To the businessman it is refused indemnification of cost of the destroyed goods
Moscow City Court has refused to the businessman indemnification of cost of the destroyed goods. It has not proved that the property was in its property, the judge has decided. According to the president of public fund “ Business prospect “ Dynes Krylovoj, is a lot of such cases and first of all this one of displays of system corruption.
the History has begun in April, 2007. On warehouses of the businessman there have arrived employees of department of economic safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs who have suspected the businessman of a fake of known coffee brands. Employees of bodies have withdrawn the goods in cost more than 2 million dollars and have placed on storage on company warehouses “ Transit the North - the South “. Then according to documents the goods have destroyed. On the businessman have got criminal case. In 2010 the Moscow Regional Court has reconsidered a verdict of guilty, having lowered punishment with 6 till 3 years. The businessman have released directly from a court hall as have considered term which it has already left for a pre-trial detention centre.
Nikolay Kudelko has addressed in court, demanding to collect from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance more than 50 million rbl. for the lost goods. Zamoskvoretsky court in all requirements it has been refused. Then the businessman has appealed in Moscow City Court. Today it has passed the same decision.
“ it is a lot of Such cases. Such business based on use of office position for personal enrichment, is called as corruption. With it nobody struggles, because system corruption amazes all echelons of power. For anybody not a secret what exactly trade konfiskatom is one of such here business kinds. And the businessman for this purpose upekajut in prison, and when already it`s done that it there to hold. There are also other businessmen with the goods “ — has commented on a judgement on air of radio station “ City - FM “ g - zha Krylov.
As she said, on the one hand, a judgement — it is protection of budgetary interests as who that would not put to itself in a pocket, should compensate department, and these are budget money. “ the court at us costs on protection not the rights, and interests of the state. Here, of course, can be and other communications, but it is not caught — not the thief. At least, this decision on protection of interests of the budget “ — the expert considers.