Deferred response: the acquittal in the Senezh case was replaced by six years in a penal colony

The owners of the Senezh Group of companies, Vladimir and Elena Maksimov, found themselves at the center of a criminal case on alleged fraud involving shares of a former partner. Four years ago, the court fully acquitted them, but after the cancellation of this decision, the proceedings were held in a different composition. Now the verdict may affect the ownership structure of one of the largest Russian manufacturers of wood protection products. The details of the high—profile case are in the Izvestia material.

An unexpected verdict

The Tushinsky court re—examined the case of Vladimir and Elena Maksimov, co-owners of Senezh Group of Companies, for almost a year and a half - the first trial took about the same amount of time. Hoping to hear an acquittal verdict again, the defendants calmly came to the announcement of the decision, without even taking with them the things they might need in the detention center.

However, after a few minutes it became clear that the story of four years ago would not repeat itself. If in 2022 the district court acquitted the Maksimovs for lack of corpus delicti, this time it fully agreed with the prosecution's position.

Vladimir and Elena Maksimova were found guilty of fraud on a particularly large scale and received six years in prison. They were taken into custody right in the courtroom. In addition, the claim filed in the case in the amount of 114 million rubles was satisfied.

What were the Maximovs accused of?

The events described in the case file relate to the period 2014-2018. At that time, according to investigators, Elena Maksimova, "having entered into a criminal conspiracy" with her husband, developed and implemented a criminal plan, the investigation insists.

According to the prosecution, the scheme consisted of the following: first, Alexey Knekov, the former owner of Senezh, was illegally charged a debt to the holding in the amount of 68.6 million rubles, and then, under the pretext of paying it back, the business partner was deprived of a 33.3% stake in Senezh Distribution, Senezh Preparations, and Senezh.-Logistics", "Senezh-Cargo" and "Sofitext". It was according to Knekov's statement that a criminal case was initiated, and the businessman himself received the status of a victim.

As follows from the investigation materials, the Maksimovs took advantage of the peculiarities of profit distribution between the co-owners of the holding. For several years, the payments were processed as short-term loans. The investigation believes that the Maksimovs gave Knekov more than 50.1 million rubles from Senezh Distribution LLC in the period from March 25, 2011 to December 24, 2013 for debt owed to the company, although in fact these funds were legitimate dividends.

According to investigators, it was the attempt to return these funds and the interest accrued on them, including the actions of Vladimir Maksimov as a guarantor, that became the basis for accusing the spouses of fraud. In 2022, the Maximovs were acquitted by the district court. Then this decision was supported by the Moscow City Court, but on July 30, 2024, the Second Court of Cassation overturned it and sent the case for a new hearing.

Vladimir and Elena Maksimova did not admit guilt throughout the investigation and the trial. Their lawyers drew the court's attention to the fact that the demands of the owners of Senezh to repay the debt had previously been recognized as legitimate by the Moscow City Court and the Supreme Court. Only after that, Alexey Knekov's shares in the holding companies were arrested, and after his bankruptcy in December 2018, the securities officially passed to the Maksimovs.

Senezh Group of Companies is one of the largest Russian manufacturers of paint and varnish materials, wood processing and protection products. The holding includes its own microbiological and chemical laboratories, as well as production sites.

In 2018, a corporate conflict began between the co—owners of the company, Alexey Knekov and the Maximovs. The parties accused each other of various crimes. In 2024, Knekov was found guilty of embezzling 139 million rubles from Senezh's accounts and the subsequent laundering of these funds. The Khoroshevsky court sentenced him in absentia to eight and a half years in a penal colony, and his wife, whom the prosecution considered a participant in the scheme, received a year less.

The verdict was passed in absentia, as the Knekovs disappeared before the end of the trial. Later it became known that they moved to the USA, where the former owner of Senezh committed suicide.

A high-profile case

Acquittals in the Russian judicial system are much less common than convictions, and the situation when a guilty verdict is passed after such a decision is overturned can be called exceptional, said Anton Pivovarov, a lawyer at the Moscow SED LEX Bar Association.

"This is usually due to the fact that a higher court finds significant violations of the criminal procedure law or errors in evaluating evidence and sends the case for a new hearing," he told Izvestia.

By itself, the transition from acquittal to conviction looks resonant, but from the point of view of procedure it is quite possible, Anton Pivovarov emphasized.

"If the acquittal was overturned by a higher authority, and the case was re—sent for consideration, the court in a different composition re—evaluates all the evidence," he noted. — This is the peculiarity of such situations: after the cancellation of the previous decision, the conclusions on the same materials may change.

A guilty verdict is possible if the grounds for considering the case remain and the statute of limitations has not expired, the expert added. According to him, the consideration of the case increases the requirements for the quality of evidence, as over time it becomes more difficult to work with witnesses, documents and other materials. That is why such cases require particularly careful review when considered in the appellate and cassation instances.

Viktor Terskikh, a lawyer and owner of the Terskikh Law Center, stressed that the cancellation of the acquittal meant that the case could be retried. According to him, the outcome of such proceedings may be different, including a guilty verdict.