- Статьи
- Society
- The "two-bedroom" trap: the apartment bought from the victim of crooks was returned to the owner
The "two-bedroom" trap: the apartment bought from the victim of crooks was returned to the owner
A Muscovite woman bought an apartment from a resident of the Babushkinsky district of the capital at a market price, in compliance with all formalities, with the participation of several specialists and a representative of the bank, insured the risks, but was left without housing and money, and legally, by court order. The thing is that the seller was under the influence of phone scams at the time of the transaction. She handed over the proceeds from the sale of housing to couriers (they were detained and have already been convicted), and a few days after the real estate sale she went to set fire to the military enlistment office. The prosecutor's office and the Moscow City Court sided with the seller — the transaction was declared invalid, and the buyer was declared an unscrupulous acquirer (court documents are available to the editorial staff). Details of the scandalous story can be found in the Izvestia article.
An almost perfect deal
Nina Ts., a teacher at the capital's university (name changed), found an ad for the sale of a two-bedroom apartment in the Babushkinsky district of the capital for 9.5 million rubles (at prices in the fall of 2022, this was the average market price). I liked the location and the fact that the apartment has had a sole owner for many years. The owner Natalia Ivanova's side was represented by a realtor, Nina also had a specialist in real estate transactions — the reputation of intermediaries is beyond doubt.
— I managed to save a certain amount, a significant part was lent by my family — as a result, I had 7 million rubles of my own funds, — says Nina. — And another 2.2 million was approved by the bank for a mortgage loan application. I had looked through 10 apartments before and decided to stay on this one.
The meeting with the hostess took place on September 13, 2022. Initially, Ivanova made a good impression, provided an exhaustive package of documents and sent additional papers through the realtor in order to minimize possible risks. In particular, Ivanova, at the request of Ts., was additionally provided with a certificate from narcological and neuropsychiatric dispensaries, a certificate from a psychiatrist, a certificate of absence of debt for housing and communal services and other documents.
— The hostess explained to us at a personal meeting that she was selling the apartment, as she plans to move closer to relatives outside the city, wants to buy a house, and even has already found something for herself. Later, when she checked out of the apartment, she immediately registered at a different address — this is reflected in the documents. Her version seemed true—she was a single woman, with no husband or children. We asked for a 300k discount, as the renovation of the apartment left much to be desired, she agreed. Nothing foreshadowed trouble. Everything was going too smoothly.
The transaction was executed with due formalities — all documents were checked by Nina herself, the realtors of each of the parties and representatives of the bank that issued the mortgage loan — and took place on September 23, 2022.
Under the terms of the agreement, Nina deposited 1.45 million rubles in cash in a safe deposit box in Ivanova's presence, and another 50 thousand rubles were transferred to the seller as an advance. On the same day, Ts. signed a mortgage agreement with the bank and a purchase and sale agreement with the hostess in the presence of the realtor and representatives of the bank and transferred another 7.7 million rubles (including borrowed funds) to Ivanova's account. Looking ahead, the fact of the money transfer has never been disputed. A few days later, Ts. received a notification about the registration of the transaction in Rosreestr, and on September 29, the women met again. The former owner of the apartment received the key to the safe deposit box, and in return gave Nina a receipt stating that she had received 9.2 million rubles and had no financial claims against her. The new owner of the property gave the pensioner 10 days to move (until October 4). It seemed like the deal was closed, but the customer never got into her "two-piece".
A sudden blow
On the eve of entering the apartment, Nina contacted Ivanova's realtor and asked about the apartment keys (the woman needed to resolve the issue due to an urgent trip abroad for a relative's funeral). The realtor, on behalf of his client, asked to postpone the key transfer until October 7, allegedly due to the fact that she did not have time to take out her things. But on October 5, Nina Ts. they were invited to the Department of Internal Affairs of the SVAO for a conversation.
Nina found out at the police station that Ivanova had tried to set fire to the military enlistment office on Dmitrovskoye Highway on the day she was supposed to give her the keys. She threw several Molotov cocktails into the building, and the detectives found several more of these "projectiles" in the apartment they had already sold. On the eve of the arson, Ivanova handed over a large sum of money to the couriers of the scammers, who were detained. After the arrest, the investigation was going to seize the apartment, but after providing documents confirming the change of ownership, restrictions were not imposed. However, when choosing a preventive measure for Ivanova, the court placed her under house arrest and designated her as a permanent residence... the sold apartment on Menzhinsky St.. Nina Ts. repeatedly tried to move into the purchased apartment with the police, but Ivanova also called the police and did not open the door.
— I personally submitted an application to the Department of Internal Affairs of the CAO on the fact that they cannot keep a person under house arrest in my apartment, but, unfortunately, it turned out to be fruitless. I was advised to file a lawsuit to evict Ivanova N.A. from the apartment.
The arson story
At the end of June 2023, the Koptevsky District Court of Moscow found Ivanova guilty of setting fire to the Timiryazevsky HVAC during a partial mobilization (the action was qualified as hooliganism committed with the use of objects used as weapons by a group of persons by prior agreement) and sentenced her to two years of imprisonment, suspended with a probation period of three years.. It is proved that the woman threw one molotov cocktail at the HVAC building and tried to throw another one, but was stopped by police officers. However, the verdict did not enter into legal force, as it was overturned on appeal by the Moscow City Court's judicial board for Criminal Cases. The higher instance pointed out that the circumstances essential for the correct qualification were ignored by the lower court. The materials have been returned to the prosecutor to correct errors, and the case will be reviewed again in August this year. During the consideration of Ivanova's case, a preventive measure was imposed in the form of a ban on certain actions.
An attempt to move in
It is curious that Ivanova is waiting for her fate to be decided again in the sold apartment. After unsuccessful attempts to urge the woman to vacate her home voluntarily, Nina Ts. filed a lawsuit for eviction. The trial in Babushkinsky district court lasted quite a long time.
In her written explanation to the lawsuit, Ivanova indicated that during September, having come under the influence of telephone scammers posing as employees of the FSB and the Central Bank, she systematically transferred personal and credit funds to the accounts indicated by them. Under the threat of alienating the apartment, they persuaded her to sell the property. The woman cashed out the funds received after the transaction and also transferred them to the scammers. Later in court, Ivanova claimed that she did not understand the consequences of her actions, as she was under the influence of deception. She allegedly believed that "the deal was not aimed at selling her apartment, but at taking measures to preserve it." She asked to cancel the deal due to "being at an advanced age, leading a lonely lifestyle, and committing fraudulent acts against her by third parties." The woman also pointed out that the deal was allegedly extremely unprofitable for her — she had nowhere to go, and she considers the price to be undervalued.
But Ts. and the bank's representatives had a different position. "It follows from the evidence presented in the case file that Ivanova N.A. wanted to make the disputed transaction. Such evidence, in particular, is a purchase and sale agreement signed by the parties, a receipt," the bank's representative said in a response to the counterclaim. In addition, neither the representatives of the bank nor the buyer had anything to do with Ivanova's deception.
"Ivanova told the judge that I had to doubt the truth of her own words while talking to her," Nina says. — I'm sorry, but I'm not a lie detector, I'm used to trusting people.
On May 2, 2024, the Babushkinsky District Court issued a decision to satisfy Nina Ts's claims. and he ordered Ivanov to transfer the apartment according to the act of acceptance and transfer. But the pensioner did not give up.
On the arsonist's side
The prosecutor's office unexpectedly took Ivanova's side, asking the Moscow City Court to reverse the decision of the first instance. In its ruling, the Moscow City Court's Board of Civil Cases indicated that Ivanova's lack of intentions to sell her apartment, which is her only home, should be considered the basis for canceling the deal.
"The contested contract was concluded and signed by her under the influence of deception and delusion; throughout the time before the conclusion of the contested contract, during the period of embezzlement of her funds, Ivanov N.A. was subjected to serious psychological pressure: calls from fraudsters who posed as employees of the Central Bank, the FSB," the definition says.
The court in its decision pointed out that Ivanova's "delusion" was not obvious to Nina Ts. and the representative of the bank, confirmed that they acted "with the usual prudence." The decision also recognized that the housing was sold at a market price and that the buyer carefully examined the apartment, met with the seller and inquired about the circumstances of the sale of housing. The court called the verdicts against the couriers to whom Ivanova transferred all the proceeds prejudicial to a civil dispute, "since they confirm the fact of fraudulent actions with psychological pressure." However, the court's decision did not resolve the issue of restitution of the money paid for the apartment to Nina Ts. and the bank that issued the mortgage loan.
Thus, a sane and capable woman (the examinations confirmed this), who received money from the sale of her apartment and handed it over to the criminals, managed to keep the actually sold housing. Izvestia sent a request to the Prosecutor General's Office with a request to clarify the position of the Babushkin interdistrict Prosecutor's Office.
"This situation has another consequence — the court decision forms a practice in which a person who has caused material damage to an innocent person and committed an encroachment on institutions protected by criminal law is not actually responsible for his actions, hiding behind the fact that he was misled," lawyer Ekaterina Krasnova, representing Izvestia, told Izvestia. interests of Ts.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
