RSS
Логотип
Баннер в шапке 1
Баннер в шапке 2

Content

Biography

2024: Receiving a prison term for fraud with state subsidies for the production of antiseptics

On October 1, 2024, the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the verdict of the former heads of NPK Spektr LLC Roman and Natalya Tsedov for causing damage to the Krasnodar Territory Industry Development Fund in the amount of ₽10 million. The Tsedov spouses were found guilty of fraud with state subsidies allocated for the production of antiseptics during the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Kommersant, Roman Tsedov, who served as executive director of the Spektr NPK, was sentenced to one year and nine months of forced labor with a deduction of 10% of wages to state income. His ex-wife Natalya Tsedova, who was the CEO of the company, received a suspended sentence.

Ex-leaders of the NPK "Spectrum" received prison sentences for fraud with state subsidies for antiseptics

According to the case file, at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, the Tsedov spouses organized the receipt of a preferential loan from the Industrial Development Fund of the Krasnodar Territory to organize the production of antiseptics in the city of Goryachiy Klyuch. To obtain a loan, they provided forged documents, hiding the presence of overdue debts to counterparties.

Roman Tsedov pleaded guilty, explaining his actions by his desire to save production in the context of the economic crisis caused by the pandemic. He claimed that all the funds received were aimed at creating the production of antiseptics. Natalia Tsedova, in turn, denied her guilt, declaring the nominal nature of her position in the company.

Despite the start of production of antiseptics, demand for these products soon fell sharply, which led to the inability of NPK Spektr to return the loan. After identifying forged documents in the company's application, a criminal case was opened.

Natalya Tsedova said that the damage to the fund was not caused, since the loan debt was collected from her, her ex-husband and Spektr. However, the court found the evidence of guilt of the accused sufficient to convict.[1]

Notes