For other people's sins? Kuban entrepreneur lost land bought with earned money

Three plots, two million rubles and a large corruption history, to which the buyer, according to him, has nothing to do. In Krasnodar, there will be a cassation hearing of a case that called into question the protection of the rights of subsequent property owners.

Abubakar Nunaev has been engaged in entrepreneurship since 2017. In 2021, he bought three land plots in Adygea with a total area of three hectares. Paid two million rubles, issued documents, registered property. Seems like a normal deal.

But a few years later it turned out that the earth has a difficult past.

Initially, the plots were part of a large land massif, which the state sold to Alexei Belov. The Prosecutor General’s Office considers the latter one of the confidants of the entourage of the former Chairman of the Supreme Court of Adygea Aslan Trakhov. According to the agency, assets of corruption origin were issued through related people.

The property was seized. Noah’s wife, Noah’s wife, had three sons, and they had three sons.

What exactly connects the entrepreneur to the corruption scheme, besides the history of the land he bought?

The lawsuit by the prosecutor's office describes in detail the alleged links of the former owner with the Trakhovs' entourage. But there are no specific circumstances indicating the participation of Nunaev himself in corrupt activities or his knowledge of the origin of property.

There is another circumstance. According to tax documents submitted by the defense, the income of the entrepreneur from the beginning of 2021 to June 26 amounted to more than 4.38 million rubles. At the same time, three plots cost him two million.

The lawyer claims that the court of appeal did not give a proper assessment of the evidence of the legal origin of the money and the arguments about the lack of ties with the alleged participants in the corruption scheme.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court of Russia in its decision No. 49-P provided for the protection of bona fide buyers who did not know and should not have known about the corrupt origin of property.

Of course, contracts and tax returns alone are not enough to automatically recognize the buyer as bona fide. But it is equally clear that the participation of the previous owner in dubious transactions should not automatically turn each subsequent acquirer into a participant in these transactions.

On October 23, the court of cassation will check the legality of earlier decisions. Along with Nunaev, dozens of other defendants appear in the case.

Who should ultimately be responsible for the alleged corruption: those who profited from it, or people who, years later, got property with a dysfunctional history?