Ikea generator scandal. IKEA can win a long-term dispute with Ponomarev

Russian legislation is powerless before Themis from the village of Krasny, Smolensk region.

Reputable entrepreneur Konstantin Ponomarev began his career as an assistant to the notorious head of the Hermitage Capital Management investment fund, William Browder, whom he helped create tax evasion schemes. However, he reoriented himself in time, and at the trial of Sergei Magnitsky he already testified against his former boss. The pinnacle of Ponomarev's career was the supply of generators for IKEA, for which the retail chain had to pay an amount comparable to the annual revenue in Russia. Then, with the help of Sberbank, the entrepreneur created a curious mechanism for storing money on his own (the funds seized from IKEA were transferred to a pocket company in trust), which allowed him to use interest on capital without paying taxes on profits. Not so long ago, the name of an IKEA opponent surfaced in connection with a blackout in Crimea: a businessman sued the Kubanenergo company for allegedly renting diesel generators from him. Now the plaintiff Ponomarev again took up his old victims. This time, the long-suffering IKEA will be robbed with the help of the provincial court, which serially makes decisions in favor of Konstantin Ponomarev.

The Krasninsky Court of the Smolensk Region arrested 9.3 billion rubles on the accounts of the Russian representative office of the IKEA corporation (IKEA Mos LLC). Thus, he satisfied Ponomarev's demands for the imposition of interim measures. As RBC reported, the entrepreneur is trying to recover 9.3 billion rubles from IKEA Mos. The court also banned inspections of the Federal Tax Service No. 13 for the Moscow Region from making any entries related to the reorganization of the company, including a merger or takeover, in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.

“The IKEA group of companies does not agree with the ruling of the Krasninsky court, we consider it unreasonable, illegal and we are already challenging it,” the company’s press service said. At the same time, the IKEA representative described the actions of opponents "as the use of illegal schemes to obtain funds from the company."

“Konstantin Ponomarev artificially introduced an individual Alexei Tanko into the process in order to transfer the consideration of the case to the village of Krasny and return to the consideration of the circumstances that the Supreme Arbitration Court had already given its assessment. Alexey Tanko declared himself as a guarantor in IKEA cases, although the company never had any relationship with him, ”said an IKEA representative in the courts. In his opinion, in this way Ponomarev is once again trying to implement a scheme according to which IKEA funds are “instantly withdrawn from Russia to offshore”, as soon as the court of first instance decides in favor of the businessman.

These fears are confirmed by corporate law and bankruptcy lawyer Igor Mamaev. According to him, such a scheme "has nothing to do with jurisprudence" and is designed to delay the process. While the case is being transferred to another court, which in turn will make a decision, all the money that IKEA is trying to return will be withdrawn from the country, explains Mamaev.

Ponomarev has been at war with IKEA for ten years now. In 2006-2010, the parties had a dispute over the lease of power generators for hypermarkets in St. Petersburg. The entrepreneur accused the Swedish company of not paying their rent since July 2008. In 2010, the parties signed a settlement agreement, and Ponomarev's structures received 25 billion rubles from IKEA. However, then the businessman demanded to pay another 33 billion rubles. After a series of proceedings, the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia ruled that all decisions of lower instances that rejected the claims of Ponomarev's structures against IKEA Mos are not subject to revision. However, in August 2016, the businessman filed a new lawsuit, and the Krasninsky court ruled to recover 507 million rubles from IKEA. In October, this decision was confirmed by the Smolensk Regional Court.

Ponomarev immediately ceded the right to claim this amount to the one-day company Alfa LLC. This LLC was registered on October 5, 2016, its sole owner is Kapaalex Consulting LTD, an offshore company established in the British Virgin Islands, and Anastasia Pavlova is the general director. She also represents the interests of Ponomarev in courts. Now the dispute between the two companies - IKEA Mos LLC and Alfa LLC - will be considered by a court of general jurisdiction in the village of Krasny, and not by an arbitration court.

The creation of a "hidden" guarantor by manipulating the texts of contracts is not something new for Russian justice, lawyer Oleg Sukhov notes. This scheme allows disputes between companies to be transferred from the arbitration court to the court of general jurisdiction, and although the Supreme Court is actively fighting such practices, its instructions are still often not implemented.

However, the Krasninsky court could satisfy the application for the imposition of interim measures in connection with the actions of IKEA itself. On July 25, the company sent a letter to several thousand of its tenants about the beginning of the “reorganization” procedure, which stated that the funds in favor of IKEA Mos should now be transferred to the account of the newly created IKEA Centers Rus Operation LLC. The Krasninsky court could consider that as a result of the reorganization, the company is trying to get away from the execution of the court decision in the future.

It is not the first time that a court in the village of Krasny, Smolensk Region, as well as a local judge, Irina Tsutskova, has served Ponomarev's commercial interests. As previously reported, it was this judge who allowed the entrepreneur not to pay a record amount of 4.5 billion rubles in taxes out of 25 billion received under a pre-trial agreement from IKEA. On July 21 of this year, the same Tsutskova demanded that Kubanenergo return 71 mobile diesel generators to Ponomarev, allegedly rented from him and sent to the Crimea during the energy blockade. No matter how the power engineers argued that they had nothing to do with generators, or with the Crimea, or with Ponomarev, Tsutskova remained adamant - to return, and within the next 5 months.

At the end of August, Tsutskova again ruled in favor of Ponomarev, this time punishing IKEA with a ruble. The judge ordered the company to pay her friend "a penalty in connection with the non-purchase of diesel generators in the amount of more than 507 million rubles." The same Ponomarev generators, from which IKEA, it would seem, finally fought back on June 11, 2014, when the Supreme Arbitration Court - the final instance for economic disputes - refused to satisfy the requirements of Konstantin Ponomarev's company. But judge Tsutskova, it turns out, turned out to be even higher than even the Supreme Arbitration.

In May 2015, another news came about the confrontation between businessman Konstantin Ponomarev and the Swedish retailer IKEA. The fourth criminal case has already been opened against Ponomarev - however, the person who sued the retailer for cosmic 25 billion rubles does not intend to give up. A dubious scheme with the rental of generators led him to the "golden hundred" of Russian millionaires, and now he is unlikely to give up his positions just like that.

In this endless and amazing story, you can get stuck like in a swamp. We figured out the main plot twists of the war between Ponomarev and IKEA.

How it all began

In 2006, IKEA started construction of two MEGA shopping centers in St. Petersburg. Since the city's power grid operator Lenenergo, due to its own problems and inescapable bureaucracy, greatly delayed the connection of new shopping centers to the power grid, the management had to find a contractor to provide the centers with electricity from generators.

Konstantin Ponomarev with his company ISM LLC became such a contractor. He signed an agreement with the management of IKEA Mos on the supply of diesel generators with a total capacity of at least 16,500 kVA to the sites of MEGA-Parnas and MEGA-Dybenko. The rental price was calculated based on 1kVA of reserve power per day. These formulations are the cornerstone of the whole story.

Where did the debt come from

Since the upper limit of the reserve power supplied by ISM LLC was not specified in the contract, Ponomarev began to import more and more generators to the sites near shopping centers. According to Forbes, by January 1, 2007, there were 80 diesel generators at two sites with a total capacity of about 60,000 kVA - 10 times more than the required minimum. Payment was made at a fixed rate - 190 rubles. for 1 kVA of standby power.

Due to the constant growth of energy supply costs, the contract was revised several times, and as a result, the parties settled on a rate of 55 million rubles. per month. This was at the end of 2007. But the contract turned out to be drawn up in such a way that all the power not covered by this monthly payment was supplied on credit at the same price of 190 rubles. for 1 kVA at a rate of 0.1% per annum per day or 36% per annum. For the time being, IKEA Mos managers did not notice this: the chief engineers of the shopping center saw only the documents for the acceptance of generators without indicating the amounts in them, and the accountants only saw electricity bills without reminders of a dripping loan.

The scheme was revealed only in the summer of 2008, however, Ponomarev was able to evade the export of generators for about two more years under various pretexts, thus accumulating the amount of the debt of IKEA Mos to his company.

How much IKEA owes

In the summer of 2010, Ponomarev filed a lawsuit against a Swedish company for 18 billion rubles, half of which was due to rent debts, the other half to a loan and the use of other people's money. This exceeded the entire revenue of the Russian branch of IKEA for that year (17.5 billion rubles) from the management of 11 huge shopping centers. Two weeks earlier, there was a major image scandal - an attempt to give a bribe for connecting MEGA-Parnas to the power grid surfaced, the entire top of IKEA Mos was fired, and the management went to a settlement agreement to avoid even greater reputational damage. According to it, the successor company of ISM LLC - the SAE company - received 25 billion rubles: Ponomarev immediately withdrew these funds to his own account.

Where did the additional requirements come from?

Ponomarev did not calm down on this. A week before the signing of the settlement agreement, he transferred the rights to recover the debt for 2009-2010 from SAE to Rukon, another of his structures. What, according to him, the management of IKEA Mos was informed about. In the summer of 2013, he filed a lawsuit against IKEA Mos for 33 billion rubles, demanding to pay rent for 2009-2010, when the generators were located at the sites of Parnassus and Dybenko.

This lawsuit traveled to all instances up to the Supreme Arbitration Court, where it was finally rejected in the summer of 2014. IKEA Mos immediately filed a counterclaim for 143 million rubles. for reimbursement of legal costs, in May 2015 up to 3 million rubles.

The management of IKEA Mos did not remain in debt and began to try to return their money by transferring the issue to the plane of the Criminal Code. The first case against Ponomarev was initiated in Moscow in 2013, but it was unexpectedly dismissed. The same fate befell the second case initiated by the Vsevolozhsk District Court of the Leningrad Region in 2014. The third and fourth cases were opened in the spring of 2015 by Moscow and Moscow Region investigators, respectively, already on the fact of non-payment of taxes on money received under an amicable agreement with IKEA; the third case has also already been closed, the fourth is in progress. In all these cases, his personal account was arrested, on which the same 25 billion rubles were located: as of the end of May 2015, on an account with VTB 24.

Who is Konstantin Ponomarev

The personality of Konstantin Ponomarev has been known since the 90s. A lawyer by training, in 1996 he became a co-owner of the consulting firm Firestone Duncan and almost "squeezed" it from the owner - Jamison Firestone. This company was convicted of developing schemes to circumvent legal restrictions on the purchase of Gazprom shares by foreigners, lawyer Sergei Magnitsky was involved in the case. Later, Ponomarev acted as the main witness for the prosecution at the trial in the Magnitsky case.

Ponomarev got to IKEA through the representative of Caterpillar in Russia, William Pigman. His company was a contractor for the construction of IKEA shopping centers, and it was with his help that Ponomarev, who by that time was already engaged in the “diesel” business, got access to the top managers of the Swedish company.

Alexey Maksimuk

The adventures of the famous Swedish company IKEA in Russia are worthy of Gogol's pen. A company with an unfulfillable promise and a heavy burden conduct business in Russia without resorting to bribes, in her own experience, discovered an amazing pattern: in the Russian Federation, you can either become a corrupt official without noticing yourself, or you can still quietly become a hostage to the schemes of other corrupt officials, and there is no third way. Moreover, it is not some petty swindler who is taking money from the St. Petersburg company, but the key witness for the prosecution in one of the most high-profile trials in the country and, undoubtedly, the most resonant of Russian criminal cases in the world. And he requires not some trifle, but an amount greater than the entire annual revenue of the concern in our country.

Novaya Gazeta tells the following about the history of IKEA misadventures in Russia. In 2006, when IKEA was about to launch its St. Petersburg Mega-Parnas and Mega-Dybenko complexes, difficulties arose with their connection to Lenenergo. To power the complexes, we signed an agreement for the rental of portable diesel generators with ISM LLC. At the same time, as follows from the materials of the now closed criminal case, some unidentified persons from the management of this LLC initially had the intent to fraudulently steal IKEA funds, for which they colluded with some, again unidentified, employees of IKEA itself. As a result, the contract between ISM and the Swedish company was drawn up in an extremely ambiguous way, with the possibility of different interpretations. For example, instead of a clear number of generators to be leased, only their combined minimum power was listed; moreover, the upper power limit was not defined, which made it possible to supply equipment that was many times more powerful than IKEA needed.

In 2008, ISM sold its generators to Autonomous Energy Supply Systems LLC (SAE), thus IKEA became the tenant of SAE.

Big Igor

Konstantin Anatolyevich Ponomarev was born on August 14, 1971 in Moscow. Graduated from the Plekhanov Russian Academy of Economics, where he studied on the same course as the one who died in 2009 in a pre-trial detention center Hermitage Capital investment fund lawyer Sergey Magnitsky. In the press, Ponomarev is often referred to as a "friend" of Magnitsky, which is at least strange.

The fact is that Ponomarev spoke in the “Magnitsky case” on behalf of the prosecution. Moreover, Konstantin Anatolyevich did not hesitate in court to call himself the author of the very tax optimization scheme that Magnitsky used and for which he was tried!

In the 90s, he traded timeshare and almost "squeezed out" an accounting firm "Firestone Duncan" from its founder Jamison Firestone. In the 2000s, he switched to diesel generators - in addition to IKEA, the misfortune of being his client fell to Toros CJSC, owned by the British, which organized a logistics park in the city of Pushkino near Moscow.

So, in 2012, IKEA initiated a criminal case on attempted fraud. Since, at the conclusion of the settlement agreement, Ponomarev misled both his former partners and the Ministry of Economic Development, assuring that he was ready to renounce all claims once and for all, and at that time he himself was already preparing a new lawsuit from Rukon. However, at the end of 2013, the case against Ponomarev was unexpectedly dismissed! This happened just a few days before the arbitration court ruled on the suit of Rukon against IKEA - in favor of the Swedes (by that time Ponomarev's claims had already increased to 33 billion rubles). If the criminal case had been opened at that moment, then such a decision would have been fatal for Ponomarev, unambiguously confirming his guilt.

The prosecutor's office vigilantly hides

How did the “schemist” manage to escape? In October 2013, Natalya Agafyeva, head of the investigative unit of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Central Federal District, received a fax from Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Vladimir Malinovsky . The fax stated that there was no fraud on the part of Rukon and Ponomarev, but there was a “civil law dispute between business entities.” And, although the investigators had a different opinion, the criminal case was immediately dismissed.

However, the Swedes did not give up and again rolled a stone uphill - they did not succeed in resuming the previous criminal case, however, in April 2014 they succeeded in initiating a new case - this time not in Moscow, but in the Vsevolozhsk district of the Leningrad region, and in connection with earlier history. The case examines the circumstances of the conclusion of the very first contract between ISM and IKEA in 2006. The legitimacy of payments under this agreement is also checked.

At first, the case developed quite well, because on May 8, the Vsevolozhsk District Court, at the request of investigators, ordered the arrest of the accounts of Konstantin Ponomarev (who, however, has not yet been accused or suspected in the case).

On these accounts, 24.9 billion rubles were found - the same ones that, according to the investigation, Ponomarev received as a result of the settlement agreement. Note that earlier he claimed that this money "went to the economic activities of the SAE." However, already this spring, the police managed to establish that the fate of billions is much more interesting. Ponomarev, as director of the SAE, transferred them to himself as an individual "for safekeeping." After that, the SAE was liquidated, and there was no one to return the money to - another elegant scheme quite in the spirit of our virtuoso.

However, to express confidence that the end of his fairy tale is approaching would be overly optimistic. The stone of the Swedes again approached the very critical point of the slope, from where it had previously rolled down. On May 15, Ponomarev sent a complaint to the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs against the officer in charge of his case. Ponomarev asks to take action against the investigator, as well as to transfer the consideration of the case to the Moscow region.

According to the information we have, prosecutors responded most quickly to Ponomarev's complaints. As early as last week, phone calls from some high-ranking employees of the Prosecutor General's Office began to be heard in the investigative bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Vsevolozhsk District. In general, quite obvious signs have appeared that the second case involving Ponomarev may, like the first, be closed - despite the disagreement of the investigators, according to the highest shouting. However, the situation then developed rapidly, and on Monday it became known that the prosecutor's office of the Leningrad Region removed arrest from business accounts. At the same time, the criminal case on fraud was also dismissed, in which not a single defendant appeared. Whether the regional prosecutors received any instructions from Moscow in this regard, one can only guess. And whether the Swedes decide on another attempt - time will tell.

How much does a diesel generator cost to rent if it is not working? Businessman Konstantin Ponomarev knows the answer for sure, of course - it is confirmed by numerous court decisions. And all - in favor of Mr. Ponomarev! But if you dig, a "beautiful" scheme will come up.

Diesel generators are provided for rent to large businesses, preferably Western ones. At some point, big business realizes that the generators are too expensive or often fail, and terminates the contract, of which it notifies the person who provided these generators. Now the main task of the landlord is not to take out the generators, let them, they say, stand with the tenant. They don’t work, they don’t ask for food, then, they say, I’ll take it away. And after a while, you have to go to court and demand payment for the rental of generators that are in the hands of large businesses. And it doesn't matter that the generators were just standing there, but they were standing by big business. In this cunning scheme, it is necessary to observe two principles: first, choose a company with Western participation, rather large, preferably with foreign management, poorly representing Russian realities, and second, to confuse the matter as much as possible - assign rights, file several lawsuits in parallel and so on. There is also a third option. The companies of Konstantin Ponomarev used it - in addition to the first two - against CJSC "Toros", which had the bad luck (more precisely, even misfortune) to rent diesel engines from Ponomarev for its large logistics park "Pushkino" in the Moscow region. The generators provided by Pushkino in 2009 were constantly breaking down and did not meet the declared parameters. [...]

["MK", ​​15.08.2013, "Sleight of ships and no deceit": [...] CJSC "Toros" leased in 2009 from LLC "SAE" only 13 diesel power generators (DES) [...]. As established by the Decree of the Tenth Arbitration Court dated April 27, 2012, “after the Lessee began to operate the diesel power plants transferred to him, it turned out that this equipment was not capable of providing uninterrupted power supply to the Lessee’s facilities, in connection with which there were repeated power outages. These facts are confirmed by acts of emergency shutdowns of diesel power plants No. 1-10, signed by the parties.” In this regard, the Lessee - CJSC "Toros" - demanded from the Lessor (Ponomarev) to provide backup DPPs in order to fulfill the terms of the electricity supply agreement. SAE LLC provided as many as 24 backup generators. It follows from the decision of the same court that “after the transfer to the plaintiff (logistics park) of additional diesel power plants, the lessor did not raise the issue of making additional rental payments up to filing a lawsuit with the court.” - Inset K.ru]

The court tried to establish the amount for renting the generators (by the way, after Toros notified Ponomarev of the termination of the contract) ... through expert examinations! But the fact is that there was no contract for these devices, which means there was no cost. "Toros" rightly concluded that it was a replacement for those that had broken down, the correspondence between the companies also spoke about this, but the court unexpectedly took the side of Ponomarev. At the same time, four different expert offices gave different opinions on the cost of rent for 2009-2010: from 411 million rubles to 1 billion 97 million rubles.

How can you win in court under such circumstances? For many specialists who are privy to the practice of Russian justice, the question is rhetorical.

Moreover, within the framework of one process, Ponomarev consistently opens and closes companies. Autonomous Power Supply Systems LLC was merged with AMD-Group LLC, which later assigned the rights to Rukon LLC - there is one owner everywhere, he is also the author of "generator know-how".

As a result, billion dollar lawsuits are filed and won by dummies with a capital of 10,000 rubles. Ponomarev himself goes to all the courts - he has a lot of time and money, and this is a gambling business: to throw a "foreign sucker" for a billion.

For reference. "Pushkino" is a logistics park in the Moscow region with an area of ​​213 thousand square meters. meters, a powerful investment project. The park opened in 2007 and is owned by ZAO Toros. Toros is owned by the British company Raven Russia, which specializes in the construction and management of logistics complexes in Russia.

The scheme, which looks like a scam, is complex, but also remarkable. Konstantin Ponomarev not only aims at large Western companies, but also uses Western labor resources. Laina Minna-Mare, a citizen of Finland, was the general director (and in some places the founder) of almost all Ponomarev's shell companies, right up to Rukon. True, the Finn ran away from her employer this year, but this did not greatly upset Kontantin Ponomarev - he himself is both the founder and the general director of his companies, those that did not close, of course. Apparently, the director with a passport of a citizen of Finland reassured the Western top management, especially the northern neighbors. Before "Toros" Ponomarev "threw" in 2010 furniture giant IKEA- "successfully" leased diesel generators to Ikeevskaya "Mega", and then did not take them away and demanded rent and fines. A similar fraudulent scheme is now being implemented with ZAO Toros. It is important to note that in 2010, Ponomarev pushed through a settlement agreement with IKEA, that is, no court decision was made on the "diesel scam", but what he managed to do against the Swedes is now stalling with ZAO Toros, owned by the British .

"Toros" has so far managed to recapture claims for one billion rubles - the Supreme Arbitration Court has canceled the decisions of all instances, according to which "Toros" would have to pay more than 800 million rubles (although the next instance cut the payment in half, but still these are disproportionate inflated figures ), and returned the case to the first instance. Hearings will resume next week. CJSC "Toros" is not ready to pay tens of millions of dollars for electricity, which did not exist.

In this, alas, classic business story, it is hardly possible to draw any unusual conclusions. A country in which fraudsters manage to extract billions of rubles from companies for unfulfilled work or unfulfilled obligations is difficult to count on the influx of foreign investment. Meanwhile, it is just as difficult to count on economic growth without them. By treating foreign partners so disrespectfully, ruining companies that employ thousands of people, the Russian entrepreneur casts a shadow over the entire domestic business.

In this context, the very figure of Ponomarev, that same Russian entrepreneur, is curious. A graduate of Plekhanovka, Konstantin Ponomarev gained corporate experience in the 1990s when he co-founded and CEO of Firestone Duncan, a law firm. Wherein Jamison Firestone, the founder of the company, gave 51% to the Russian partner - already at the beginning of his career, Konstantin Ponomarev knew how to communicate and negotiate with foreigners, and they subsequently became his main goal. How the young lawyer managed to convince the American to transfer the controlling stake to him is not known, but in 1997 a scandal erupted - Firestone started a company against his partner Konstantin Ponomarev, accusing him of embezzling $ 1 million, at that time an impressive amount. The case did not go to court (remember, it was 1997), so the CEO was not formally charged with the theft. The company was liquidated, but Konstantin Ponomarev did not remain in debt - he answered his former partner with a volley in the media: materials appeared in the press about Jamison Firestone's homosexual orientation. One of the major clients of Firestone Duncan in the mid-90s was the Hermitage fund. William Browder. It is noteworthy that after more than ten years, it was Konstantin Ponomarev who acted as the main witness for the prosecution against Sergei Magnitsky, who by that time had died in jail. Apparently, Ponomarev's hatred for his former partner and everything connected with him has not cooled down even after a decade. Jamison Firestone left Russia in 2010, fearing for his freedom and life. And the "Magnitsky case" has been promoted to the international level. The legal upheavals around Magnitsky and Browder did not prevent Ponomarev from implementing several successful schemes, no less entertaining than Hermitage foundation tax avoidance scheme, which in the 90s was developed by Ponomarev (judging by the documented testimony in the Magnitsky trial). From legal and tax consulting, Konstantin Ponomarev switched to renting diesel generators. And IKEA immediately became the main client of the new player in the rental electricity market.

Konstantin Ponomarev crept up to IKEA, having ingratiated himself with another American - William Pigman, who invited a lawyer to his company. Pigman began doing business with Russia back in 1969, becoming a spokesman for Caterpillar, a supplier of cranes, excavators and other "heavy machines". One of his major clients in the 2000s was IKEA, which was actively building Mega shopping centers in Russia. Pigman brought Ponomarev to the Swedish company. Konstantin Ponomarev not only pushed his senior American friend away from the promising business with IKEA, but also found a common language with the top management of the Swedish company in Russia. Electricity has been a thin spot in IKEA's business since opening its first store in 2000 - the company preferred to run its huge malls on rented generators rather than depend on power connections controlled by greedy officials. Ponomarev turned out to be even more greedy, skillfully dragging IKEA into a lawsuit over his generators. The scheme, which is now being fully implemented again in court with CJSC Toros, has brought Ponomarev billions of rubles. Of course, billions are not given just like that: the atmosphere around Konstantin Ponomarev and his defendants is tense - threats are pouring in against the managers of the defendant companies, lawyers, including foreigners, and even corresponding criminal cases are initiated against "unidentified persons". But these are all mere coincidences, of course.

Who would have thought in 1997 that the exiled director of a law firm would turn into the largest lessor of diesel generators and diesel tanks. And even more so, no one could even imagine that these generators (judging by the materials of the ships with the Toros, often faulty) would bring Konstantin Ponomarev more money than Jamison Firestone's fifteen years of business in Russia, all the scams of William Browder and the Hermitage fund combined . If you think that fraud can only be with securities and bank loans, then this is not so: the experience of Konstantin Ponomarev's companies shows new horizons for the creators of dubious schemes.

A loud dispute between businessman Konstantin Ponomarev and IKEA MOS LLC on the recovery of 507.7 million rubles. today considered by the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court (SC). The company had problems in connection with the lease of diesel generators from firms controlled by Konstantin Ponomarev. In 2010, under a compensation agreement with one of them, IKEA MOS paid 25 billion rubles, and the obligations of the parties ceased. Despite this, the businessman tried to recover another 507 million rubles. for non-fulfillment of the agreement on the repurchase of part of the generators. The courts of general jurisdiction of the Smolensk region collected money from the company, but the Supreme Court canceled their decisions and sent the case for a new trial to Khimki - at the place of registration of IKEA MOS.

The dispute between IKEA MOS and Konstantin Ponomarev has a long and complicated history. In 2006, IKEA MOS leased several diesel generators from a company controlled by the entrepreneur for two years for its stores in St. Petersburg. Litigation began with the demands of Konstantin Ponomarev for an advance payment for equipment. After the expiration of the contracts, the company demanded that the lessor take out the generators. As a result, in September 2009, the parties signed an agreement, which, in particular, obliged IKEA MOS to buy out part of the equipment. Also in the agreement was a condition on a penalty for non-purchase.

IKEA MOS did not buy the equipment, and in 2010 entered into a compensation agreement with the landlord. Under it, the company of Konstantin Ponomarev received 25 billion rubles, and all obligations of the parties were considered terminated.

Nevertheless, Rukon LLC, controlled by the entrepreneur and having received the rights of claim from the previous lessor, tried to oblige IKEA MOS to conclude a contract for the purchase of generators. One of the disputes even reached the Supreme Arbitration Court, which in June 2014 refused to submit the case for review to the Presidium, citing the termination of obligations between the parties.

Konstantin Ponomarev made another attempt to get money from IKEA MOS. He sued the company and its guarantor Alexei Tanko for the recovery of 507.7 million rubles. penalties for non-purchase of equipment. The right to such a demand was ceded to the businessman by the Rukon society. The case was considered by the Krasninsky District Court of the Smolensk Region - at the location of the businessman and Alexei Tanko. The court recovered money from IKEA MOS in favor of Konstantin Ponomarev. The Smolensk Regional Court upheld this decision (Case No. 33-3807/2016). The courts considered that the decisions of the arbitration courts were not binding, since Konstantin Ponomarev and Alexei Tanko were not parties to the dispute. And the courts recognized the agreement on the termination of obligations as void: it did not name the obligations that were terminated.

IKEA MOS filed a complaint with the Supreme Court. The company's arguments mainly focused on procedural violations in lower courts. They satisfied the requirements, which are identical to those considered in arbitration courts, said Semyon Shevchenko, a company representative. In such a situation, the district court was not entitled to consider this claim. And the fact that in this case the dispute arose between individuals does not affect the identity of the disputes. From the point of view of the procedural law, Konstantin Ponomarev participated in those cases, because the applicant in them was his predecessor in law.

The court of first instance accepted the counterclaim against IKEA MOS in violation of the rules of jurisdiction, Semyon Shevchenko insisted. The lawsuit was considered in the Smolensk region, because it was filed as part of a dispute between individuals - Alexei Tanko and Konstantin Ponomarev. Alexey Tanko demanded 4 million rubles from the businessman. in connection with the transition to the last stake in Rukon. And Konstantin Ponomarev presented a counterclaim to him as a guarantor for the debt of IKEA MOS, and at the same time indicated the Swedish company itself as a co-respondent. If the lawsuit had been initially filed against IKEA MOS, then it would have been filed at the place of registration of the company - in Khimki. At the same time, both Alexei Tanko and the businessman registered in the Krasnensky district only in 2015, and before that they lived in the Moscow region. This is an abuse of procedural rights in order to change jurisdiction, Semyon Shevchenko insisted. In addition, Alexei Tanko never had any relationship with IKEA MOS, but suddenly decided to vouch for its obligations, the representative was surprised.

According to Semyon Shevchenko, the court also violated the rules for research and obtaining evidence. The decision is based on the results of the examination, but this cannot be the basis for the recovery of money. In addition, the examination was carried out when IKEA MOS was not yet a party to the case. Finally, Semyon Shevchenko insisted that the parties terminated their obligations by agreement. And the Civil Code does not require that the essence of each specific obligation be indicated in the compensation agreement.

The company asked the Supreme Court to stop the proceedings altogether, since it is under the jurisdiction of the arbitration courts. Despite the fact that the original participants are individuals, the initial lawsuit of Alexei Tanko against Konstantin Ponomarev was related to the transfer of a stake in an LLC. The Court of General Jurisdiction could not consider such a case.

“I can’t refer to the rules of law so competently and I don’t remember all the articles by heart, so I will appeal to logic,” said Konstantin Ponomarev, who objected to the company’s arguments. He insisted that it "does not make any sense" for him to conspire and change jurisdiction. Konstantin Ponomarev drew attention to the fact that from the very beginning of relations with the company there was contractual jurisdiction - at the location of the lessor or his successor.

The claims considered by the arbitration courts are not identical with those stated in this dispute, the businessman insisted. The obligation to conclude a contract and the penalty for its non-conclusion cannot be identical, he said. It is not the conclusions of the court that are prejudicial in nature, but the established circumstances, and in all cases they do not contradict in any way.

According to Konstantin Ponomarev, the company is trying to evade its obligations by using "procedural tricks". Judge Olena Hetman asked if the speaker meant violations of the law by “tricks”? The businessman said that there were no formal violations, and the “tricks” were contesting trifles (for example, contesting an examination).

The representative of Alfa LLC, to which Konstantin Ponomarev had already managed to cede the rights of claim to Alexei Tanko and IKEA MOS, said that the businessman had the right to attract a co-respondent. IKEA is a participant in a controversial legal relationship, it was impossible not to attract it. And the issue of jurisdiction is resolved correctly.

The three judges of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower courts and sent the case for a new trial to the Khimki city court.

Gulnara Ismagilova, Zakon.ru