COMPLAINT to the detective agency "WHITE NIGHTS".

[Дмитрий ЦЭББ Калининград]

Complaint Review Report
to the detective agency "White Nights" from citizen Clark Olga.

On August 10, 2017, the MOD Arbitration Court received a complaint from citizen Clark O. about fraudulent actions by employees of the DA White Nights.

The essence of the complaint: July 20, 2017 Olga Clark turned to Dmitry Nikitin for help in finding the debtor. Two contracts were concluded:
1. The search agreement (40,000 rubles, paid) the text of the agreement [DLMURL="https://yadi.sk/d/tWgZ6t9H3M62ZD"] HERE [/ DLMURL]
2. Contract for the draw (150,000 rubles, paid) text of the contract [DLMURL="https://yadi.sk/d/az6SFzju3M62qK"] HERE [/ DLMURL]
in addition, the trip to Kommunary was paid - 20,000 rubles and the cost of the technical equipment - 15,000 rubles
Total paid 225,000 rubles.

Until now, reports on contracts by the contractor have not been transmitted to the customer. In the process, D. Nikitin handed over the following materials to the customer:
1. Photo from the database ([DLMURL="https://yadi.sk/d/nd4VNMQ73M62vL"] HERE [/ DLMURL]) (transferred on the day the agreement was concluded)
2. Photo report on the work ([DLMURL="https://yadi.sk/d/cC6EOEUK3M62yV"] HERE [/ DLMURL]) (the photos were transferred in this form and only after an appeal to the MOD president A. Matushkin. )
There is also correspondence ([DLMURL="https://yadi.sk/i/DiECTMAf3M632t"] HERE [/ DLMURL]) of the Customer with D. Nikitin, which was provided by O. Clark

According to the complaint received, D. Nikitin was interviewed by phone, who explained that he had found the debtor, but he couldn’t hand it over to O. Clark because, in his opinion, she was going to take him to the garage and knock money out of him the help of representatives of ethnic organized crime groups (Chechnya). He invited her to apply to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and, as part of an official investigation, he was ready to transfer the debtor.

To the request for correspondence with the customer or other additional materials regarding the complaint, Nikitin D. refused. When discussing the issue of transferring money for services, Nikitin D. said: "I will refuse now, I will say nothing at all from her." Also, Nikitin D. stated that the actions of the Arbitration Court of NP “IAPD” are similar to the work of OSB, but he did not assume that he would have OSB by joining NP “IAPD”.

In a conversation, Nikitin D. said that during the investigation it was established: O. Clark is engaged in cashing. He intends to legalize the data obtained in the course of the investigation, and to transfer them to the Department of Economic Crimes of Internal Affairs of St. Petersburg. I said that in this case, the investigation of the complaint will be suspended until the decision of law enforcement agencies on its materials. At the end of the conversation, Nikitin D. promised to provide a certificate on this issue.

On the same day, a certificate was received from Nikitin ( HERE ) and two applications for withdrawal from the MOD of Nikitin D. ( HERE ) and Ivchenkova E.P. ( HERE )

In the certificate, Nikitin D. states that the investigation of the complaint is contrary to the charter and therefore he intends to leave the MOD.

To clarify the circumstances of the case, O. Clark was interviewed by telephone.
O. Clark explained that she spoke hypothetically about the Chechen organized crime group in a conversation with D. Nikitin. "In such situations, bandits are attracted who make money, but I turned to you, not to them." Thus, according to O. Clark, she made it clear to D. Nikitin that these were not her methods. O. Clark confirmed the origin of the money, explaining that she, as a lawyer, was asked to help with cash-out and she found friends. Regarding the rally, O. Clarke explained that D. Nikitin proposed to do “Masks-shows” with the participation of SOBR employees (acting), with whom he has an agreement. O. Clark should have been present at the time of detention and, using psychological pressure, the debtor will be inclined to return the money.

Analysis of the materials obtained:
1. There is no objective data talking about the actual performance or non-performance of the service. Fear for the life of the wanted person may take place, but Nikitin D. may also be abused by the statements of O. Clark about bandits.
2. The "Draw" service was not provided and at the moment there is no sense in rendering it. President of NP "IAPD" Matushkin A.N. in a conversation with Nikitin, D. offered him a refund for the "Draw", but Nikitin D. refused, explaining that he was ready to provide this service (which contradicts his voiced intentions not to extradite the debtor). The contract does not have a specific time period within which the service should be provided. In the event of a customer failure - the cost is not refundable.
3. Analysis of the behavior of the defendants in the investigation:
- in a conversation with D. Nikitin, there was information hiding and unwillingness to cooperate. In the conversation of Nikitin, there is a complaint about the accusatory bias of the work of the Arbitration Court of NP "IAPD", although in fact in the conversation I showed impartiality and neutrality in relation to the situation and its participants.
- Clark O. actively collaborated, gave detailed detailed explanations without hiding even inconvenient facts for her.
4. During the investigation, screenshots from the database were transferred to the Customer. Unprocessed information is difficult for the customer to understand and uninformative on the one hand, and on the other hand carries the risk of holding the performer liable for unauthorized access to such information. Actions DA "White Nights" in this sense are unprofessional.
5. Both contracts are concluded on the one hand without specifying a specific execution date; on the other hand, they do not imply a refund in case of a customer’s refusal. The simultaneous use of such conditions of the contract puts the customer in conditions when the service must be paid, but can be performed forever. The contract looks potentially fraudulent.

Given the above, I propose to the Council of NP "IAPD":
1. Consider the proposal to D. Nikitin, based on the principle of justice, to return 150,000 rubles received for the "Draw" service, otherwise place it on the shame board.
2. To bring to the members of the MOU negative examples of the work of detectives (Clause 4, Clause 5 of the analysis), in order to prevent errors by other members of the MOD

Chairman of the Arbitration Court NP "IAPD"
Dmitry Pilipenko

 

[Generalpi]

It’s hard for me to judge how the work was done, but the mask of the show is not too much. Does this detective have police on a show mask leash.

 

[Запаренко Александр Николаевич]

I believe that everything should go within the framework of the Law. It is advisable to bring the investigation materials to the permit and the Central Internal Affairs Directorate, even if they understand the violation of the Law. When the BH undertakes the implementation of anti-illegal actions - HE CANNOT BE A DETECTIVE. It's my opinion. Everything else scam from the BH. If the client has seen enough of the movie - this is her problem. BH actions - complete shit. Exclude from MOD, put on the board of shame.

 

[Детективное агентство. Инициатива. Самара.]

Apparently all of the above, the approach to working with these “colleagues” is categorically not professional. How can you take such rubbish at all? Take money, promise something ...)) I also heard that St. Petersburg D.Ch. MOD there are a number of negative examples of the work of these comrades. You can’t work like that.
I think we need to say goodbye, and without much regret.

 

[Симферополь]

Good day, gentlemen, detectives!
1) Colleagues, who are 150 thousand more expensive than an honest name, are definitely “on the way out”.
2) Still, the right to appeal to law enforcement agencies is left to the client and at her discretion.
3) Is there anything you know about the track record of the “heroes” of the investigation? Who were these people before private investigation and how did they get to US?

Sincerely, Andrey (Crimea).

 

[Black Horse]

I will abstain. And I propose to follow the scenario of the Respondent: to conduct the "Draw" service within a reasonable time for the Customer and then hand over the debtor to law enforcement agencies.

 

[Виталий Климин]

I fully agree with the conclusions and proposals of the Arbitration Court NP "MOD"!

 

[Детективное агентство ОПЦИОН]

I can not understand something in this life ?!
What kind of contract is the draw? With the involvement of employees now Rosguard? !!!!!!!!!
Which clearly states about keeping a person for 6 hours !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is an article from the floor, a minimum of arbitrariness, a maximum of illegal retention, kidnapping, extortion, and if the employees are active, then this is a completely different scenario, and believe me, the deadlines will already be very real !!!!!!!!!!!!!
If from the legal point, then clauses 3.2.1 and clause 8.3 contradict each other.
And now, if she applies to this agreement, it seems to me that fraud is in the best case, as well as through preparation, all of which I wrote above.
My position has always been unequivocal that I did not interfere in the relations of colleagues with clients, during which I did not see clients, but I could not remain silent here.
Maybe just calmly talking with the guys again, explaining that 150 is not the amount for which it’s worth arranging for a little bucks, for a larger amount.
These are my comments and lyrics.
The decision of the arbitration court, I consider fair.
Although what are we deciding if people have already written a letter of resignation?

 

[Орлан]

Good night colleagues. Of course the situation is not pleasant. if the detective made a negative about himself, then this is actually a minus to him, and something needs to be done with this. Regarding professionalism regarding the transfer of information from the database in this form, yes this is not acceptable. but I would like to draw attention to the client, in addition to the minuses for this detective order. detectives, like lawyers and lawyers, walk along the edge. in the sense that, knowing the law, they are looking for loopholes in it, so that their activities in certain areas would not be illegal. and so with regards to the client: how could the client go to the "rally", realizing in advance that this is practically illegal ???? and he realizing this, pays not a little money! so why are we discussing the negatives and minuses of the detective, and are completely silent for the client who deliberately ordered the illegal service? I am not blocking the detective, I believe that both sides are wrong!
separate respect to Dmitry Pilipenko for an objective, professional investigation into the complaint.

 

[Плотников Юрий Михайлович]

I fully agree with the conclusions and proposals of the Arbitration Court NP "MOD"!