The ex-Governor of Sakhalin could not challenge the seizure on 1 billion rubles.

539 jewelry

Former Governor of the Sakhalin region Alexander Khoroshavin refused to consider the appeal on violations of the law when applying to the state of his property. About this informed the lawyer of the family of the ex-official Ivan Mironov. According to him, the official cause in court is not explained.

Alexander Khoroshavin was arrested in March 2015. He is accused on ten counts: it is a bribery in the amount of 522 million rubles and the legalization of funds. After excitation of criminal proceedings on account and assets against him and his family were seized.

In September 2015 the Prosecutor’s office has addressed in southern-the Sakhalin city court and asked him to convey to the state the property of ex-Governor in the amount of 1.1 billion rubles. the claim was considered separately from the criminal case. The Supervisory Agency considered that Khoroshavin and his close relatives own real estate, cars, items made of precious metals and other property, the cost of which “greatly exceeds the total income of the” family of the former Governor. The Prosecutor General noted that the lawful origin of the property of the accused and his family is not proven. In may 2016, the court granted the claim in September were rejected by the appeal, and in December the officers began to seize the property: land, houses, vehicles and 539 of jewelry.

The complaint of the Governor

Lawyers of the former Governor pointed out in the complaint (a copy is available) that the prosecutors and the court violated the constitutional principle on which the law is not retroactive. One of the grounds for seizure of property was that the prizes, according to the Supervisory authority, not reported to the government on the purchase of cars and real estate. The obligation to indicate the expenditure came from officials in 2013 — she was introduced the law “On control over compliance costs of persons holding public office”. However, three cars and three apartments, the ex-Governor bought prior to the entry of this law into force and every year since, they declared, was stressed in the complaint.

The defense noted that to achieve the treatment of property of officials in the state, if the official has spent a sum in excess of his official income over the past three years. But the official salary of prizes allowed him to buy property and cars. From 1997 to 2009 Khoroshavin and his wife has declared about 23 million rubles Moscow apartments policies at the time of purchase in 2008-2009 in the South-West of Moscow had cost 6 million rubles to 5 million rubles to 4 million rubles, said in the complaint.

The lawyer of ex-Governor Olga Artyukhova in conversation with noted that the Prosecutor in his claim, indicating the value of the property was based not on the contracts of purchase and sale, and on expert evaluation conducted after the initiation of the case. These figures are several times higher than the cost of the acquisition, the lawyer said.

Broad interpretation

The Prosecutor made the seizure of the state prizes of the property that is unacceptable to withdraw, it was noted in the complaint. According to the law on control over expenses of officials to pay to the state can be the objects, which is documented: this land, apartments, cars, stocks. In the case of prizes, the court agreed to pay to the state more money in Bank accounts, jewellery and watches.

Another violation, according to the defense, is that the property was seized not only the former Governor and his wife but their adult son. On appeal, the court found that the law khoroshavina, Jr., not to seize the property. But the court came to the conclusion that he had acquired a house, apartment, land and cars at the expense of the income of his father, because his own earnings didn’t allow him to make such purchases.

Advocates insist that the actions of the bailiffs son khoroshavina lost a single housing: the Executive documents of the employees of the Federal bailiff service called procedure is not a seizure, and forfeiture (copy of regulations is available). “This substitution is not a mistake, it was done purposefully, to be able to withdraw from family Horoshavin all the property,” says attorney Mironov. Advocates say that confiscation is possible only for those whose guilt has been established by the court.