Due to the bankruptcy of Pravodnik, one of the main structures of Pravo.ru Group of Companies, Russia’s e-justice systems, which are served by this group of companies, are at risk. Pravo.ru tried to reassure the Russians, but it did not work out convincingly. Moreover, in "Pravo.ru" listed serviced
- “File cabinet of arbitration cases”;
- “Bank of arbitration court decisions”;
- “Calendar of court hearings”;
- “Breaks in meetings”;
- “Mobile file cabinet of arbitration cases”;
- “My Referee”;
- "Electronic Guard";
- “Filing complaints about the actions of judges and court staff.”
All of this may stop working soon. It is not necessary to be surprised since “Pravo.ru” is owned by Dmitry Chirakadze, a man with a dubious reputation. Rucriminal.info continues to publish an investigation about this person. In the last part, we settled on the fact that the earth literally “shook” came under the feet of Chirakadze. Foreign investors sued the Russian courts and the courts of the Virgin Islands, demanding the return of what Dmitry captured by raider means. And the FSB of the Russian Federation conducted an investigation, threatening to land the entire team of Chirakadze. In these conditions, he urgently created “Pravo.ru” to enter the judicial system of Russia.
With the advent of Pravo.ru, life with Dmitry and his team began to improve.
The Arbitration Court of the Krasnodar Territory initially denied the foreign company Euroinvest Alliance Ltd attempts to regain control of Vityazevo OJSC, which were controlled by Chirakadze’s subordinates in UK Prof. and Pravo.ru Alexander Zablotskis and Alexandra Batsyn. And as a result they captured him. Following this, the court rejected Millennium Global Investments Limited, which requested to recognize and enforce the Bermuda Supreme Court ruling on the application of interim measures on property “squeezed” by Chirakadze and Co. In short, nothing was returned to foreign investors, they were faced with an impenetrable judicial wall.
The FSB of the Russian Federation sent Batsyn under arrest, but he did not stay in custody for very long. The Krasnodar Regional Court, in spite of the categorical objections of the representatives of the FSB and the prosecutor’s office, changed the preventive measure against him for a bail of 1 million rubles. By the way, Batsyn was never convicted in this case. The verdict was passed only to the manager of OJSC Sevkavenergomontazh Natalia Sizova. She received two years with a long delay due to a minor child.
According to Rucriminal.info sources, all these victories of Chirakadze and Co. can be safely connected with the fact that Dmitry, along with his Pravo.ru, “entered” the judicial system. But his last project - "UK PROF" had to be closed, because this legal office has overgrown with a mass of dubious stories. But in place of UK PROF, a new legal structure of Chirakadze immediately appeared - Pozharsky & Partners JSC. And do not look for lawyer Pozharsky in the directories; he does not exist. It has simply been long since that the legal address of all Dmitry’s structures is Pozharsky Lane House 11. Hence the name of the joint-stock company. And the members of Pozharsky & Partners were all the old members of the “Chirakadze team” —Mikhailov, Tikhomirov, Zablotskis, Batsyn- plus two new ones. Rather, these are Dmitry’s old acquaintances, they’ve just “officially lit up” in this AO. These are brothers Aleksey and Andrey Zvyagintsev, one of Chirakadze’s guides to the judicial system. Brothers are lawyers of Pozharsky and Partners, also Alexey the general director of SPS Pravo.RU (founder Lyubov Orlova, at one time Chirakadze transferred most of his assets to his wife), Andrey is the founder of Pravodnik LLC (he owns Pravo.ru portal) and etc.
At the time Chirakadze entered the judicial system, the father of the brothers, Vyacheslav Egorovich Zvyagintsev, held the post of head of the analytical department of the control and analytical department of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. Of course, Vyacheslav Egorovich’s capabilities and connections were not limited to this position, because he was an old-timer in the judicial system of the USSR and the Russian Federation.
Vyacheslav Zvyagintsev began his career in 1979, becoming a judge of the military tribunals of the Saratov garrison. At the same time, another judicial “aksakal” Vasily Nechaev was actively building a career in the Saratov Regional Court. The two servants of Themis became friends, moved together to Moscow. Nechaev became a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Zvyagintsev worked in the Judicial Department of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The first has grown to the post of almighty deputy chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the second has taken the place of the head of the analytical department of the Control and Analytical Department of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. To the opinion of the old-timer Zvyagintsev, including on specific cases, very many ministers of Themis listened, including the Chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court Anton Ivanov. Or, for example, Natalya Pavlova, who was also involved in analytics at the Supreme Arbitration Court, only at the Department of International Law and Cooperation, and then became a judge of the Supreme Court without a day of experience in judicial work. Moreover, the opinions of Vyacheslav Zvyagintsev were not empty.
After all, his children worked in the “Chirakadze team”, which had decent equity and grew even more wealthy customers.
So one of the most powerful lobbying structures in the judicial system was formed.
By the way, leaving VAS, Vyacheslav Yegorovich took the post of head of the department of regulatory and legal activity in the field of public defense of the Legal Department of the FAS RF. It was the FAS for many years, despite numerous complaints, that it did not find violations in the victories of Pravo.ru at auctions for servicing court sites, including when Chirakadze structures agreed to pay extra for receiving a state order. Rather, I found violations, but declared them "technical" and insufficient to cancel the results of the auction.
To be continued