The money, which eventually disappeared no one knows where, was invested by the wife of ex-mayor of Moscow Elena Baturina in joint projects with businessman Alexander Chistyakov. On Wednesday, May 10, the High Court of London dismissed Baturina's suit against Chistiakova, taking the side of the entrepreneur. Baturin herself, appealing to the court, claimed that "she was deceived and cynically exploited."

Alexander Chistyakov (glossy media known as the husband of singer Natalia Ionova - Glukozy) is an entrepreneur with experience. At one time he worked in the top management of FGC UES, now he is engaged in development business through the Hermitage Construction and Management Group. "Hermitage Construction ..." belongs, in particular, a network of shopping centers Jam Mall, as well as approximately 58 hectares of land.

Cooperation with Elena Baturina Alexander Chistyakov began in the winter of 2008, when an agreement was signed on joint participation in the construction project in northern Africa, 2 million "squares" of residential and commercial real estate. Baturina, according to the signed papers, got 65% in the project, Chistyakov - 35% plus management. Both partners seem to have agreed to finance the start-up in proportion to their shares, and in parallel: Baturin had to invest in the project only as long as similar contributions from Chistyakov were confirmed.

The money came through loans that were issued for three months with subsequent renewal. The company of Inteco Beteiligungs belonging to Elena Baturina issued these loans to Sylmord Trade Inc., the shares of the Moroccan company Andros Bay served as a guarantee. The same company was engaged in project management. The case came with enthusiasm: in February 2008, immediately after the signing of the contract, Inteko transferred the first loan - by 36.75 million euros, then Sylmord Trade received another 66.64 million. This money management company distributed between several other ...

And during another audit (already in 2012), Ms. Baturina was amazed to find that Andros Bay accounts received only part of the funds allocated for investment. The rest got into various offshore (as she claims, affiliated with Chistyakov's business). Of course, it's a bit strange that Ms. Baturina found out a shortage of almost 100 million euros only four years later - but perhaps for the business lady who heads the list of the richest women in Russia according to Forbes (with a fortune of $ 1 billion), this inattention Pardonable.

Anyway, turning (already not even hot on the trail) to the court, Baturina could sue just 4.5 million euros. The fate of the rest of the money remained unknown. Directly Chistyakovu claims Elena Baturina addressed already in 2013, referring to the High Court of London. Then she demanded that the ex-partner return her 100 million euros: the money invested through loans, plus a penalty. Two years later, the amount of the claim dropped to 74 million.

The High Court of London, considering the case of millions of millions who died in Morocco, came to the conclusion that Chistyakov does not have any obligations towards Elena Baturina. Both partners already had a rich entrepreneurial experience at the time of signing the contract, they understood that they are going to engage in a highly speculative project, and, consequently, they may burn up. For the risks inherent in the project, Chistyakov should not be held responsible, the judge said, this is stated in a press release issued by representatives of Alexander Chistyakov.

"The difficulties of acquiring land and construction along with others are and always have been obvious. The probability that Ms. Baturina will lose money, in any case was higher than the probability that this will not happen, "- is also indicated in the court's decision. From a comment that Alexander Chistyakov gave at the end of the court session, it is not clear to what amount the legal costs cost him - but it is obvious that in general the businessman is satisfied with the verdict. Now in his plans - to get from Elena Baturina compensation for judicial and other expenses. And the wife of the former mayor remains content with the fact that the court in principle recognized the mere fact that her partner did not fulfill its contractual obligations. At the same time, Ms. Baturina regrets that the amount of damage that is subject to reimbursement has not been determined, noted her lawyer
Michelle Duncan.

reference

The High Court of London - most often acts as a court of first instance, and consequently, the decision passed by it can still be challenged in the Court of Appeal. However, most often this instance leaves the decisions of the High Court in force.