Interaction with lawyer
Interaction with lawyerIn autumn 2009, a citizen of Germany Maslovskaya OE the detective told the following story. Her mother lived alone in her Moscow apartment. Maslovskaya mother regularly called from abroad, its contents are sent to the small amount of money. The cash assistance was not so very large, but it is sufficient to cause a feeling of respect for the majority of our senior citizens.
Over time, the mother's health was getting worse, and Maslovskaya turned to a distant relative - Matyunin nurse, who agreed to work nurse. Daycare services the client paid regularly through the international payment system Western Union. A year later, his mother died Maslovskaya. The day after the funeral of a client voluntarily handed over the keys to the Matyunin mother's apartment, and left the money to pay for municipal services.
After 2 years Maslovskaya decided to rent an apartment for rent. But to do this, to my surprise, she could not, because the apartment she lived completely unfamiliar people calling themselves the owners of this property. The detective on behalf of the lawyer held a private investigation and found that 2 years ago the apartment was purchased by a new owner through real estate agency. A seller is the same nurse Matyunina that received documents on the property under a contract of annuity.
About an annuity contract the client did not know anything, so the detective suggested that Matyunina taking advantage of the dire state of health of the mother and Maslovskaya by deception and threats of persuading to sign the bonded contract. And that later could not recognize the transaction as null and void, the apartment was resold.
Becoming on the only correct version lawyer, suggesting that the defendant in the court would refer to the forced sale of the apartment to a third party, for example, because of its difficult financial situation, the detective assigned to collect not only the facts of the transaction visibility, but in addition to refute the arguments of the defendant. As a result, the detective was able to collect some evidence:
Neighbors reported that the apartment where his mother lived client, they repeatedly heard swearing and noise like the beating of a man;
With jobs detective received information on the approximate salary nurse Matyunin;
The detective found that the new owner of the apartment has to Goritsky brother Matyunin;
On the telephone switchboard detective reported that Matyunina, acting by proxy landlord, disable access to long distance and international calls;
For registration of the rent contract Matyunina caused the notary to the house, and the notary had brought his car to the future owner of the apartment Goritsky.
Life annuity contract in the Unified State Register of rights to immovable property and transactions with it was not registered.
On the basis of factual information gathered detective, a lawyer, said the following petition before the court: Solicitation of information from the register of the Unified State Register;
Solicitation of information from the employer Matyunin;
About summons for questioning witnesses, the two neighbors and the notary certifies the transaction.
The Court found it appropriate to receive such information, and at the next meeting of its decision to adduce the evidence gathered by a private investigator. They served as a basis a court annuity contract concluded.
On 19 September 2019, the Skolkovo Innovation Centre hosted IP Academy, an international educational conference on intellectual property, where KRIONI detectives delivered a special workshop entitled “How IP agents and detectives collaborate to gather evidence and documentation on the illegal use of trademarks”.[...]