The billionaire Oleg Deripaska has a rather high chance of winning the trial against Anastasia Vashakevich, who calls herself Nastya Rybka, and Alexander Kirillov, known as Alex Leslie. This conclusion was reached by lawyers interviewed by Forbes. The fact that the businessman sued these two persons, his representative told Forbes last night. In their social networks, Vashakevich and Kirillov posted private photographs depicting Oleg Deripaska, as well as audio recordings of his conversations, "secretly made, revealing details of his private life."
"The prospect of winning is quite large, as the fact of proliferation took place, and if the defendants do not prove that Deripaska agreed to the shooting, then the claim will be satisfied," said Anton Sonichev, attorney of the law firm "Business Fairway". The story is ambiguous, nuances are important, notes Roman Bakhanets, a lawyer and partner of the Mikhailov & Partners law firm. In particular, the law has a rule governing the use of such images, but there is an exception in the law. For example, for information purposes, private images can be used by journalists. But if the court decides that this was the disclosure of private life, not conditioned by information purposes, Rybka court will lose, Bahanets is sure.
Norwegian fishing
The Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) of the opposition politician Aleksei Navalny compared the publications in the social networks Rybka and Leslie with Rybka's book "The Diary of a Billionaire Seduction, or the Clone for an Oligarch" and the tracking services and published an investigation. He came to the conclusion that in the summer of 2016 Rybka, an employee of the "escort service industry," was vacationing in Norway on the billionaire yacht Endel, not only with Deripaska himself, but also with Russian vice-premier Sergei Prikhodko. They supposedly fished together Deripaska and Prikhodko. And, according to Navalny, to fly to Norway, the official took advantage of one of the private planes of a businessman, which, in his opinion, can be interpreted as a bribe.
The representative of Deripaska stressed that the billionaire did not consent to the disclosure of personal information. He recalled that Article 24 of the Constitution prohibits the collection, storage, use and dissemination of information about a person's private life without his consent. This means that the citizen's consent to the publication and use of the image is necessary if the only purpose is to satisfy the philistine interest in his private life or to make profit. Navalny is not a defendant in the lawsuit, "despite the fact that he illegally used information about the private life of Oleg Deripaska, relishing in his video the details of private life and making unfounded accusations," the representative of the billionaire explained.
"In Russia courts are judged not only by right, but also by the situation. According to the Constitution, everyone is equal before the law, but when it comes to some "big" people, courts are often biased. According to our legislation, collecting information about an individual person is prohibited - usually we are talking about shadowing, "notes Alexander Fermontov, Partner of FBK Law, Alexander Ermolenko." "But when two people spend time together, this is the same private life of Rybka, like Deripaska, and his guests." According to him, there is no unambiguous interpretation in the law of how the court should behave. If to understand for real, it will be a long and complicated process. "But I think it's just a matter of confusion," concluded the lawyer.
Life is in full swing
Investigation of the Anti-Corruption Fund (FBK) was published on February 8. The reaction of Oleg Deripaska became known the next day. The representative of the billionaire stated that this information "is a figment of the imagination of a group of people and one of the manifestations of a planned custom campaign aimed at discrediting the reputation", so Deripaska will defend his honor in court.
Sergei Prikhodko was more emotional. "By and large, this would have to be answered in a masculine way, but we will remain within the legal framework," he told RBC. The vice-premier described the investigation of Navalny as a provocation and an attempt to remind of himself, and the oppositionist himself as a "political loser." According to Prikhodko, in the publication Navalny confused "everything possible and impossible - from my friend (Oleg Deripaska) to US President Trump and Manafort, unknown to me personally," but to sue the policy will be "too much honor."
The Kremlin did not comment on the publication. "No, I could not and would not want to do this," the presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov answered the journalists' question.
Rybka and Leslie, according to the representative of the billionaire, no doubt originally published photos and announced details of the private life of a businessman with commercial interest, in order to promote the book. Bulk, he said, "resold stolen information," thought out and pre-fantasizing before accusing Oleg Deripaska of committing a criminal offense. "At the same time, it is obvious that the coverage of the audience has increased several times, which does not make the use of private photos legitimate," the representative of the businessman said.
In this case, the billionaire does not intend to sue Navalny. "The lawsuit is not directly related to the activities of Alexei Navalny, who has the right to continue his investigations, but without enduring the private life of Oleg Deripaska in public, making it an object of philistine interest. It would be unpleasant to any person if his private life was exposed and exposed to various insinuations, coupled with dirty hints and statements, "the representative of the businessman concluded.
Legal service Deripaska arrives very competently, says Executive Director of JSB Mikhailov & Partners Evgeny Workshop. Submit to court specifically for Rybka, and not for Navalny, is the easiest way to stop the dissemination of information, that is, blocking the video. At the same time, according to him, it's harder to sue Navalny, since it will attract more attention, while Nastya Rybka most likely admits her wrong.
Prohibited information
The claim is filed in civil law, which does not provide for the intervention of law enforcement. The plaintiff will independently prove in court the fault of the persons who committed the dissemination of information about him. Obviously, the plaintiff plans to suppress the dissemination of his personal data on the Internet and the media (which he did not consent to), avoid blackmail on the part of the persons who disseminated information, and inflate the situation by analogy with the Weinstein case, the lawyer believes. Anton Sonichev.
In turn, Nastya Rybka in the comment RBC said that, in her opinion, the reason for filing a lawsuit is "banal jealousy." The girl noted that she called the businessman, but he did not answer her call, and suggested that the billionaire was offended.
When the first court session is held, it is still unknown. But until the final decision on the case was made, the court decided to block access to Navalny's investigation and reprints in the media, the representative of the billionaire specified. Indeed, on the decision of the Ust-Labinsky District Court on February 10, Roskomnadzor posted Navalny's blog and a video of his investigation on YouTube in the register of banned information on the basis of Article 15.1 of the Law "On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection". At the time this article was published, both the blog and the video were available.
Female share
Oleg Deripaska is co-owner of En + holding, which owns blocks of shares of aluminum producer US Rusal and electricity company Eurosibenergo. In November 2017, En + held an IPO on the London Stock Exchange in November 2017, it became the largest primary placement of the Russian company in the last five years. During the IPO, the whole company was valued at $ 8 billion, while the state of Deripaska after its holding increased by $ 700 million.
Since 2001, Deripaska has been married to Pauline Yumasheva, the daughter of Valentin Yumashev, former head of the presidential administration of Boris Yeltsin and his son-in-law. The official status of their marriage is unknown - the parties did not comment on this issue. But shortly before the IPO En + it became known that in October of last year, Polina Deripaska received a 6.9% stake in En +. To date, this package costs about $ 530 million, which makes Polina one of the country's richest women.
In early February 2018, The Telegraph reported that the British Mi6 had questions about the initial placement of securities of EN +. The agency considered that the IPO passed without proper consulting with intelligence services.
"The prospect of winning is quite large, as the fact of proliferation took place, and if the defendants do not prove that Deripaska agreed to the shooting, then the claim will be satisfied," said Anton Sonichev, attorney of the law firm "Business Fairway". The story is ambiguous, nuances are important, notes Roman Bakhanets, a lawyer and partner of the Mikhailov & Partners law firm. In particular, the law has a rule governing the use of such images, but there is an exception in the law. For example, for information purposes, private images can be used by journalists. But if the court decides that this was the disclosure of private life, not conditioned by information purposes, Rybka court will lose, Bahanets is sure.
Norwegian fishing
The Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) of the opposition politician Aleksei Navalny compared the publications in the social networks Rybka and Leslie with Rybka's book "The Diary of a Billionaire Seduction, or the Clone for an Oligarch" and the tracking services and published an investigation. He came to the conclusion that in the summer of 2016 Rybka, an employee of the "escort service industry," was vacationing in Norway on the billionaire yacht Endel, not only with Deripaska himself, but also with Russian vice-premier Sergei Prikhodko. They supposedly fished together Deripaska and Prikhodko. And, according to Navalny, to fly to Norway, the official took advantage of one of the private planes of a businessman, which, in his opinion, can be interpreted as a bribe.
The representative of Deripaska stressed that the billionaire did not consent to the disclosure of personal information. He recalled that Article 24 of the Constitution prohibits the collection, storage, use and dissemination of information about a person's private life without his consent. This means that the citizen's consent to the publication and use of the image is necessary if the only purpose is to satisfy the philistine interest in his private life or to make profit. Navalny is not a defendant in the lawsuit, "despite the fact that he illegally used information about the private life of Oleg Deripaska, relishing in his video the details of private life and making unfounded accusations," the representative of the billionaire explained.
"In Russia courts are judged not only by right, but also by the situation. According to the Constitution, everyone is equal before the law, but when it comes to some "big" people, courts are often biased. According to our legislation, collecting information about an individual person is prohibited - usually we are talking about shadowing, "notes Alexander Fermontov, Partner of FBK Law, Alexander Ermolenko." "But when two people spend time together, this is the same private life of Rybka, like Deripaska, and his guests." According to him, there is no unambiguous interpretation in the law of how the court should behave. If to understand for real, it will be a long and complicated process. "But I think it's just a matter of confusion," concluded the lawyer.
Life is in full swing
Investigation of the Anti-Corruption Fund (FBK) was published on February 8. The reaction of Oleg Deripaska became known the next day. The representative of the billionaire stated that this information "is a figment of the imagination of a group of people and one of the manifestations of a planned custom campaign aimed at discrediting the reputation", so Deripaska will defend his honor in court.
Sergei Prikhodko was more emotional. "By and large, this would have to be answered in a masculine way, but we will remain within the legal framework," he told RBC. The vice-premier described the investigation of Navalny as a provocation and an attempt to remind of himself, and the oppositionist himself as a "political loser." According to Prikhodko, in the publication Navalny confused "everything possible and impossible - from my friend (Oleg Deripaska) to US President Trump and Manafort, unknown to me personally," but to sue the policy will be "too much honor."
The Kremlin did not comment on the publication. "No, I could not and would not want to do this," the presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov answered the journalists' question.
Rybka and Leslie, according to the representative of the billionaire, no doubt originally published photos and announced details of the private life of a businessman with commercial interest, in order to promote the book. Bulk, he said, "resold stolen information," thought out and pre-fantasizing before accusing Oleg Deripaska of committing a criminal offense. "At the same time, it is obvious that the coverage of the audience has increased several times, which does not make the use of private photos legitimate," the representative of the businessman said.
In this case, the billionaire does not intend to sue Navalny. "The lawsuit is not directly related to the activities of Alexei Navalny, who has the right to continue his investigations, but without enduring the private life of Oleg Deripaska in public, making it an object of philistine interest. It would be unpleasant to any person if his private life was exposed and exposed to various insinuations, coupled with dirty hints and statements, "the representative of the businessman concluded.
Legal service Deripaska arrives very competently, says Executive Director of JSB Mikhailov & Partners Evgeny Workshop. Submit to court specifically for Rybka, and not for Navalny, is the easiest way to stop the dissemination of information, that is, blocking the video. At the same time, according to him, it's harder to sue Navalny, since it will attract more attention, while Nastya Rybka most likely admits her wrong.
Prohibited information
The claim is filed in civil law, which does not provide for the intervention of law enforcement. The plaintiff will independently prove in court the fault of the persons who committed the dissemination of information about him. Obviously, the plaintiff plans to suppress the dissemination of his personal data on the Internet and the media (which he did not consent to), avoid blackmail on the part of the persons who disseminated information, and inflate the situation by analogy with the Weinstein case, the lawyer believes. Anton Sonichev.
In turn, Nastya Rybka in the comment RBC said that, in her opinion, the reason for filing a lawsuit is "banal jealousy." The girl noted that she called the businessman, but he did not answer her call, and suggested that the billionaire was offended.
When the first court session is held, it is still unknown. But until the final decision on the case was made, the court decided to block access to Navalny's investigation and reprints in the media, the representative of the billionaire specified. Indeed, on the decision of the Ust-Labinsky District Court on February 10, Roskomnadzor posted Navalny's blog and a video of his investigation on YouTube in the register of banned information on the basis of Article 15.1 of the Law "On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection". At the time this article was published, both the blog and the video were available.
Female share
Oleg Deripaska is co-owner of En + holding, which owns blocks of shares of aluminum producer US Rusal and electricity company Eurosibenergo. In November 2017, En + held an IPO on the London Stock Exchange in November 2017, it became the largest primary placement of the Russian company in the last five years. During the IPO, the whole company was valued at $ 8 billion, while the state of Deripaska after its holding increased by $ 700 million.
Since 2001, Deripaska has been married to Pauline Yumasheva, the daughter of Valentin Yumashev, former head of the presidential administration of Boris Yeltsin and his son-in-law. The official status of their marriage is unknown - the parties did not comment on this issue. But shortly before the IPO En + it became known that in October of last year, Polina Deripaska received a 6.9% stake in En +. To date, this package costs about $ 530 million, which makes Polina one of the country's richest women.
In early February 2018, The Telegraph reported that the British Mi6 had questions about the initial placement of securities of EN +. The agency considered that the IPO passed without proper consulting with intelligence services.
Society
- Navalny Alexey
- Deripaska Oleg
- Vashukevich Anastasia
- Kirillov Alexander
- Rusal
- Anti-Corruption Fund
- En + Group
Related materials
-
Leslie and Rybka waited for release from Thai prisonSociety | 15.01.2019
-
Rusal will change the registration on the RussianBusiness | 05.11.2018
-
Oleg Deripaska won in court Nastya Rybka, Alex Leslie and Alexey NavalnySociety | 09.07.2018
-
Unsinkable Sergei Prikhodko will remain in governmentOfficials | 19.05.2018
-
The Empire of Oleg Deripaska goes to nationalizationBusiness | 21.02.2018
-
Roskomnadzor strikes Instagram and YoutubeInternet | 12.02.2018
-
Oleg Deripaska is collecting RusalBusiness | 19.10.2017
-
Vekselberg and Prokhorov played an aluminum trick on DeripaskaBusiness | 12.10.2017
-
Vekselberg and Prokhorov sold shares of UC Rusal for $315 millionBusiness | 11.10.2017
-
Oleg Deripaska is scared of the strong rubleBusiness | 07.10.2017
-
Billionaires and crisis: how the Forbes list has changed over the yearBusiness | 16.04.2015