Working meeting of the Moscow section of the IAPD

[Александра]

On November 25, 2015, a working meeting of the Moscow section of our organization was held. Theme of the meeting: "Revitalization of the Moscow section of the MOD and the upcoming VII Conference.
List of participants:
1. Demidenko Oleg Borisovich
2. Garusova Alexandra Igorevna
3. Kostyukov Vitaliy Alekseevich
4. Gusev Anton Anatolyevich
5. Sobol Aleksey Sergeevich
6. Bogdanov Alexander Leonidovich
7. Kartashov Maxim Sergeevich
8. Taranenko Yuri Vladimirovich
9. Gorelov Sergey Andreevich

Questions:
1. Discussion of regulations
2. Contributions, entry into the MOD (IAPD)
3. Revitalization of the Moscow section as part of the IAPD
4. Preparation for the VII Conference of the MOU (IAPD)
-Attraction of colleagues from all over the world, including from the ARD and from adjacent sites
-calling all Russian colleagues
-attraction of representatives of public organizations
- inviting colleagues from around the world via email
-attraction of existing colleagues from law enforcement agencies
- coverage of the event on various Internet sites, including on their websites
5. Collaboration (collaboration, personal filter)
6. New Year's corporate party.

Report on the working meeting of the Moscow section of the IAPD
Speakers:
1. Garusova A. I. - introduction, discussion of the regulations
2. Kostyukov VA - supplemented paragraph 3 of the regulation and made suggestions for a more optimal implementation of the tasks
3. Kartashov M.S.- informed of his inclusion in the expert group in the State Duma for the development and amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (in terms of providing participants in criminal proceedings the right to use the services of a private detective to collect information on a criminal case and use the received information from him to protect the rights and legitimate interests)
4. Gusev A.A., - made a report on the topic: "On unfair actions by counterparties"
Summary:
- Prepare for the VII Conference from January 2016
-Organize the II Working Meeting of the Moscow Section in February 2016, to provide an interim report on the work done on the above item
-Inform at the MOD forum about the possibility of amending the CPC on the activities of the Black Sea
-Make a corporate event on December 24, 2015.

Application:
The text of the report Gusev A.A. Head of Consulting Bureau KRASS Practician.
During the period of the economic crisis, the risks of dishonest actions on the part of counterparties increase for Russian enterprises. Such actions can be attributed to fraud (when the counterparty initially had the intent to illegally seize money or goods of the enterprise), and situations in which at the time of the transaction the counterparty has no intentions to take possession of it fraudulently (or such intentions cannot be detected). However, in the second case, after some period of cooperation, the counterparty ceases to fulfill its obligations to the enterprise.
It is widely believed that a simple check of the counterparty against the main open databases (the Federal Tax Service, the arbitration court, the bailiff service), or the Kontur-Focus systems, etc. eliminates further risks of working with him.
If we are talking about fraudulent actions, then in most cases, even at the initial inspection, their signs can be identified. But, as practice shows, such a check is not enough to minimize the risk of “unplanned" default.
Often, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the counterparty does not have any alarming signs, therefore it can be ranked as a reliable partner and receive some form of lending: he may be granted a deferred payment, or, conversely, he will be paid an advance payment for the subsequent deliveries, etc. And after such an unscrupulous counterparty receives money or goods, he does not fulfill his counter obligations to the enterprise.
In order to prevent such situations, monitoring of the counterparty after the conclusion of contracts is not always effective. In this case, by the term “monitoring” I mean a periodic check against the same open sources and databases.
Our bureau conducted a small study, the purpose of which was to identify the relationship between the facts discovered during monitoring (change of director or legal entity address, founders selling their shares, publication of information about the start of lawsuits, etc.) and sudden default by the counterparty .
The results of this study were disappointing: disturbing facts that can be identified during monitoring usually occur after the counterparty has not fulfilled its obligations. For example, the change of director in 70% of cases occurs already after the lawsuit is filed with the arbitration court against the counterparty, and the active “drain” of the company (sale of shares in the LLC, change of address to another region, etc.) begins after the court decides to recover with her debt. As a result, by the time the court decision comes into force, the debtor company has zero assets, there is no money in the account and the company itself turns into an abstraction.
Such results once again confirmed the conclusion that the specialists of our bureau made earlier: only the real prospect of personal responsibility of its head and owners can prevent the dishonest behavior of the counterparty company. Moreover, the tougher the possible liability (up to criminal), the less likely that the counterparty will “throw you”.
Thus, by far the most effective way to prevent dishonest actions on the part of the counterparty is to build a legal scheme at the initial stage of cooperation with him, which will create for the top officials of the counterparty an absolutely clear and understandable prospect for these persons to hold accountable for failure to fulfill obligations .
What kind of circuit could it be? If we talk about property liability, then the use of surety of the owners or managers of the enterprise, as well as the use of various types of collateral (from real estate pledge to pledge of goods in circulation). As regards criminal liability, Art. 176 of the Criminal Code - "Illegal obtaining a loan." The article provides for punishment for obtaining a loan by an entrepreneur or the head of an enterprise by providing the creditor with knowingly false information about his financial situation.
The most active use of this article of the Criminal Code is banks and other credit organizations, however, the wording of the article allows it to be applied in cases when there is lending in the field of real business, including when delivering goods, performing work, etc.
However, even if the counterparty has committed acts that show signs of this crime, law enforcement agencies are far from always willing to conduct a pre-investigation check or ORM at the request of the victim and most often refuse to initiate criminal proceedings on formal grounds.
In this regard, I want to say again about the benefits of interaction between private detectives and lawyers (lawyers). If in such situations the detective even documented the facts of illegal actions before filing an application with the police, then it is much easier for lawyers to initiate a criminal case and bring the perpetrators to justice.

 

[JR Security Consulting Group]

Something I don’t see the names of our old Moscow colleagues, only Oleg. Where is our old guard?

 

[Матушкин Андрей Николаевич]

Something I don’t see the names of our old Moscow colleagues, only Oleg. Where is our old guard?

Everyone was invited.
Whoever considers it necessary and important for himself has come.
Likewise, everyone who considers it necessary will be invited to the Moscow corporate party.

 

[Матушкин Андрей Николаевич]

Well done!
Worthy of the event !!!