The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation is asking the Goryachy Klyuch City Court in the Krasnodar Territory to recover from businessmen Vigen Sarkisyan and Alexey Rybakov, as well as their relatives jointly and severally, 5.7 billion rubles as compensation for damage caused by the illegal use of the land plots of the former Chkalovsky state farm in Sochi for residential development.
Of these, 4.7 billion goes to the federal budget and another billion to the municipal budget “to compensate for damage caused to soils and soil invertebrates as objects of environmental protection.”
Information on how to file a lawsuit appeared on the court’s website on August 28. Izvestia managed to learn the content of the lawsuit signed by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Igor Tkachev.
The supervisory body demands the seizure of all movable and immovable property of the 57-year-old man Vigen Sargsyanhis 33-year-old nephew Samvel Sarkisov52 years old Alexey Rybakov40 years Aliya Rybakovaas well as 82 years old. Margarita Rybakova.
In January 2024, the Adler Court of Sochi, at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office, annulled the lease agreements for 617 hectares of land of the former Chkalovsky state farm, which was used for development.
In 1947, by decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, the Khostinsky greenhouse farm was established on the Black Sea coast to supply the resorts of Sochi with vegetables and fruits. It included the Chkalovsky state farm, which included, among other things, a “state variety testing site for citrus and other subtropical crops.”
How Sochi’s farmland ended up being urbanized
According to the law, during the privatisation process in the 1990s, these enterprises could be reorganised only by decision of the State Property Committee with the consent of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, while maintaining the specialisation of production. But this procedure was not followed. In 1992, the Chkalovsky state farm was transformed into JSC Kudepsta (later JSC Agrofirm Kudepsta).
This company, by decision of the local authorities, received 709 hectares of agricultural land in a specially protected natural area for indefinite use.
“Insignificant decisions by local authorities led to the subsequent illegal use of the land,” – emphasized in the materials of the Attorney General’s Office.
In 2003, control of Agrofirm Kudepsta JSC (75.4% of shares) passed to a group of persons controlled by the Rybakov family. According to the Prosecutor General’s Office, the new owners, contrary to the Constitution, land and environmental legislation, “with the illegal assistance of officials of the territorial division of the Federal Property Management Agency, began to withdraw particularly valuable land from agricultural use by dividing it up and changing its legal status for the subsequent construction of real estate on it and illicit enrichment.”
It took several years to implement the entire plan. In 2012, OJSC Agrofirm Kudepsta went bankrupt and was liquidated. And after that, several residential complexes were built on agricultural land.
According to the prosecution, the Russian Federation was thus deprived of the opportunity to use the land. “To meet the needs of society, carry out selection and improvement work, produce high-quality seed varieties and planting material to ensure national interests in the field of food security.”
The damage caused to the state as a result of the construction of the residential complexes “Sea Symphony” and “Sea Symphony – 2” was estimated by the supervisory authority at no less than 1.7 billion rubles. At least another 3 billion rubles are due to damage caused by the construction of apartment buildings on disputed land by the Granit housing cooperative and the Elitar housing cooperative.
In the development zone there was no necessary social infrastructure: a school, a kindergarten, a clinic. To solve this problem, the Rybakovs, according to the documents of the claim, attracted Sargsyan, who “ensured obtaining permits for the construction of multi-apartment residential buildings and approval of territorial planning documentation in the Sochi administration.” As a result, responsibility for the construction of social facilities fell to the city authorities.
According to the prosecution, for this reason Vigen Sargsyan received shares in Rybakov’s companies, which were registered in the name of his nephew Samvel Sarkisov, “who acts as the nominal owner of the assets.” When the territory was ready for development, Sargsyan transferred his controlling shares to the developers.
According to the SPARK database, 57-year-old Sargsyan is now the owner of Prestige-Alfa LLC. The company owns the territory of the New Bavaria brewery, built before the revolution, in the centre of Krasnodar. On one half of the site, where elements of historic buildings have been preserved, there is a Prestige hotel and a restaurant, and on the other half there is a vacant lot surrounded by a fence. The Prestige-Alfa company received this property in 2004. For the past three years it has been trying to free the land from its protected status.
Alexey and Aliya Rybakov are among the managers and co-owners of any legal entity in Russia. Aliya Rybakova is currently on the federal wanted list in a criminal case. Information about her is contained in the search database on the website of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Margarita Rybakova, 82, owns Dubrava LLC with assets worth 52 million rubles. Together with Sarkisyan’s nephew Sarkisov, the elderly woman also owns Citigrad LLC and Unistroy LLC, which are engaged in the development of construction projects and real estate management.
What does a possible arrest mean for real estate buyers?
The provisional measures in the form of seizure of assets, which the court can take, involve their sale at auction to satisfy the obligations unfulfilled by the defendants, explained the managing partner of AVG Legal. Alexei Gavrishev.
According to him, the probable seizure of shares or interests in companies controlled by the defendants actually means the impossibility of selling/transferring shares or making other changes in the company, such as changing directors, but it does not prevent the sale of property of a legal entity. The seizure of the property itself implies that it cannot be alienated.
As for the properties that have already been sold, if they are re-registered, the new owners will have no problems. And in the event of bankruptcy, this property will not be included in the bankruptcy estate.
Buyers of unfinished apartments, in the event of arrest, will have the option of requesting compensation or demanding completion and transfer of the housing. If the company is in a pre-bankrupt state and potentially insufficient assets, then it may be more expedient to demand the transfer of the housing, in the hope that an investor will appear who will take on this role, the lawyer explained.
