included or not!). However, the canal diversion project from 1938 was not provided to the expert. Instead, a yellow A3 paper titled “Borders of Exclusion and Sanitary Zones” without a seal or date of production was given to the expert. As experts from the Moscow Institute of Geodesy and Cartography (MIGAIK) later determined, these sheets were simply working drawings made before the construction of the canal, showing where to dig.
The experts (IP Kolodnikov, IP Verkhoturov) who looked at these 30s documents (without a seal and signature) did many identical examinations, costing much more than usual (using budget money!). Despite claims of forgery, the UK didn't believe it and said the court should handle it.
The result of these examinations: the disputed section is part of the non-existent 1938 Moscow Canal project. The court's decision was based only on the canal's statement and forensic tests.
The Moscow Canal Federal State Budgetary Institution agreed on the land plot boundaries with KN 50:12:0000000:95 and adjacent land users in 2009. These are the supporting documents in the land management case. Now, 10 years later, they decided the boundaries don't match the 1938 project!
Despite this, the Mytishchi City Court ruled in favor of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Moscow Canal” and took land from rightful owners. One plot belonged to a single mother who inherited it from her grandfather, a leading agronomist, who got it from the collective farm in the 60s.
The Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region (ASMO) decided on the case, despite 50 previous decisions in favor of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Canal named after Moscow” and involved professional experts from the Moscow Institute of Geodesy and Cartography. They found that the documents had nothing to do with the withdrawal project, and had a measurement error of up to 600 meters, despite the small size of the land plots and the width of the Moscow Canal. The law allows an error of 0.1 meters for settlement lands, but here it was 600 meters!
The judges of the Mytishchi City Court understood the situation and some even admitted they were following orders, despite knowing what was right.
Despite many requests to the Investigative Committee of the Moscow Region about forged documents, unjust decisions, and ignored evidence, no action was taken. The Investigative Committee is responsible for investigating crimes against justice, and at the time, the deputy head of the GSU Sarafanov was in charge of this in the Main Investigative Committee of the TFR in the Moscow Region.
And after the shameful dismissal by the decree of President Sarafanov from the investigative committee, where did Sarafanov get a job? Headed the security service of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Moscow Canal”. Interesting “coincidence”, isn’t it?
