Any adult and well-to-do man once begins to think about a follower. Thus a dream of a son arises, a dream of an heir, who could accept experience gained by previous generations and wisely run family wealth. In this attorney story, based on a real case from my legal practice, search of such an heir proved to be a full detective story. The names of the main characters are surely changed.

Once, an entrepreneur named Benjamin referred to me. According to his words he suffered from uneven character of his common-law wife – Daria. The latter gave birth to a baby boy, Benjamin’s son, and, being in after birth depression finished all kind of intercourses with our main character and to crown it all forbade him to see the baby. Benjamin already had had two daughters from previous marriages, but he wanted the son with a special feeling and was happy at hearing about his birth. During Daria’s pregnancy Benjamin took great care about her. At that moment the in love couple lived in two neighboring cottages on the Rublevo – Uspenskoe roadway, planning to live in Daria’s house after the baby birth. They arranged the baby’s room.

Well, everything went fine at first. Daria even SMSed Benjamin from the maternity hospital that she named their son Daniel. Then was a touching meeting after the departure from the maternity hospital – flowers, champagne, camera man, so on. Among those meeting a young mother were Benjamin and Daria’s parents – the baby’s grandmothers and grandfathers.

During this period Benjamin had to devote much of his time to his business, thus he spent a lot of time in business trips. And as a result, Daria’s patience finished. All of a sudden she stopped intercourse with Benjamin and never answered his phone calls. Strange as it may seem, but it coincided with Benjamin’s business bankruptcy and arising financial problems.

Our main character, whose heart was broken and who was depressed, in secret from Daria managed to meet with Daria’s teenage daughter from her previous marriage. And the latter, without mother’s permission showed Daniel’s birth certificate where another man was stated as the baby-boy’s father, Daria’s bodyguard under the surname of Petrov, who had been accompanying Daria for several years. More than that, the baby’s official name, according to the papers, wasn’t Daniel, the name was Alexander!

It was a severe blow for Benjamin!

I should comment on this point and say that according to the Russian Family Code if an officially unmarried woman gives birth to a baby, then on mutual appeal with the baby’s father, without any biological checks, the column “father” is filled with the name of the man who appealed. It was performed by Daria together with Petrov. And Benjamin thus turned out to be without any legal rights on Daniel – Alexander.

It was the story told to me by the disconsolate father, who was at all costs willing to prove his rights on the son.

The first of my questions was why bodyguard Petrov should have appealed as the baby’s father if he had absolutely no relations to this child. Benjamin explained me that Petrov is a silly man, who was secretly in love with his lady – boss, ready to perform any of her requests. And Daria, burning bridges, decided to make use of Petrov to finish their relations with Benjamin and deprive the latter of his rights on the baby.

I prepared corresponding evidence and initiated a legal process on contesting father filing to one of the Moscow courts. Defendants, joined for trial were Daria and Petrov.

Initially the process was a success. We easily proved that Benjamin and Daria used to spend much time together in the period of possible impregnation, submitting materials about mutual trips for vacations. After this we appealed for a DNA test, which could easily and unambiguously give the answer to the court, on the question asked by Benjamin. Daria had ignored court meetings all that time, especially resisting to the baby participating in the DNA expertise, which strengthened our hopes that the truth was with us.

Despite everything the DNA expertise took place. It showed that Benjamin was not the father of Daniil – Alexander. Concomitantly it became known to us that about a month before the court – assigned expertise took place, Daria and Petrov had visited that very same expertise institution without notifying us. According to their preliminary expertise results Petrov was the baby’s father. This circumstance warned Benjamin. He decided that these experts were bribed in advance and thus were involved in conspiracy aimed at depriving him of his only son.

We made another appeal about performing a new DNA expertise in another expertise institution.

The judge, however, decided that the expertise performed was capable and comprehensive evidence on the case matter and stated refusal to our appeal. But we never thought to give up. I prepared a cassation to that decision and the Moscow City Court agreed with my facts, so the case started a new circle of hearing with a new judge.

Benjamin during all this time was totally engulfed by the legal process forgetting about all of his other businesses. He started a full reconnaissance operation designed to find out what was happening in Daria’s country house, recruited people who worked for her (garden man, driver, house keeper, so on). When it all came for a new expertise in the repeated legal process, Benjamin decided to control everything himself. We chose a new expertise institution for the DNA test, stated it in court and the court assigned the expertise in this institution exactly. Benjamin managed to find approaches to the expert conducting the test and bribed him (this is my guess only, and it is not supported by any facts) so as the latter – Attention! – not take any other bribes from the opposite side and perform the expertise honorably and objectively.

When we received the second expertise results, Benjamin’s grief had no limits. The expertise showed that he was not Daniel – Alexander’s father. All of his efforts were in vain. Benjamin was torn apart with despair. Women’s devilry is limitless. Lived with one, got pregnant from the second and as father she stated the third.

We were sitting with Benjamin in my office and I asked him: — “Could this be Petrov?” “Nah, impossible!” – replied my dispirited client. After keeping silent for a moment, the could be father uttered the following phrase: “She went to France 9 months before the baby was born. It seems it was a Frenchman”.



The names of the persons involved have been changed, however, the story is inspired by true events).

Once, a client of mine addressed me. He was an imposing man of oriental origin, a foreign businessman, frequently and long living in Moscow. His name was Ahmed Ahmed. He had rather an unusual problem. The principal formulated the problem about like this:

— A former girlfriend of mine came to me. We never had sexual relations with her, but she delivered a baby! She says the baby is mine!

The girlfriend – a certain citizen Marina S. from the city of Krasnodar – brought with her not only baby, but a statement of claim on alimony. Our businessman was shocked by such events:

— Is it really so, — he was asking me with horror in his eyes, — according to the Russian legislature I will have to support her baby?

I should also say that the pretext of the current story turned to be even more amazing than the news about the baby birth itself. Some time ago Marina S. came to Moscow to conquer the capital. Here she managed to get acquainted with a foreign businessman Ahmed Ahmed. They had dated and lived together for some period of time, though Ahmed already had had a legal wife and another family. Then the idyll finished and Ahmed separated with Marina. But the lady was not satisfied with the current turn of events. She was determined to continue the way of life she got used to during her romantic relations with Ahmed. So, what shall she do? And Marina S. masterminded a really genius plan.

So, first she returns to Krasnodar and changes her surname to Ahmed. I mean to say that she just appeals to authorized bodies to change her surname. According to Russian legislature every citizen has right to do it. With a new passport she returns to Moscow and calls her former lover.

— Dear Ahmed, — Marina says, — I have a very big problem. The thing is that I am suffering from a very rare sexually transmitted disease. The doctor says that I had already been ill when we were close with you. I thought you should be warned.

— Oh no, not this, — exclaims Ahmed. – What a shame on me! What if my family finds this out? My reputation will be damaged! What shall I do?

— Well, if you want, we can address the same doctor that has already helped me, — simply and plainly offers Marina.

Visiting the doctor Ahmed goes through all the examinations possible in nature; — the disease is rare, everyone should be aware of the dangers looming over everybody. Besides everything he gives his sperm tests. After the medical examination Ahmed is found healthy and is said good bye to. A little remark: the hospital doctors were sure they were accepting Mr. Ahmed as sperm donor – a prospective father of a baby and husband of a grief stricken wife Marina who had not been able to become pregnant naturally.

Marina wrote an appeal to the extra – corporal impregnation hospital in advance. It said: “I, Marina Ahmed, and my husband Ahmed Ahmed are willing to have children, but we can not make it naturally, that is why we ask you to help us”. In the hospital Marina explained that her husband was a very busy personality and couldn’t visit a consultation with her, but would only sign the necessary papers. In accordance with the appeal and on legal basis the hospital performs the corresponding operation, after which pregnant Marina Ahmed goes back to the Krasnodar region.

In Krasnodar she delivers a baby boy in due time terms. At this the young mother receives a baby birth certificate where Ahmed Ahmed of course stated as father. How did she do it? According to the legislation the graph “father” is filled with the husband’s surname or with a surname of a man who comes himself to the Registry Office and writes a statement about his paternity. Besides, there is a third variant: the graph “father” can be filled at mother’s desire with her own surname, and name the baby. Marina Ahmed chooses exactly this way: her surname as Ahmed she got in before, and the name by miracle coincided with the name of our businessman. So, thus in the graph “father” we could read “Ahmed Ahmed” – but only it didn’t state about a real personality, but a fictional one.

In about half a year, Marina Ahmed with her son Bogdan – Ahmed is at the door of the “crafty seducer” apartments states about the main aim of her fraud:

— Made me a baby and left! I am suing you, for you to pay alimony!

Marina files an appeal about alimony at once, not about fatherhood determination, — it is a very important moment on which entire of her plan is based upon. A foreigner, perhaps, can think that Marina is entitled to do so, and to keep things within will subdue to pay alimonies. And for the court Marina has papers that look almost as real ones. All the details of this fraud became clear when I made an attorney’s investigation. But chronologically my participation in this story started from this very moment: a newly appeared “father” Ahmed Ahmed addressed to me for help.

And so, the legal process started. At first sight everything is clear for the judge. There is a woman citizen Ahmed, her son Bogdan – Ahmed, who according to the inscription in the birth certificate is foreign citizen Ahmed Ahmed’s son. The woman citizen demands alimony, and it seems that the court has all the rights to satisfy her demands. And so, the judge inquires why the defendant’s side doesn’t demand the exclusion of the fatherhood, which is the crucial evidence of the appealer.

— Your honor, we don’t need to exclude the fatherhood inscription, because woman citizen Ahmed only used the defendant’s surname as surname of the baby’s father, because she was not married to him and the fatherhood recognition statement the defendant of course never wrote, — explained I the intricacies of Marina Ahmed’s strategy. Correspondingly, the fatherhood statement doesn’t have any legal power towards citizen Ahmed Ahmed, that is why we don’t need to exclude it. We were talking about surnames that were formally the same, not more.

This amazing news makes the judge think seriously, but soon after the judge understans elegance of the appealer’s scheme. And Marina with her attorney understands the same. It makes them change their position quickly. They withdraw a claim on alimony and file a new one – this time on fatherhood affiliation. A sudden attack on a foreign citizen Ahmed was not a success, which is why the fortress was decided to be put under siege.

It is then I decided to make an attorney’s investigation and find out all the circumstances of Marina Ahmed’s fraud. I had to understand how the key element of the entire story appeared – an appeal on extra corporal fertilization from the «married couple» of Ahmed. This appeal carried the certificate of marriage requisites between Marina and Ahmed. I even began to worry: could the tricky and dexterous appealer make the miracle and somehow by fraud marry the defendant to her. I sent an attorney’s request to Krasnodar, and received a reply in a time, that there was no marriage certificate with the stated number. This document’s requisites for reasons unknown coincided with the requisites of a document for surname change, given to Marina S. before. After this I applied to the Center of independent judiciary expertise, asking my client to give his signature samples. The Center compared and analyzed those samples and the signatures on the appeal for fertilization made by Marina. The results showed that Ahmed’s signature on the appeal for fertilization was faked. And thus, the appeal to the clinic, after which Bogdan-Ahmed was born, had been a fake. Notable that initially Marina intended to even conceal the fact that she became pregnant artificially. It all came evident only after I asked my client to remember all the circumstances of his last intercourse with the former girl-friend. It was then, when my client mentioned a certain hospital and medical analyses. I went to that institution and found out why foreign citizen Ahmed was received and examined.

Noteworthy, that during the process the appealer tried to strengthen her positions by filing a petition on a DNA test conduction to determine the fatherhood. My defendant refused to take part in this, because the fact of being the father biologically was not denied. For us, juridical the most important part of the question from the very beginning.

As soon as we managed to prove that the appeal to the hospital was a fake, the appealer again changed tactics. This time she states that despite she was preparing for extra corporal fertilization, she got pregnant however from citizen Ahmed naturally!

Well, we could not deny close relations between the appealer and the defendant in the past. The question was now to prove that during some short period of time, let’s say between April 4th and 10th 2004, the defendant could not have sexual relation with Marina Ahmed. According to medical documentation Marina got pregnant during this period. To cut the long story short, we needed alibi. Probably it was not a very big thing to secure it, but in this situation Ahmed took a very principal position. My defendant refused to prove that he was not in Moscow during the mentioned above period of time, and he offered me to defend our position otherwise. This is what he said: “I won’t say lies, I was not with this woman, your Russian court must recognize this”.

And the way to do it was found. I invited one of the most prominent Russian specialists on extra corporal fertilization asking him if pregnancy could take place naturally during the procedure of preparation for artificial fertilization. Having studied the medical card, the specialist replied the following: “Since the patient administered medical preparations “Estradiol” and “Divigel” during the womb tube preparation for fertilization, the pregnancy could not take place naturally, because the mentioned above preparations had contraceptive effect”.

The court decision on citizen Marina Ahmed’s appeal stated:

«… the proofs submitted, testify to the fact that Ahmed Bogdan-Ahmed was not born from Ahmed Ahmed, but was born as the result of extra corporal fertilization with the use of biological material, previously obtained from Ahmed Ahmed.

Since Ahmed Ahmed didn’t give consent to artificial fertilization method, then thus Ahmed Bogdan-Ahmed’s origin from Ahmed Ahmed couldn’t be determined on the basis of the court decision, because the baby’s birth from biological material, previously obtained from Ahmed Ahmed happened without consent of the person, becoming the donor of the biological material…

Since the parties concerned were not married, the fatherhood – baby’s origin from a certain person – was not determined during the court session. The court took a decision that total match of the name and surname of defendant Ahmed Ahmed with the name and surname stated in the baby’s birth certificate could not be the basis for satisfying the filed demands, because data was written into the official paper from the baby’s mother words, without any appeals from Ahmed Ahmed”.

That’s the story with the happy end for the defendant. Marina Ahmed was seriously getting ready for her future role as a single-mother. For many months she collected product bills from food stores, receipts of sporting clubs and other papers, testifying that she had joint household with Mr. Ahmed. However her entire dedication and persistence confronted adequate resistance in court.

And to crown it all, despite the defendant’s interests protection, I would not recommend anyone to follow his way. The story is very teaching for the strongest half of the mankind. You should not betray your wife, since as Jvanetsky used to say, one lousy movement and you are a father.



German poet – romanticist Friedrich Shiller has a classic drama with the pathetic name of “Love and insidiousness”. As it often happens it became the basis for plenty of parodies. Let’s say Zoschenko has a series of humorous short plays, where Shiller’s original name is put vise versa. But now and then life creates stories which eclipse any fame of imagination. And my attorney’s experience has one occasion which can serve basis for a play not worse than the Shiller’s one.

Before I start telling the story I would like to express my sympathy to all the main characters of the story. Their names however have been changed to secure ethic norms.

These people by no means can be considered silly and I rather add extravagant. In my opinion only they could find themselves in the events described below.

Well, in 2008 Alexander Pimenov asked me to help him. The client told me that accidentally he learnt about his wife divorcing him without his consent. Alexander was amazed to possible limits. Indeed, can a wife divorce a husband without making him know about it?

To better understand further juridical collisions it is of vital importance to recognize relations character between Alexander and Kristina. He is a clever and energetic young man, building a successful business, used to achieving his aims. And obviously Kristina became one of those aims. Despite the fact that Kristina never felt anything towards the admirer, the latter long and persistently paid his attention to her. At last, in 2002 they registered their marriage. Hardly had that the step been determined by romanticism of the bride. From my point of view this marriage looked like a commercial deal, since Pimenov registered a half of a big land area to his young wife’s name, which he had bought before the marriage. Then he built a big luxurious country house, a half of which went to Kristina. So, in this way right after the marriage she became a rich woman. Alexander helped to Kristina’s parents too. He assisted them in buying a country house in the neighboring compound so as the parents could see their daughter more often. Kristina herself didn’t want to have children for a long time, but in the end Alexander managed to insist on his desire achieving another “aim”. Their son Peter was born.

Going a little further, alongside with telling this story, I would give some thoughts on morale of the current passions as they may be. Personal relations between people are very often more complex than business. This delicate matter is not submitted to methods of corporate management. True family happiness, where mutual love and respect rule, can’t be created via manipulation or pressure, as our main character tried to perform. And to make happiness possible, both spouses’ desires should coincide. Our story is a wonderful illustration of that simple thesis: one wishes very much, another tries to “wish”, but can not manage, and anyway he/she for reasons unknown (in our story material benefit seems the main feature for me) gets married. This model supposes two ways: either a terrible end — separation, or endless terror – living under one roof… Kristina, being a resolute and shrewd lady, already possessing big material assets, decided to divorce at the most convenient moment from her timing point of view.

But back to what Alexander told me. Before divorcing Kristina had not lived in their country house for some time. My client understood that she found another man, but he hoped that Kristina would come back. Hope, as we now know, was futile. But Kristina’s leave is only the beginning of the story.

— I am sure when we lived together she pumped money from me, — continued Alexander. – For example when we are building a house, she says: the designers asked 150 thousand dollars for their services. I give her this money, because she is my wife and I want to trust her and don’t check her. It is after the divorce when I started to analyze everything, compare facts. Let’s say out of those 150 thousand dollars Kristina paid to the designers only 30 thousand, the rest she kept for herself. And it is not the only case, as we may easily guess.

My first assignment in this case was to determine if the marriage had really been turned down. My assistants called Moscow courts where the divorcing procedure belongs territorially to, and where it could be at that moment. And indeed, in one of the courts we found the corresponding decision. The court, on Kristina’s appeal made a judgment by default. This is possible if one of the parties concerned doesn’t come to court, but also doesn’t mind about judgment by default. Kristina hired an attorney, a former judge, who could contrive and find ways to get such a decision. My client’s wife considered herself divorced for several months and didn’t tell anything to Alexander.

When Alexander and I received this information we concluded the following. Kristina intended to acquire on her name some property, exactly a luxurious apartments in the center of Moscow, for the money “saved” during joint household. Whereas she understood that the property would not be submitted to division with her former husband if it was bought after the divorce. We analyzed the situation and my client formulated his initial aim: “I want the question about turning down our marriage should be settled taking into account my opinion, not behind my back. As for this judgment by default, I want it cancelled”, — said Alexander.

This was not a very difficult task. A judgment by default is cancelled if a party, which was absent during its announcement, files disagreement within 10 days since the moment when this situation became known to her. So, despite the fact that the divorce took place in June 2008, and we came to know about it in August, we lodged a complaint within the time framework, set by the law. I stated some reasons in the appeal for cancelling the default judgment: firstly, Alexander was not properly notified about his wife appealing to court, and thus was not able to present in court or send a representative, secondly, the court didn’t settle a number of issues connected to property division and the living place of the son who is not come-of-age.

The judge, turning down the marriage, had to cancel his decision and set a new hearing. At this point Alexander clears our task: we are not simply turning down the divorce, we are dragging out and protracting the process as long, as possible. Because according to his “intelligence tips” Kristina has already entered a big deal on buying an apartment, of course, on his money. Pimenov wanted this deal to be finished with Kristina still being his wife. We managed this too. The process protraction in the interests of our client was a success.

A peculiar record was set: a simple divorce appeal, without any difficult argument about children and property division, took us nine months. Of course this time encompassed several appeals and reconsiderations. But how was it all done?

When I began to study materials on the marriage dismissal, performed during the first judgment by default, I found an interesting detail. The marriage certificate added to the appeal, stated that to the wife, i.e. Kristina Panova, in 2002 the surname of Pimenova was given. It means that Kristina took the surname of her husband in the order, determined by the Federal law on “Citizen Status”. But the appeal on the marriage dismissal itself was signed by woman citizen Panova. Kristina, thus continued to use her maiden surname. But according to the provision of the law about “Passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation”, after marriage citizen Panova was committed to change her passport for a new one within 30 days. According to the same law, the passport is the main personality identification document, proving his personality on the territory of the Russian Federation. The passport that is not changed in due order and in due time shall be considered invalid.

Under this assumption I made a home preparation. One first day of the reconsidering hearing on the marriage dismissal of Alexander and Kristina I submitted a petition on leaving her appeal without consideration. My petition was based on the fact that the appeal was signed by an unidentified person, because Kristina performed with an invalid passport while filing an appeal.

To be quite frank it was bluffing. The judge however was conquered: being deeply astonished he read the law about passports several times and… satisfied my petition. Panova’s appeal was left without consideration. There was no limit to indignation of Panova’s legal advisor, who considered himself to be capable of “settling issues” – it had no effect. Former judges very often lose the sense of reality, keeping with in the court room with them their previous manners.

Precious time was won. The process then became all a mess and confusion. A new appeal of Panova’s legal advisor cancelled the judge’s decision on leaving the appeal without consideration. Then the judge considered it possible to dismiss the marriage setting a date of the past, and putting an incorrect date. We again petitioned this decision and the divorce is again cancelled. In the end, only in January 2009, in the court of second instance the final decision is performed – the marriage is dismissed. My client’s task to drag the process was done successfully. And, by the way, exactly during this period Kristina finishes her deal on acquiring an apartment, becoming an owner.

It is worth saying that there is a provision in the law which says that during property division of the spouses it is taken into consideration whether they have lived or not together at the moment of buying property. If actual relations ceased before acquiring disputable property, it can be found not submitted to division. Of course I knew about this provision, but our task was to drag and prolong the process to achieve at least some strongest suit cards for further appeals. By dragging the process we received new arguments just in case Kristina decided to refuse dividing property legally.

During the whole litigation period Alexander used to tell me in details about his life, about Kristina’s treasons. According to his words he forgave her because he hoped she would finish being “racy”, — in the end they had had a uniting baby. But gradually he became to look more closely at her adventures. It turned out that Kristina continued to date with her friend from the studentship times Klim Kornev. Kornev is a successful banker, who has been in love with that fatal woman; despite she got married. And the first Alexander’s version added up to that Kristina left him for that man.

To be just I should state that Alexander never limited himself in pleasures as well, allowing himself to be fond of other women. I remember his monologue in my study: — “I know for sure betrayals are possible in marriages, the main idea is to come back to the family. I don’t mind my wife having sexual relations with someone, if she comes back to the family afterwards”. To my mind Kristina and Alexander were two parts of a one, but Alexander’s “smart theory” on keeping the family never worked out.

With the marriage dismissal, this story stopped for a while. My defendant decided not to force forward the events on property division, possibly still hoping that his wife would come back.

In a while Kristina herself started to appeal on property division, thus, willing to make a full stop in relations with my client. We were ready for such a course of events and reacted by counter appeals demanding to divide property which Kristina acquired in her name by the mentioned above ways. We demanded to arrest her active capital, which was not little, add it to the general property mass to be divided. Though some of our appeals were disadvantageous, even the slightest chance of them being satisfied inflicted additional psychological pressure on our opponents, which was our aim.

One day a telephone in my reception called. The secretary got through to me and told: «A certain Klim Kornev wants to talk to you». It was not at once that I understood who it was. But then I remembered Alexander’s stories.

— Hello! My name is Kornev, — I heard in the receiver. – I would like to discuss one case you are in charge for.

— I have heard your name, — I answered. – I am listening to you.

— You represent interests of Alexander Pimenov. It so happened that we have a mutual debtor. I also suffered heavy property losses from one of our mutual acquaintance. I would like to join our efforts against her.

I jotted down her telephone number, notifying him that I should agree the possibility of our cooperation with Alexander. This news gave Pimenov a pleasant shock:

— Of course, we should meet and talk to him! – he said!

And so, I am talking to Klim. It came clear that during all the marriage years with Alexander Kristina told to Klim that she loved him, and while he was on business trip she accidentally got married, gave birth to a baby occasionally, but it was all nothing, and she would come to Klim soon and they would be happy. Klim waited for her for many years. He did very expensive presents for her, provided with very serious help in building up her own business.

Klim told that after the divorce with Alexander and waiting for a close marriage with Kristina, he presented her with a luxurious jeep BMW X6. He also told that Kristina asked him to make a present for her mother. And so the “groom” is carrying keys from a new “Mercedes” to his prospective mother-in-law. Klim regularly visited Kristina’s parental house: a wonderful situation with a married woman visiting her mother’s house with a lover, and it doesn’t embarrass anyone. The world has gone crazy.

Before the New Year of 2009 Klim and Kristina were planning a trip to Courshevel. They buy tickets, and one week before they visit shops, getting ready for the trip. Kristina buys a collection of clothes worth of half a million rubles. Very expensive, beautiful and… summer clothes. And a couple of days after, sobbing, she calls Klim up and says: “Sorry, I have fallen in love with another man”. And goes to warm countries with her new passion, taking with her all the beautiful things, bought by Klim.

Actually Kristina fleeced both Alexander and Klim, and both worth of more than one million dollars. Because Kornev, besides everything else helped her to become financially independent, arranged a big business for her in which he invested assets from his own company.

My astonishment had no limits when I found out that Kristina left Alexander not for Klim, but she left Alexander and Klim for a third man, named Gosha. Gosha was a doctor and financially compared to our businessmen a man of very modest income: in summer he used winter rubber on his car because he had no money to change it. Kristina marries such a man and gives birth to a baby for him… Alexander and Klim in my opinion will never recover from such a blow.

At some stage I offered to Alexander and Klim to meet and get acquainted.

So we agreed about this unique meeting which took place in my study. Two men meet at the breefing table, a former husband and a former lover, who turned to be united by one lady, and financial losses suffered on her account. On feeling that the atmosphere is rather strained, I took the initiative.

— Gentlemen, there is nothing personal in our meeting. Let’s remember that we have mutual economic interest in the framework of which you could make use of each other, — said I. It was absolute true, because Kornev knew better where Kristina invested Alexander’s money. Going a bit further in my narration I would say that the information exchange allowed us to issue new appeals on property division. And the circumstance that Klim and Alexander allied became a strong psychological blow to Kristina. She could not expect such a turn of events!

To cut it short the first half an hour only I was speaking. But steadily Alexander and Klim started to tell each other about wonderful events from their life and the life of their flame. And here emerges the scene worth of writing down in the annals:

I remember that summer Kristina went to her friend’s wedding – says Alexander.

— No, — makes clear Klim, — we went to a journey, and she never made it to her friend.

— Then she returned, — continues Alexander, — and asked me to give money for a jewelry decoration from Tiffany “Palm”.

— I presented Kristina with Tiffany “Palm”, objects Klim – and then she asked me to give money for Tiffany “Anchor”.

— Tiffany «Anchor» was my present… – slowly announces Alexander.

And at this very moment they simultaneously raise their hands and clasp giving five to each other. After that a typical dialogue of two war – veterans begins: “Do you remember we destroyed tanks on the Vistula? And what about that episode?” They spend in my study one hour, then goes one more. I didn’t know how to interrupt this happy reunion meeting. In the end I politely ask them to leave me.

They come to the nearest restaurant and stay there 3 hours more, continuing their unique dialogue of two outwitted men fallen in love. Since that moment with the agreement of Alexander Kornev became my client as well.

I should say a few words about Kristina. I was staring at Alexander and Klim – smart and successful people, and could not understand what kind of personality Kristina was to manipulate such strong men. I made a suggestion that it was impossible to catch those two guys simply playing a certain role, or just showing that she was in love. I came to the conclusion that Kristina lived several lives simultaneously.

Our legal process in the end finished with an amicable agreement. It happened mostly because the previously aggressive legal attorney of Kristina was substituted for a wonderful colleague of mine having enormous life and professional experience. Very quickly we found mutual grounds, afterwards both of us with great difficulty convinced our client to fly the white flag and start to get to an agreement. As a result the country house with the land went to Alexander. Instead he paid a money compensation to Kristina. One apartment went to Kristina. It was much more difficult with Klim. The woman was crying and saying: «I lied to you, I am sorry». And he insisted on her returning money being unable to forgive such a terrible betrayal.

Alexander married a beauty. As for Klim he turned disappointed in women, I hope temporarily, and now suspects everyone: can she be trying to get his millions which he earns more and more? Kristina is living a happy family life with Gosha, who seems to differ advantageously from our heroes despite being inferior in financial income.

We are not to judge actions of these young people, let God judge them. We wish them all the best!



In 2000 the Nagatinski district court of Moscow sentenced citized S. to 7 years of imprisonment for illegal acquisition and storage of drugs in extra large quantities – 18 grams of heroine.

S.’s wife asked me to help.

After studying the current criminal case materials I came to the conclusion that the court’s sentence was illegal. I filed a cassation appeal to the Moscow City court. In my cassation I pointed out some very important circumstances overlooked by the court: S. was a narcotic dependant personality, and he acquired heroine for himself and never intended to sell it. Besides, the case lacked any heroine buyers, and the defendant pleaded not guilty. The Moscow City court criminal cases panel of judges quashed the initial sentence and returned the case for a new legal investigation in a changed court composition, making clear that in the definition that the judicial investigation was not completely and totally done. A number of circumstances remained unascertained and making them clear could be fairly significant.

The Criminal Code article, incriminated to S., contemplates punishment for narcotics storage without aim of selling them up to 3 years of imprisonment, and with the aim of selling them in extra-large amounts from seven to fifteen years of imprisonment. In my opinion, S.’s actions should have been qualified as narcotics storage without the aim of selling them.

S.’s told me that he was suffering from narcotics dependence and being in prison he had a narcotics attack and corporal disturbances because of this.

Then I made an attorney’s request to Prison 48/1 about confirming S.’s asking the prison administration for medical treatment in the prison isolator. The reply said that arrested person S. received medical treatment because of attack. It supported the version that S. was narcotics dependent and needed heroine. An additional expertise had been performed; its results testified that S. administrated narcotics.

The strategy peculiarity in this certain case featured proving that the defendant was a narcotic addict, exactly this made the version about acquiring narcotics with the aim of using it, but not selling, convincing.

The repeated hearing on this case led to re-qualifying S.’s actions from the initial prosecution to a softer one – narcotics storage without the aim of selling them. The court sentenced S. to one year of imprisonment. By that time the defendant had been in custody for one year and, correspondingly, was set free in the court hall.



Great legal processes of the previous years, for example a case on Ann Politkovskaya’s assassination and the attempt on Anatoly Chubais, make the public again and again contemplate if Russia needs peoples’ jury.

Ambiguous attitude to the jury is associated with the fact that courts by jury are not perfect.

Judging with distrust.

Some time ago, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called courts by jury “ineffective”. The Premier doesn’t call to abolish courts by jury, but considers it necessary to move it to the level of federal districts. In Putin’s opinion, the necessity of such a step is determined by the fact that some decisions in regions are taken according to clan and ethnic interests, ignoring the severity of a crime, done by this or that person, itself.

This suggestion seems quite reasonable, however, to evaluate its meaning a more profound insight analysis of the current courts by jury institute condition in Russia should be offered, stressing the issue of its efficiency. We should first of all remember that courts by jury exist not in the framework of abstract juridical system, but in the context of law-applying practice, constructed in Russia in the last two decades. They, in fact, should be compared to professional courts, which make the predominant number of sentences on criminal cases. Is it possible to say that professional courts in Russia work “efficiently”, compared to “inefficient” courts by jury? The “no” answer is obvious. Professional courts in Russia are also far from being perfect. President Dmitry Medvedev recognized public distrust to professional courts, which poses, from his point of view, a fundamental state and society problem as a whole.

Prosecution machine failure.

Let’s have a look at some facts. Medvedev fights with lawlessness in courts and is looking for “mechanisms, allowing correctively and constitutionally control the situation inside courts corporation”. But courts by jury, which can’t be claimed as not trusted by people, already play a real counter power to this lawlessness, yet not perfect.

Courts by jury differ from professional courts. Very often judges, being a part of the state apparatus almost always stay closer to prosecution and from time to time, saying it plain, take care about how to please the execution power, not about law and justice. Nowadays courts by jury feature one among few instruments, challenging prosecuting machine of the Russian jurisdiction.

Sentencing by courts of jury is done by simple people, having no relation to jurisdiction sphere and legislation at all. It is resumed that people, without legal consciousness being overloaded with juridical postulates, will be guided purely by their sound sense, reasonability, just and own assurance of the defendant being guilty or not. That is why the jury is able to take unbiased decisions.

What reforms do judges from the people need?

From my point of view, the court by jury efficiency won’t be achieved by moving them to the federal districts level. I can’t agree with some of my colleagues’ statements who think that transferring courts by jury to the federal level is possible with the use of state-of-the-art technology: today all the courts will be equipped with the system allowing to establish video –conferences with any of the regions.

Taking into account experience of participating in courts by jury as an attorney, I am positive, that interrogating a witness, a defendant, or other participant of a process via a television bridge, will lead to distortion of the real events in minds of the judges, and wrong estimation of evidence, and as a result to a wrong sentence.

Courts by jury problems should be settled. And first of all I suggest amending the acting legislation about acceptance criteria of the jury.

According to the acting legislature a jury member in our country can be any citizen of 25 years, healthy, without any going or debt prison term, his work should have no relation to law enforcing or protecting activity. No other requirements. This is obviously not enough for those who will be thinking about a sentence to another person whose life is at stake. Even in the XIX century, when this establishment was first introduced, a jury member had to comply with many more requirements. For example a property census was established. Already in those times people understood that without such a census the jury panel ranks will be filled with poor, undereducated and not sufficiently developed to carry the specific duties people.

Nowadays it is incorrect and ethically wrong to talk about property census, since the state now guarantees equality of citizens despite of their property status (article 19, Constitution of the Russian Federation). It seems wise to choose jury members with good education, which guarantees more systematic knowledge, skills, developed thinking, ability to make conclusions logically. It means those people, who can make out in the case and rationally, but not emotionally, determine if the defendant is guilty or not.

Jury members are not truants.

Today, the board of people’s judges includes either not working people, or pensioners. It comes out that jury is composed of people with low level of education, significant connection to public opinion and easily affected by emotions.

Despite the fact that the legislator made the jury business stuff a civil duty, it never added to the people’s desire to carry it out. Moreover, no sanctions for refusal exist. Legislature envisages that the employer is to keep the working place for the jury member; it means that the latter can’t be fired from work. But cases with jury members are often discussed in courts rather for a long period of time, and it is not a limit. Of course, the employer would rather pay a fine or not pay it, because the employee will never go and take the jury member duties himself, because no responsibility is envisaged for the refusal.

A problem with two aspects arises. On the one hand, jury member labor payment system should be changed. It should be more adequate towards the issues that the society assigns before him. One the other hand the declarative prescription that jury member duties feature a civil due and an honorable obligation should be made actual. As I.Y.Foinitsky says, in pre-revolutionary Russia jury members treated their jury member duties with a kind of “religious feeling”, understanding their participation importance in performing legal procedures. Today our country can’t boast such an attitude to legislature, and it is wrong. We know that service in the army is a mandatory duty, so why can’t we have a mandatory duty of being a jury member protecting legislature? This question should be transferred from the sphere of theoretical polemics to the sphere of practical legislation. We need a law, according to which every come-of-age citizen of the country with higher education must once in several years perform his duty as a jury member. Besides increasing the courts quality of working, this step will serve the basis for legal values development in the society. People’s legislation modernization, thus, will feature the first authentic remedy against our legal nihilism.



Автор — Константин Рыбалов

В 2015 году использование офшорных схем грозит уголовной ответственностью не только собственникам спрятанного имущества, но и их женам

Весь прошлый год российский бизнес готовился «выйти из тени»: с 1 января 2015 года резиденты, контролирующие офшорные фирмы, должны платить на родине налоги с их доходов. Под действие нормы подпадает, например, такая популярная в нашей стране юрисдикция, как Кипр. Нововведения должны помочь вернуть казне недополученные деньги: теперь вся прибыль офшорной компании, не выплаченная бенефициару с российской пропиской, облагается 20-процентным налогом для юридических лиц и 13-процентным для физических.

За последние годы предприниматели приспособились к условиям ведения бизнеса в нашей стране. Стремясь оградить себя от угрозы рейдерского захвата, они научились прятать активы за границей. Так что фактические бенефициары офшоров, наверняка, давно в курсе нововведений. Чего не скажешь о большинстве их жен.

В процессе жарких обсуждений последствий антиофшорных поправок от экспертов ускользнул важный вопрос — о солидарной ответственности жен за активы, спрятанные от налогов. Ведь любое имущество, приобретенное в период брака (в том числе иностранная компания или доля в ней), — совместная собственность супругов. Как быть женам в такой ситуации? Должны ли они уведомлять налоговые органы о «семейном имуществе»? Закон не поясняет этого, что оставляет простор для злоупотреблений. Проблему усугубляет то, что зачастую мужья переписывают свой бизнес на жен, не ставя их в известность о сути владения. Дамы числятся номинальными владельцами офшорных компаний, не интересуясь ни самим бизнесом, ни законодательством, регулирующим эти вопросы. В моей практике из-за этого часто встречаются забавные случаи. Без преувеличения скажу, что каждая вторая клиентка на вопрос, известно ли ей об имуществе, приобретенном в период брака и находящемся за рубежом, отвечает, что она иногда подписывает какие-то бумаги, которые муж подсовывает, но о чем они — не знает. Предполагает при этом, что на ее имя «что-то» зарегистрировано.

Между тем, по новому законодательству, об активах «на островах» нужно уведомить налоговую в течение 20 дней с момента их приобретения — иначе штраф от 50 000 до 100 000 рублей, в зависимости от доли в компании. Уголовного наказания за попытку скрыть факт владения пока не предусмотрено, однако я бы не стал исключать и этого. Члены Совета Федерации недавно подготовили поправки в Уголовный кодекс РФ, предлагающие дополнить 199-ю статью (уклонение от уплаты налогов) новыми обстоятельствами, при которых ответственность будет автоматически ужесточаться. За использование офшорных схем, фирм-однодневок и внутрихолдинговых цен наказание будет таким же, как за уклонение от уплаты налогов в особо крупном размере, то есть — лишение свободы на срок до шести лет.

Как сохранить собственность вне сферы интересов российских налоговиков и избежать ответственности? Я бы предложил такое решение: взять и вывести в офшор супругу. То есть переписать на жену все активы в тот момент, когда она постоянно находится за пределами России более 183 дней — после этого срока она перестает быть налоговым резидентом РФ. Тогда супруга не будет обязана уведомлять налоговые органы России об имуществе. Кроме того, можно посоветовать заключить брачный договор в юрисдикции другого государства, гарантирующий права мужа на случай распада семьи. С российским контрактом мужчина не сможет претендовать на свою долю в совместно нажитом зарубежном имуществе.

Впрочем, государство пока плохо продумало, как оно будет добывать информацию об иностранных активах граждан. Здесь не так много вариантов. Либо отталкиваться от чистосердечных признаний самих собственников, либо полагаться на обмен информацией с налоговыми органами государств, где у России заключены соответствующие соглашения. Например, Кипр, Люксембург, Сингапур. Иностранных юрисдикций, где финансовая отчетность не предоставляется, или тех, что не обмениваются данными о налогах с Россией, большинство: Багамы, Виргинские острова, Белиз, Сейшелы. Каким образом доставать информацию о неплательщиках налогов оттуда, неясно.



Доклад о пытках повредил репутации ЦРУ

Применение ЦРУ пыток нарушило естественные права заключенных и повредило репутации ведомства, считают российские юристы, которые прокомментировали РИА Новости обнародование в сенате США во вторник материалов по жестокому обращению ЦРУ с заключенными.

Комитет сената по разведке обнародовал во вторник более 500 страниц из доклада, который насчитывает 6 тысяч страниц. В нем сообщается о ряде злоупотреблений в ЦРУ во времена президента Джорджа Буша-младшего, включая пытки, дезинформацию властей и общества, а также незаконное задержание не менее чем 26 человек по подозрению в терроризме. В документе содержится информация про так называемую пытку водой, имитирующую утопление, лишение сна, принудительное кормление и другие жестокие методы допросов.

Адвокат Константин Рыбалов назвал применение насилия, какими бы целями его не пытались оправдать, «недопустимым».

«Пытки недопустимы в принципе. Каким бы образом не пытались их оправдать, они нарушают естественные права человека. В физическом смысле никто не способен сопротивляться пыткам, под давлением человек может признать, что угодно», — заявил адвокат.

Адвокат Анатолий Кучерена подчеркнул, что применение насилия нарушает конституционные права человека. Он также выразил сожаление, что с момента пыток до обнародования доклада прошло столько времени, а также заявил, что доклад повредил репутации ведомства.

«Практика применения чрезмерной силы и нарушение конституционных прав — это серьезная проблема. Об этом говорят сенаторы с высоких трибун. Плохо, что столько времени прошло с момента пыток. Применение недозволенных методов сотрудниками ЦРУ нанесло ущерб не только правам людей, но и репутации ведомства. Если говорить о самом докладе, то те доказательства, которые были получены в ходе пыток, направлены на то, чтобы оправдать действия сотрудников ЦРУ, но являются ничтожными», — сказал Кучерена РИА Новости.

Юрист Владимир Ординарцев счел обсуждение доклада поспешным. «Я против насильственных методов, но рамки дозволенного устанавливаются законодателем. Конгресс США еще не издал никакого документа на этот счет, который можно было бы обсуждать. Поэтому на настоящий момент говорить об этом преждевременно», — отметил он.

РИА Новости



Автор — Константин Рыбалов

> роцессы последних лет, такие, как дела об убийстве Анны Политковской или покушении на жизнь Анатолия Чубайса, заставляют публику вновь и вновь задаваться вопросом: нужны ли России народные судьи?

Неоднозначное отношение к ним связано с объективными причинами — суд присяжных несовершенен.


Некоторое время назад председатель правительства Владимир Путин назвал его «неэффективным». Премьер не призывает к отказу от института суда присяжных как тлеего на уровень федеральных округов. По мнению Путино что некоторые решения в регионах принимаются с учетом клановых и этнических интересов, а не «исходя из тяжести содеянного тем или иным лицом».

Это предложение выглядит вполне разумным, однако, для того чтобы оценить его значение, следует предложить более глубокий анализ нынешнего состояния института суда присяжных в России, сделав акцент на проблеме его эффективности. Прежде всего нужно помнить, что суды присяжных существуют не в рамках абстрактной юридической системы, а в контексте правоприменительной практики, сложившейся в России в последние два десятилетия. Их, таким образом, уместно сравнивать с профессиональными судами, которые выносят подавляющее большинство приговоров по уголовным делам. Можем ли мы говорить о том, что такие профессиональные судфф «неэффективных» присяжных? Очевидно, что нет. Профессиональный суд в России также далек от совершенства. Президент Дмитрий Медведев признал существование в стране всеобщего недоверия и неуважения граждан к профессиональному суду, что является, по его мнению, фундаментальной проблемой государства и общества в целом.

Сбой в обвинительной машине

Посмотрим на факты. Медведев борется с судебным произволом и уже ищет «механизмы, позволяющие корректными, конституционными способами контролировать ситуацию внутри судебной корпорации». Но суд присяжных, в отношении которого, кстати, было бы нелепо говорить о недоверии со стороны граждан, уже выступает в виде реального, хотя и несовершенного противовеса этому произволу.

Суд присяжных отличается от профессионального тем, что профессиональные судьи, в силу принадлежности к государственному аппарату, почти всегда остаются ближе к стороне обвинения и зачастую, скажем прямо, заботятся не о законе и справедливости, а о том, чтобы угодить исполнительной власти. На сегодняшний день суд присяжных является одним из немногих инструментов, противопоставленных обвинительной машине российского правосудия.

Вынесение вердикта судом присяжных возлагается на обычных людей, не имеющих никакого отношения к сфере правосудия и юриспруденции в целом. Резюмируется, что граждане, правосознание которых не отягощено юридическими постулатами, будут руководствоваться исключительно соображениями совести, справедливости и собственной убежденности в виновности либо невиновности подсудимого, поэтому именно они способны на принятие действительно беспристрастных решений.

> >

Какие реформы нужны судьям из народа?

Исходя из опыта участия в судебных процессах с присяжными заседателями в качестве защитника, я убежден, что допрос свидетеля, подсудимого, иного участника процесса посредством телемоста приведет к искажению представления судей об обстоятельствах рассмавельств и, как следствие, к неверному приговору.

При этом проблемы суда присяжных следует решать. И в первую очередь я предлагаю внести в действующее законодательство поправки относительно критериев отбора в присяжные заседатели.

Согласно действующему законодательству присяжным в нашей стране может быть любой гражданин, достигший 25 лет, дееспособный, с отсутствием неснятой или непогашенной судимости, род его занятий не должен быть связан с правоохранительной деятельностью. Других требований нет. Этого явно недостаточно для того, кто будет выносить вердикт, касающийся жизни другого человека. Даже в XIX веке, когда в Российской империи только учреждался этот институт, к присяжному предъявлял Нся имущественный ценз. Уже тогда понимали, что без установления такового в присяжные будут поступать бедные, не имеющие образования и не достаточно развитые для исполнения своих обязанностей лица.

Сейчас об имущественном цензе говорить неэтично и неправильно, теперь государство гарантирует равенство граждан независимо от их имущественного положения (статья 19 Конституции РФ). Вместе с тем представляется разумным отбирать в присяжные людей, получивших хорошее образование, а значит, обладающих более систематизированными знаниями, практическими навыками, развитым мышлением, умением грамотно строить умозаключения. То есть тех, кто сможет разобраться в деле и определить виновность или невиновность подсудимого, воспринимая информацию рационально, а не эмоционально.

Сегодня в состав ковхе граждане, либо пенсионеры. Получается, что присяжными являются люди с невысоким уровнем грамотности, значительной приверженностью к общественному мнению, легко поддающиеся воздействию эмоций.

Несмотря на то, что законодатель установил исполнение обязанности присяжного гражданским долгом, желания его нести у граждан не прибавилось. Тем более что никаких санкций за отказ от его несения не предусмотрено. Законодательство предусматривает, что работодатель обязан сохранить за своим работником, исполняющим обязанности присяжного заседателя, рабочее место, то есть уволить его нельзя. Но дела с участием присяжных зачастую рассматриваются довольно долго, иногда полгода, и это не предел. Конечно, ратие платить, потому что работник сам не пойдет исполнять обязанности присяжного. Ведь, как уже упоминалось, ответственности за это не предусмотрено.

Возникает проблема, имеющая два аспекта. С одной стороны, нужно менять систему оплаты труда присяжных, которая должна быть более адекватной тем задачам, которые ставит перед ними общество. С другой, необходимо сделать реально действующим декларативное предписание о том, что исполнение обязанностей присяжного является гражданским долгом и почетной обязанностью. По свидетельству И.Я. Фойницкого, в дореволюционной России присяжные заседатели отнноувством», сознавая важность своего участия в отправлении правосудия. Сегодня наша страна не может похвастаться подобным отношением к правосудию, и это неправильно. Мы знаем, что служба в армии является воинской обязанностью, так почему же у нас не должно быть аналогичной обязанности по защите правосудия? Вопрос об этом следует перенести из сфмиского законотворчества. Нам нужен закон, согласно которому каждый совершеннолетний гражданин страны с высшим образованием должен один раз в течение нескольких лет выполнить свой гражданский долг в качестве присяжного заседателя. Помимо повышения качества работы судов эта мера станет фундаментом для развития правовых ценностей в обществе. Модернизация народного правосудия, таким образом, станет первым подлинным противоядием против нашего правового нигилизма.

Российская газета