Raider Real Estate Captures

[Адвокат]

Raiders become owners of shares in the apartment in the following ways.
- they buy indicating an overestimated transaction amount in the contract
- buy covering a deal with a deed of gift
- give a loan secured by a share (they never return a share)
- by various deceitful ways up to physical elimination

The new owner breaks into the apartment, in which there is his rightful share, and creates unbearable living conditions for the residents of the apartment.
From morning till night he thumps, drives the same friends and spoils the atmosphere in the apartment.
Everything is being done in order to force the remaining owners to redeem their share 10 times more expensive than the market.
But the other owners did not sell anything to anyone, did not sign any contracts with anyone and owed nothing to anyone.

An careless relative decides to improve his financial situation by selling his share in the apartment. As a rule, such a relative has a separate housing.
Cunning agents from many well-known agencies come to the rescue, in my case it was INCOM REAL ESTATE.
They break into the apartment, bring in their inventory (bulky furniture, a rotten refrigerator, an old TV and other rubbish). They claim that they will now live in this apartment. They put a "pawn" in the apartment - as a rule, some collective farm cattle. The six will sit in the apartment without any relief (the food is brought to him by his controllers). He will wait for proposals from the other owners to redeem a share or sell their shares.

Source: https://dolya.org/?shema

 

[Адвокат]

Shared ownership, or neighbor raider
It is difficult to call apartment raiding a new phenomenon, rather in the last year or two its existence was officially recognized. It is not as diverse as corporate wars against legal entities, but it has similar goals and mechanisms. The essence of raiding as such is obtaining material benefits without paying a real market price, reselling and enrichment. Unlike corporate apartment raiding, it is particularly cynical, because it is directed against individuals who do not have personal lawyers, often - free funds and other resources, even a small business. And the price of the issue is a roof over your head, not a business

Risk group: shared property

Do not think that the risk group in this regard is represented only by single pensioners deprived of heirs. Practice shows that any layman can lose property, for example, as a result of a family conflict. It is enough for circumstances to develop in a certain way - against the background of common shared ownership of an apartment, at least one of its participants has lost interest in using its share. Shared ownership arises, as a rule, in the process of dividing marital property or inheritance of an object by several persons.

The conflict between the owners of the apartment and the raiders are using. Buying a share from a disappointed shareholder is a priority. The relevant announcements are full of the Internet and some print media. However, such a share is not necessarily bought for nothing. Price may tend from a minimum to a completely market. The seller receives money and gets rid of the figure of a bored relative. The raider, in the future, expects to get the whole apartment at a price several times lower than the market. The remaining owner acquires a new neighbor or neighbors who are doing everything possible so that the apartment could not be used for living.

Since raiding takes place in the "native home", it is almost impossible to withstand such a thing. And when choosing a victim, raiders carry out work to collect information about her and about the resources available to her. Driven to despair, the co-owner takes the only, in his opinion, right decision - to sell his share. Just how to find a bona fide buyer for an apartment with such a neighborhood? After some time, understanding comes that only a new neighbor is ready to buy housing, of course - for nothing. The proceeds at best are enough for a room in an illiquid area of the city. As an alternative, it is proposed to redeem the share of the raider, but at a price far exceeding the market. These are typical scenarios.

At the disposal of the raiders there is a mass of means of influencing the psyche of the co-owners. Change of locks, lease of the allocated share, registration of “foreign” labor in the amount of one hundred people. In the latter case, the share acquired by the raiders can be split into absurdly small parts and sold to interested parties. With such a sale, intermediaries even manage to earn money, since when a share is alienated in parts, its total value may increase several times compared with the original purchase price. It is difficult to oppose something to such a technique: there is no and cannot be legal mechanisms prohibiting the registration of a person on his property, even minimal. At least in court, such registration will be carried out.

Abuse of law as a raider tool

I must say that a characteristic feature of the activity of apartment raiders is its relative legitimacy. That is, it does not imply obviously unlawful, and even more so criminally punishable acts. However, Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation sets the limit for the exercise of civil rights: "actions of citizens and legal entities that are carried out exclusively with the aim of causing harm to another person, as well as abuse of the right in other forms, are not allowed." From the point of view of legal qualification, the actions of apartment raiders are a typical abuse of the right or rights arising from the fact that a part of your apartment is owned. Abuse of law is generally typical of raiding.

The minority shareholder abuses the right, terrorizing society with all possible lawsuits. Abuses the right of ownership, that is, the right to use, own and dispose of real estate, a participant in an apartment conflict. In both cases, the fact that the current legislation is practically powerless before the “shikana” - abuse of law is obvious. It is declared, however, that the court, having established the fact of abuse, may refuse to protect the violated right (Clause 2, Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). As applied to our situation, this would mean that an unscrupulous tenant who was denied the right of access to the premises by a bona fide co-owner could not, for example, win a lawsuit about not obstructing the use of housing. The problem is that the norm of Art. 10 was not developed in civil law enforcement.

Criminal legislation is not particularly effective in this matter. You can talk about the application to apartment raiding of such compositions as causing property damage (Article 165 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); fraud (Art. 159) - the acquisition of the right to another's property by fraud or breach of trust; not promised in advance the acquisition or sale of property obtained by criminal means - in relation to the “intermediate” acquirers of a share or apartment as a whole (Article 175); coercion to complete a transaction or to refuse to conclude it (Article 179). However, it will most likely be difficult to get a criminal case under these articles. There is no special norm.

Preemptive right to purchase

A significant obstacle to apartment raiding may be the fact that any sale of a share in a common shared property should not occur without the knowledge of all its participants. In accordance with Article 250 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, when selling a share to a third party, the remaining participants in the shared ownership shall have the preemptive right to purchase it at the offer price to a third party. Moreover, a notice of intent to sell a share to a third party must certainly be in writing (Article 250 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In practice, the potential seller is obliged to contact a notary, who will send this notice. Having received the corresponding notice of a sale with a fixed price, you, as a co-owner, can redeem a share at the offer price within a month. Otherwise, the transaction will take place and will be valid.

Monitoring compliance with the exercise of the right to preemptive purchase is carried out by the registration authorities for rights to real estate. The package of documents submitted for registration of the transfer of ownership of the share must contain documents confirming the direction of the notification to the other co-owners (Article 24 of the Law of July 21, 1997 No. 122-FZ “On State Registration of Rights to Real Estate and Transactions Therewith”). Registration of the right to a share takes place only on the condition that on the day of the application submission a month has elapsed since the notification was sent. If the month has not expired, the registration is suspended until the specified period expires or until a purchase is refused.

In order to prevent possible falsifications of the refusal, the latter must be executed at the notary's office or at the registration authorities. I must say that using black notaries, raiders can falsify such paper. But such actions, oddly enough, give an advantage to the other side, as they are a gross violation of civil law and a criminal offense. The banal examination of the authenticity of the signature on the refusal of the purchase will help to challenge the legitimacy of such a sale.

Court protection

The rights of the co-owner, deprived of the opportunity to make the preemptive purchase, are protected in court by means of a specific lawsuit - on the transfer of the rights and obligations of the buyer. All necessary, including examination, can be carried out as part of this process. A judicial request for a case accepted for proceedings also makes it possible to obtain a registration case for an apartment from the Federal Registration Service (FRS). Yes, and an invalid contract for the sale of shares outside the trial is impossible to obtain. For general control over the situation, it is useful to conduct an easy monitoring of subjects of rights to an apartment, making appropriate requests to the Fed.

Speaking of effective ways to protect against raiders, one cannot but mention the arrest of the share (a ban on disposal). If there is legal uncertainty regarding the size of the share or the grounds for the lawfulness of ownership of this share, it is possible and necessary to initiate a lawsuit and ask the court to impose a ban on the disposal of property. Such measures can not only solve the problems on the merits of the dispute, but also significantly reduce the interest in real estate by raiders. The business of such groups, as a rule, is designed for relatively quick profit. Any obstacles mean for Raiders an increase in the financial value of the project for the seizure of real estate, which can reduce the "liquidity" of the situation, up to a complete loss of interest in it.

Ideally, such a mechanism should be applied before the first sale of a share by a conflicting relative. The fact is that the relationship of the raiders with the original owner (seller of the share) does not always imply a complete calculation and transfer of rights to a certain stage. In this case, the share may not be disposed of as a negligent relative. And the agreements reached with the "buyers" will be terminated.

In general, one should strive to ensure that the shared ownership regime with unfriendly persons does not even arise. Akol soon this happened - to initiate its termination. Claims for the division of property (including inherited), as a result of which shared ownership of vital objects is terminated, can serve as tools for this (Article 252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Mechanisms are also effective that allow depriving ownership of a share (if it is insignificant) through a court of law (Clause 4 of Article 252 of the Civil Code) by paying mandatory compensation. Judicial appraisal of the value of such a share depends on the choice of applied methods. For example, you can evaluate an object as a whole and determine the value of a share in strict proportion to the price of the object. The expert may also be faced with the task of assessing precisely the share, given its insignificance, the impossibility of allocation, from which the real market price is derived. Of course, in the latter case, the cost of the share will be significantly lower, which means that the amount of compensation awarded will be less.

An important role in the abandonment of an object by a participant in shared ownership and in the use of compulsory redemption by the court of other shares is played by such a circumstance as the essential importance of using this property as a whole for one of the co-owners, especially if there are minor children. A competent and active position of the guardianship and trusteeship bodies involved in the process can also be very useful.

Thus, it is impossible to overestimate the importance of prudence, which should be shown not only by the participant in the transaction, but also by the owner of the apartment, who has a new task - to defend the property. We have to admit that in the absence of specific legal mechanisms, primarily in the field of criminal law, the responsibility for all the consequences lies directly with the copyright holder.

Posted by Ella Glukhovskaya, eJ-JURIST
Source EJ "Lawyer" 12/01/2008

 

[Евгений СБ]

Thank. Interesting.

 

[Краев Евгений Леонидович]

Interesting article, thanks! The topic is relevant!

 

[oag]

In the subject.

[DLMURL] https://www.vedom.ru/news/2013/12/25/12181-karaul [/ DLMURL]

[DLMURL] https://pasmi.ru/archive/100973 [/ DLMURL]

 

[Матушкин Андрей Николаевич]

To this topic.

[DLMURL] https://www.vedom.ru/news/2013/12/25/12181-karaul [/ DLMURL]

[DLMURL] https://pasmi.ru/archive/100973 [/ DLMURL]

Be kind in the future lay out the material completely.
Otherwise, the topic will be demolished.

 

[oag]

Sorry, I tried to insert a scan of the article, but for some reason it doesn’t work. (((

 

[Матушкин Андрей Николаевич]

Scan is not needed.
Live text please.

 

[oag]

Silent raiders do not differ much from highway robbers: in both cases, their victims are left without a wallet. Entrepreneur from Pokrov Andrei Peskovatskov has been fighting for his rights and his property for more than a year. On the other side of the "barricades" are people with whom he has been familiar since childhood and with whom he has been building a common business for more than a decade and a half.
“Neither with Igor Fadeev, nor with Vladimir Bureev, were we friends,” says Andrei Anatolyevich. - Just studied at the same school. Then everyone had their own life. I studied, worked, defended my dissertation. But in the 1990s, science could not even earn a piece of bread. So we met again ... in the market.
In May 1995, Fadeev, Peskovatskov and Bureev became founders of Prodtorg LLC. The shares were divided as follows: for Peskovatskov and Bureev, 33% each, for Fadeev, 34%. This difference of 1% subsequently played a cruel joke. It took several years to establish a business. Companions started with trading in the city market, then they rented a store, and by March 2012 Prodtorg became a network enterprise. The LLC owned three stores in Pokrov, a store in the village of Gorodishchi with an adjacent land plot of 454 sq. M. m and a store located in the Balashikha district. Another point of sale "Prodtorg" - in the village of Volginsky in a rented building. Plus, there is an office on Zelenaya Street in Pokrov, and there is a land plot with an area of
808 sq m. The cost of only the company's real estate assets by the middle of last year amounted to more than 100 million rubles.
Business brought good income. According to the tax audit conducted by employees of the IFTS of the Russian Federation No. 11 in the Vladimir region, Prodtorg’s revenue for 2012 amounted to 262 978 242 rubles 18 kopecks.
- I have never seen such money - the maximum that I, as a founder, was allowed to spend on myself - 70 thousand rubles a month. How many at the same time Fadeev and Bureev put in their pocket, I don’t know, but I suspect that there are much more, ”Peskovatskov says. “Moreover, I am only now beginning to understand some of the actions of my companions.” For example, since 2005 in our stores there have been terminals for receiving payments. Terminals are also our joint property. For this type of activity, we have created another LLC - "Prod-Torg Plus". I was fully responsible for the work of this LLC, I was a director with a salary of 8,000 rubles. Of course, the profitability of this business is much lower than trade, but there was income too! At OOO Prodtorg, I held the position of Deputy Economy. My salary was 25 thousand rubles. In 2011, Bureev and Fadeev asked me to quit Prodtorg in order to reduce the tax burden on the enterprise and get free funds to buy another store. Now I understand that this was only an excuse, but in fact - the first step to squeezing me out of business.
There were plenty of such “bells,” notes Andrey Anatolyevich today, but decent people rarely pay attention to double-dealing. They judge by themselves! It turned out that in vain. Now protocols of "underground" meetings of the founders of "Prodtorg" have begun to emerge. A handwriting examination confirmed that Peskovatskov’s signature was falsified. The founder himself would never sign decisions that were disadvantageous to him as a participant in the business. Who will vote for the actual deprivation of property, business, to which he gave half his life ?! Not voluntarily, Andrei Peskovatskov actually stopped participating in the affairs of Prodtorg - his comrades simply did not inform him of “passwords, appearances, addresses”. Currently, the opposite side openly admits the numerous facts of falsification of Peskovatskov’s signature on the minutes of general meetings, however, the emphasis is on both the statute of limitations and the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution.
Hidden squeezing Peskovatskova from a profitable business began about five years ago. The conflict entered the open phase last spring.
“Last March, I urgently needed money for an expensive operation in Moscow,” says Andrei Anatolyevich. - I turned to Bureev, who at that time was the director of Prodtorg. I was denied, and the situation was critical. I took the necessary amount in one of the stores. I arrived at the office, filled out the documents, so that in the event of a business division, my share would be reduced by this amount. And then it began! They simply stopped letting me into the office, accused of stealing - not only money, but also discs with information about the activities of the company. The police figured out and refused to institute criminal proceedings. But, apparently, this was a signal for my opponents to switch to active hostilities.
Peskovatskova, no longer embarrassed and not respecting the formalities, was removed from business. Having 67% of Prodtorg LLC for two, Fadeev and Bureev actually ruined Prodtorg Plus LLC: they removed the terminals, took the last revenue, and then left the founders of the subsidiary. But that was only the beginning!
The conflict between the founders resulted in numerous litigations in the Arbitration Court of the Vladimir Region and the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region. And while Peskovatskov was running around the courts, spending the last money (in stores, it was strictly forbidden for staff to give him money even with the necessary documentation) for lawyers, Bureev and Fadeev began to conduct transactions that very much resemble a raider seizure of someone else's share in the business. By the way, they paid for the services of their representative in the courts at the expense of the company: the attorney spent 600 thousand rubles from the bank account of Prodtorg. A lot of money, but the task for Peskovatskov’s opponents was difficult - to “merge” all assets and real estate into dummies as soon as possible so that there was nothing left in the enterprise and there would be nothing to divide if the third founder nevertheless requires his share.
In fact, the party played out, tested on the "Prodtorg Plus". On June 29, 2012, Prodtorg (signed by Director Vladimir Bureev on the contract) transferred non-residential premises in the Balashikha district at the price of 6 million rubles, including VAT, to the buyer, OOO Techmed. On the same day, another sales contract was concluded. LLC Techmed has profitably acquired valuable real estate for ridiculous money. The office in Pokrov on Zelenaya street, 2g, left for 123 thousand rubles, an adjacent plot of 808 sq. M. m - for 36,860 rubles. Shop in the village of Gorodishchi with an area of almost 800 square meters. m was sold for 223 thousand, located next to the building land area of 454 square meters. m - for 15,268 rubles 2 kopecks.
Peskovatskov learned about the deals only after 2.5 months. Then he became aware that the only participant and director of the commercial organization Techmed LLC was Mikhail Firsov, a classmate of Vladimir Bureev. Curiously, Firsov never engaged in commerce and recently worked as a simple security guard, and that he was the director of the company, he learned only from Peskovatskov. Vladimir Bureev, according to Firsov, somehow took a passport from him, but for what purpose, he did not say, just “crank up the deal”.
Soon, Techmed LLC was liquidated and a new legal entity registered - Techmedstroy LLC, whose sole member and director is the same Firsov. All property was transferred to the new company.
The next step taken by the partners was the withdrawal of one of them from the founders. On June 21, 2013 the next semi-legal meeting of participants of LLC Prodtorg was held. By his decision, Bureyev Vladimir Ilyich as a compensation received from Fadeev a store on the street. Gerasimov in the Intercession. The director of Prodtorg was Igor Fadeev. Peskovatskov was still not allowed to work.
Actually, by this time horns and legs remained out of business. On July 10, Bureev’s wife and cohabitant Fadeeva established a new LLC - Avikom. The legal address of this organization coincides with the technical address of Tekhmedstroy LLC, and the store sold by Tekhmed LLC is also located there. Conclusions, as they say, do it yourself ...
- On August 9, at an extraordinary meeting in which I did not participate, Fadeev single-handedly decided to create a new LLC “Orion” together with Bureev, where the latter’s share is 80%, and LLC “Prodtorg” is only 20%. On September 24 of this year, Fadeev carried out the disposal of the largest of the remaining Prodtorg stores with an area of 494 square meters. m in an unknown way. The remaining assets in Prodtorg LLC can now be disposed of at will. The former partners no longer need my consent, ”summarizes the battle of the year and a half, Andrei Peskovatskov. - Now I have one hope - for law enforcement agencies and the courts. And from Prodtorg LLC there was only a small shop. Society is virtually ruined.
On September 19, 2013, the TFR in the Vladimir Region opened a criminal case against Vladimir Bureev under part 1 of Art. 201 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power). According to investigators, Bureyev, being the director of Prodtorg LLC, did not have the sole right to sell property.
- To date, Vladimir Bureev is running the case as a suspect, Igor Fadeev as a witness. The investigation will also establish whether the latter assisted in the commission of illegal transactions, commented Sergey Volosov, senior investigator of the Petushinsky department of the Investigative Committee. - Numerous and voluminous financial-analytical and accounting examinations are being carried out now. We are finding out whether there was a need for these deals, were the cases at Prodtorg so deplorable at that time? An additional complication in the investigation is the fact that some of the documents, according to the suspect, were stolen by unidentified persons. I note that by the court’s decision, while the investigation is ongoing, security measures were imposed on the disputed property - all transactions with it are prohibited.

Andrey Peskovatskov:
- Having finally assured of my impunity, on July 25 of this year Fadeev beat my wife and broke my video camera. But criminal cases on these facts are not instituted. According to Fadeev, in the police of Pokrov they are “met as relatives” with Bureev. I informed the head of the Regional Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Vladimir Region Sergey Gubarev about these facts at a personal reception. I don’t want to believe that my unscrupulous partners and the police bought it.

Author: Evgenia Arefieva

 

[Матушкин Андрей Николаевич]

Thank.