Information portal "Oglaskaspb.com" is designed to informing the business community. We can give wide publicity to your story in case other publications are not able to do this on some reasons.

We will bring attention of journalists and officials to your issue that will make your opponents act within the legal field.

You can always contact us via email: oglaskaspb12@gmail.com


A detective outsmarted himself

In the history of an ambiguous LLC “Construction technologies” appeared just another twist. The detective of the Investigative Committee of St. Petersburg, who investigates the case against Director General of the company decided to outsmart both the accused and his own management. Now he has to give explanations why he charged the businessman with the crime that was not related to the previous charges against him and that have been investigated for the past year. 


The investigation against all odds

The actions of Anton Beschmelnitsyn, the detective of the Main Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee baffled us since November 30, 2012. On that day, the Detective made charges for fraud on a large scale (part 4 of article 159 of the Criminal Code). This was an unexpected development as police investigators have explained the applicants five times that a failed attempt to construct an apartment block on Yaroslavsky prospect does not contain evidence of a crime.

According to the detective Anton Beschmelnitsyn who explained his viewpoint in the explanatory part of the charges, the Director General of the LLC “Construction Technologies” Igor Petrov, signed preliminary contracts for the sale of the apartments in the to-be-built apartment block on Yaroslavsky prospect when he still didn’t have the construction permit. Judging from this fact, which is widespread in the construction industry in Russia, the detective made a conclusion that actually a fraud took place.

17 people out of 50, who signed contract with «Construction Technolgies» were acknowledged as victims, although the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region has included their claims into the creditors list in the company’s bankruptcy case; according to the common sense this fact indicates that these people were in the civil-legal relationship with the company.

Detective Beschmelnitsyn was not intimidated by this fact and for a year he was investigating the legal case that initially was complicated and strange.


Reputation damage

On November 30, 2013 the preliminary enquiry, that according to the law should last for one year, has ended. Detective Beschmelnitzyn concluded not to report about the results and to head to the Central Apparatus of the Investigative Committee with a petition to prolong the investigation. It is a known fact, that the Detectives are being penalized when making such a petition. And detective Beschmelnitzyn decided to find the way to prevent this.

Igor Petrov, who during the previous year held a witness status, started to experience difficulties. The detective threatened him with the charge, imprisonment, a prison cell with crooks, issued him every time with five court orders, according to which Petrov had to appear for questioning every second day at 10 am. In the end, Igor Petrov, who has a disability diagnosis was admitted to a hospital with diabetes. Afterwards he sent Petrov a notice about an upcoming charge. And after he left for a vacation after his treatment, the detective sent a police squad that stated his absence.

It seems that Detective Beschmelnitzyn all his powers to make the life of the Director of «Stroitelniye Technologii» unbearable and make him leave the country. Then the only thing left would be to charge him, issue a search warrant and use this as a reason to stop the case. Therefore, the professional reputation of the detective would remain undamaged, because he wouldn’t have to make an application for an extension of the investigation.

However, the Detective made a mistake, because Igor Petrov had no intentions to escape. Moreover, Petrov’s lawyer contacted Detective Beschmelnitzyn in order to make an appointment for the next questioning. The lawyer did not get a direct answer, but within two days (November 18 and 19, 2013) Petrov was preliminary charged, a house arrest order was issued and then an investigation was suspended as the person charged could nowhere to be found.

It can be assumed that at that moment Detective Beschmelnitzyn sighed with relief as the complex case could be put aside, especially when not searching for Igor Petrov.


Searching forever

However, the events didn’t go according to Detective’s plan and now he faces the possibility of being questioned himself; the Director of “Stroitelnie Technologii” who didn’t enjoy his previous role as an accused, took care of that. According to our sources, Igor Petrovs lawyer has already sent claims to prosecutor’s office and the Managing Office of the Main Investigative Committee of St. Petersburg.

Recently peculiar details resurfaced in the document flow, probably as a result of hurried actions. For example, distance charges to Igor Petrov were made on account of “causing damage to property by deception in the absence of signs of theft, causing especially large damage”(paragraph 2, article 165 of Criminal Code). However, the criminal charges were made on account of completely different crime (“fraud committed on a large scale”, part 4, article 159). But Detective Anton Beschmelnitzyn has not assigned an article when he charged Petrov, and when he suspended the preliminary investigation he has not assigned an article too, although it was obligatory.

There is also a significant difference in the severity of articles on which the proceedings were initiated (up to 10 years' imprisonment) and article under with which Petrov was charged (up to 5 years imprisonment). It seems that actually, the inquiry had difficulty in obtaining the evidence against Igor Petrov, therefore the suspension of preliminary charges would have been the most desirable outcome for Detective Beschmelnitzyn.



History of the house at the Yaroslavsky Prospekt, 78-A is a typical example of the impact of the crisis in the construction business in St. Petersburg.

In March 2007, "Construction Technologies" signed about 50 so-called preliminary agreements with citizens to purchase their future apartments. In total, private investors paid about 200 million of rubles. In the spring of 2010, the land on which the unfinished house stood was leased by the famous Finnish construction company "Lemminkainen Rus'.

By the time anything done by the "Construction Technologies" has become an investment fee, which "Lemminkainen" promised to return partly by money (234 million), partially by apartments. These apartments "Construction Technologies" was just going to pay off to private investors who have initiated a criminal case today.

But in February 2011, the Smolny officials decided to amend height restrictions, which led to a reduction of the possible height of a building from 100 meters to 72 - 8 floors! Naturally, the Finns had to cancel the contract with the "Construction Technologies." They promised to pay 234 million rubles in cash before the end of 2012.

But in June 2011, bankruptcy proceedings were filed against «Construction Technologies" at the initiative of one of the investors in the house at the Yaroslavsky Prospekt. The register of creditors included not only investors of the Yaroslavsky Prospekt, but also real estate investors who have concluded similar contracts with the "Construction Technologies" at another site - a building construction located at the "Leninsky Prospekt, a site 5 '. This happened after the former St. Petersburg Governor Valentina Matviyenko deprived the business partner of “Construction Technologies” of its sole asset.

It is the actions of St. Petersburg officials which have made "Construction Technologies" completely insolvent.

Even before the introduction of bankruptcy "Construction Technologies" had assigned their right of claiming the 234 millionth debt at "Lemminkainen" to Company "TehnoBalt." The later has granted its right to sell the claims to "Construction Technologies" to private investors from Yaroslasky Prospekt on very favorable terms. Thus, the actual leaders of the "Construction Technologies" did everything to fulfill its obligations to its citizens to the fullest extent possible.

The majority assigned their right to claim money from the "Construction Technologies" to "TehnoBalt," but some of the former private investors refused from financial claims - they demanded the apartment and called for the police and the courts.




Депутат Соловьев – выходец из порнобизнеса

 Бизнес-досье этого народного избранника выглядит, пожалуй, самым неожиданным. В его биографии присутствует легальное участие в порноиндустрии – он был бизнес-партнеров известно порномагната Сергея Пряннишникова. Все остальное свидетельствует о его стабильном, но скромном по депутатским меркам достатке.


Несостоявшийся кандидат в губернаторы Санкт-Петербурга хочет установить родственную связь с Гитлером?

Бывший уполномоченный по правам человека в Петербурге и экс-депутат городского законодательного собрания Игорь Михайлов претендует на наследство умершего офицера, используя сомнительные документы и лжесвидетелей. Об этом рассказывает участник судебного процесса адвокат Сергей Сомов.


Страховые мошенники перезагрузились

В бизнес автострахования Петербурга пришла беда, которую не ждали, — новая схема воровства, где классические угонщики уже ни при чем. Несмотря на заявление об угоне 24 марта нового «Хендэ Соляриса», в Адмиралтейском районе не спешат с возбуждением уголовного дела. В перспективе потерпевшая вряд ли получит страховку в «РЕСО».


Морские лоцманы пожаловались на Росморпорт прокурору

ФГУП «Росморпорт» издал ряд документов, ухудшающих условия организации и оплаты труда лоцманов и грубо нарушающих российское трудовое законодательство и приказы Минтранса. Профсоюзная организация «Морские лоцманы Санкт-Петербурга» обратилась с жалобой в транспортную прокуратуру и Государственную инспекцию труда. Сотрудники последней передали редакции полный текст документа, где подробно описаны допущенные Росморпортом нарушения.