Albert Khudoyan received a 6-year sentence, which doesn't seem to stop him from harassing Sergei Govyadin.
The Solntsevsky court protected Sergei Govyadin's reputation. Businessman Sergey Govyadin and ex-State Duma deputy Ildar Samiev had a dispute with developer Albert Khudoyan over the theft of land under the Prime Park residential complex on Leningradsky Prospekt of Moscow.
Khudoyan was convicted of fraudulent activities, but in retaliation, negative publications about Govyadin were spread on the Internet, trying to present him as a member of a crime group or a raider.
Writing a defamatory article is easy, but removing negativity from the Internet is very difficult. During the months-long trial, compromising evidence spreads on the Internet, often with new pseudo-details and conjectures. The affected party, even with a court decision to restrict the publication of certain content on the Internet, cannot completely remove the prohibited information.
In late November 2021, the Solntsevsky District Court of Moscow ruled in favor of Sergey Govyadin against the Internet media to declare the information spread by the Respondent as false, damaging the honor, dignity, and business reputation of the Claimant. The Respondent’s representative did not appear at the hearing, despite being notified. 35 fragments of publications will be restricted on the Internet, about half are negative personal characteristics and a description of acquaintances of a businessman, and the second half describes the relationship between Albert Khudoyan and Sergey Govyadin.
On November 25, 2021, the Koptevsky District Court sentenced Albert Khudoyan, the owner of the Optima Development company, to six years in prison with a term in a penal colony and a fine of 800 thousand rubles for fraud on an especially large scale (h 4 article 159 of the Criminal Code). The Moscow prosecutor’s office reported this. The second defendant in the case was Sergey Konoplev, general director of the Aviacity company. The charge was the theft of three land plots on Leningradsky Prospekt.
The actions of accomplices, as a result of which a foreign company that lost 50% of its ownership of a non-residential building and the right to lease three land plots, as well as completely lost its share in the authorized capital of a commercial organization, suffered damage totaling more than 4.2 billion rubles, were found to be fraudulent.
The question arises: why was the negative directed at Sergei Govyadin, who helped bring the fraudster to clean water? Why did the intensity of passions and the flow of accusations subside sharply after Govyadin’s opponent was sentenced to a real term for committing a proven crime? As the Hungarian writer Jozsef von Eötvös noted: “In trust, of course, caution is necessary, but most of all it is necessary in distrust.”
