As a result of the audit of the documentation in our client’s company, serious financial irregularities were revealed on the part of former employees who previously held senior positions. In one of the cases of violations, it was established that the former deputy general director of the company, while working in the company, created a legal entity. With the assistance of the former chief accountant, he organized a payment from the company to the account of the legal entity controlled by him for allegedly performed work on the preparation of a technical report for a third-party organization, for which a contract for these works was placed in the company’s accounting statements. After identifying this violation, the company applied to the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region with a claim to invalidate this contract and return the amount paid under it to the company.
As objections to the claims, the defendant – the legal entity controlled by the former deputy director – referred to the fact that the performance of the work took place, was carried out by the deputy director himself personally, was confirmed by documents, and is subject to payment. The examination appointed at our request confirmed the fact of falsification of the contract. We also presented evidence that the report was actually prepared by other specialists of our company, and the deputy director, although he was involved in the preparation of the report, did so within the scope of his official duties in the company. Since the deputy director was directly interested in receiving the disputed payments from the company, the fact that he signed the supporting documents on behalf of the company and his testimony are not of evidentiary value.
The arbitration court assessed all this evidence and recognized the disputed contract as invalid, the payment under this fictitious contract was returned to the company. The defendant’s appeal of the decision to the Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal did not change anything. The appellate court supported the arguments of the court of first instance and upheld the decision.
The defendant did not file any further appeals of the judicial decisions.
