“Mommy's Lawyers": court postpones consideration of Gulliver owner's lawsuit against ARMA due to unpreparedness of agency's lawyers
Kyiv • UNN
Kyiv's Shevchenkivskyi Court postponed consideration of Viktor Polishchuk's lawsuit against the ARMA due to the lawyers' inability to confirm their powers. The lawsuit concerns the protection of honor and dignity after accusations of ties to the Kremlin.
The Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv has postponed to November 14 the consideration of the lawsuit filed by Viktor Polishchuk, owner of the Gulliver business complex, to protect his honor, dignity and business reputation against the Asset Recovery and Management Agency because "mommy's lawyers" could not confirm that they have the right to represent the interests of the ARMA, UNN journalist reports from the courtroom.
Details
Viktor Polishchuk filed a lawsuit against the ARMA to protect his honor, dignity and business reputation. In a commentary to UNN , the businessman explainedthat such a step was forced by the statement of the agency's head, Olena Duma, that he and his wife had "close relations with the Kremlin elite." Polishchuk emphasized that this information was fictitious and untrue.
The head of the ARMA, Olena Duma, who is called in the media "the mother of the ARMA with balls of steel," in response to a request from UNN explainedthat she accused Polishchuk and his wife of having ties to the "Kremlin elite" because she saw such information in the media.
Court scheduled the hearing for today, October 10. However, the defendant's lawyer was unable to provide a document confirming that he was authorized to represent ARMA in court. Therefore, the hearing was postponed.
Recall
Having researched the topic, we found out that the information that Viktor Polishchuk's wife Lilia Rizva is allegedly the niece of the wife of Russian politician Dmitry Medvedev appeared in 2015-2016. It was spread by the then-incumbent MP Pavlo Rizanenko in his blogs, but he never provided evidence of this information. UNN asked Rizanenko to provide documents that would confirm his assumptions, but he refused to comment, citing the fact that he has not been a public figure since 2019.
It can be assumed that Rizanenko's reaction is caused by the fact that he actually has nothing to provide to confirm the common theses, and he was simply "working out" his goals in 2015-2016.
