Surkis vs Privat: Maluska saw fixed between the judges and the oligarchs

Суркисы vs ПриватБанк: Малюська увидел "договорняк" между судьями и олигархами

The Minister of justice Denis Malyuska sees in the trial of six British companies associated with the family of Surkis, against PrivatBank signs of collusion between judges and businessmen.

As reported by UKRINFORM, the Minister wrote in Facebook.

“Tihenko fixed on billions UAH. Starring: judges, oligarchs, and “activists”. And the risk of turning Ukraine into an arena of fighting without rules,” said Maluska, commenting on the meeting, on 14 August Pechersky district court on the suit of six British companies to PrivatBank and the Ministry of Finance.

In particular, as the Minister said the essence of the dispute, the plaintiff demands to bind Privat to continue to repay their deposits. PrivatBank denied because the deposits are not there, they were converted into shares of the Bank during the procedure of insolvency.

At the same time, the court ruled on the claim, and the Privat obliged to repay the deposits. However, the Private decision about providing not fulfilled, since, as stressed Maluska, deposits do not exist.

In the process, according to the Minister of justice, has been involved in virtually all possible legal manipulation: formal the defendant is a natural person (to change the jurisdiction of the case); manipulation of court collection (the lawsuit is not about the recovery of funds, and the maintenance of deposits); manipulation of selection of judges (identical statements were submitted one after the other until the system painted the case to a particular judge); manipulation with the method (the provision was virtually identical claim).

“Now the court is considering the legality and validity of the latest and most blatant manipulation: the plaintiffs are asking to set the Order of execution of the resolution on ensuring that to recover the body of deposits and accrued interest in favor of the plaintiffs. Ie, as security, the court is asked to recover a few billion from a Bank in favor of six UK companies, founded by offshore BVI,” says the Minister.

According to him, such a position goes beyond what can be done to secure the claim (article 150 of the CCP). “She, moreover, does not facilitate, but rather makes it impossible to continue the execution of the judgment. After all, if the means to recover from PrivatBank, the Bank, in the event of a claim, will never be able to serve them as deposits. Remind – claims filed, not as recovery but as a commitment to service deposits,” said Maluska.

In his opinion, the whole process looks very bad for several reasons. In particular, as the Minister said, given the amount of noise around the process and reputational risks it creates, natural would be a quick refusal in satisfaction of the statement of the plaintiffs, but the court holds “dramatic pause”, trying to avoid any procedural violations of the procedural rights of defendants “obviously, it is expected that the appeal be submitted, and the plaintiffs”.

Maluska also noticed that the hearing is scheduled for the end of the day, Friday, in mid-August, during the holiday season – likely, based on the lukewarm reaction of the audience; it was set to listen to the latest that have indicated a willingness to hear the case at least until night and still get a result.

According to the head of the Ministry of justice, the court, despite the absence of two defendants in the case, heard several motions, and one branch and only after that, not having heard the opinion of participants of process, has postponed the hearings due to the fact that the defendants were not duly notified about the hearing in the case. The impression, as added Maluska that “the decision to postpone was taken (or agreed), and not by a person who was present at a hall of judicial review”.

In addition, the Minister of justice pointed out the lack of “activists” who completely ignored the key and the most problematic trial, although almost stormed the courts at the time a minor and unimportant proceedings in private.

Thus, according to Maluska, the case “all the signs of a tihenko dogovornjakah of billions hryvnias”.

As reported, on August 14, the Pechersk district court postponed to September 2 a session on the suit of six British companies associated with the family of Surkis, against PrivatBank.

In April the Kyiv court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of the state of PrivatBank on the decision of Pechersk district court about the actual proceedings from the Bank 250 million. which was kept on Deposit six companies associated with the businessmen Grigory and Igor Surkis in the Cyprus branch of PrivatBank before the nationalization.

According to the explanation of the court, the Bank must comply with the terms of the Deposit agreements concluded with these companies.

At the same time, PrivatBank insists that the execution of treaties impossible, because the deposits were converted into equity in the Bank at the nationalization as the means belonging to persons associated with the ex – owners of PrivatBank.

The Cabinet of Ministers 18 Dec 2016 took a decision on joining the state capital of PrivatBank. In the framework of the nationalization of the Bank of his obligations to related parties were subject to the procedure of bail-in and were exchanged for shares of the additional issue of the Bank.

The district administrative court of Kiev on 17 may 2017 declared illegal and quashed the decision of the Commission of NBU on the recognition associated with PrivatBank persons of the family of Surkis, and canceled orders temporary administrator PrivatBank relating to the accounts of individuals.

The family of Surkis, and associated individuals filed 42 suit against the National Bank of Ukraine.