Children's Medical Center of the Office of the President of the Russian Federation

2024: The case of the protracted reconstruction of the medical center: The court recovered 2.7 billion rubles from the contractors

On October 3, 2024, the Dzerzhinsky District Court of St. Petersburg ruled to recover ₽2,7 billion in favor of managing the affairs of the President of Russia in the case of the protracted reconstruction of the building of the medical center in Moscow. The reason for the claim was the contractor's failure to fulfill contractual obligations to restore the facility.

According to the 78.ru, the court satisfied the claim of the presidential administration against a group of defendants, including Igor Bondar, Sergei Podstreshny, Dmitry Martynov, Sergei Kuznetsov, Olesya Dyatlova, as well as the heirs of Vladislav Leshchevsky - Vladislav and Lydia Leshchevsky.

𝓲

Freepik

According to the case file, the contract for the reconstruction of the building of the FSU "PKD" (FSBI "DMC") in Moscow was concluded in September 2009. The work was supposed to be completed by December 2011, but the term was repeatedly extended. By August 2014, construction was still not completed, which led to a significant increase in the cost of the project and the need for additional funding from the reserve fund of the Russian government.

On the fact of the failure to meet the construction deadlines, a criminal case was initiated under Part 4 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (fraud on an especially large scale), which was subsequently terminated on non-rehabilitating grounds. The defendants made no attempt to prove their innocence.

The court decided to recover from Bondar, Martynov, Kuznetsov, Podstreshny, Leshchevsky and Dyatlova jointly and severally. 2 750 760 756 At the same time, for Leshchevsky and Dyatlova, the limit of the amount of solidarity collection is limited ₽6 900 157.69.

The head of the joint press service of the city courts of St. Petersburg, Daria Lebedeva, noted that the civil claim was initially filed in the framework of a criminal case and was subject to consideration in its context if the proceedings on it had not been terminated.^[1]

Notes