Oligarch Boris Mintz complained about living at £10,000 per week

Oligarch Boris Mintz complained about living at £10,000 per week
Boris Mintz Photo: TASS

A former member of the Forbes list is asking the High Court of London to lift restrictions on spending for his family.

The everyday expenses of Boris Mintz’s family do not fit in the amount of £10,000 per week, in connection with which the oligarch asks the High Court of London to lift this restriction set as part of the imposition of an arrest on the assets of an entrepreneur in the amount of $572 million according to the bank’s non-core assets Trust. 

The owner of the O1 Group and the former shareholder of NPF Buduscheye have already been able to appeal the decision on the arrest of assets – instead, the court accepted from him the obligation not to alienate the property that Mintz and his sons took in the courtroom, Forbes writes.

In a complaint about the restriction imposed on spending, the Mintz family indicates that it has faced a number of difficulties and problems and is now forced to live in cramped circumstances. For example, family members failed to pay in four hotels in London owned by them.

“This damage is difficult to estimate now, but it can amount to tens of millions. It is unacceptable that such damage was caused to ordinary enterprises and investors,” the document says.

Moreover, JP Morgan, which provided leverage to the family-owned EG Capital Advisors, has already demanded a refund of $2.5 million.

“The order to dispose of assets turns the respondents' lives upside down,” complainants complain, pointing out that they had to collect a whole pile of documents for the court about their weekly spending and other obligations to prove the illegality of the decision.

Recall that the claim of the Bank Trust in the High Court of London is connected with the purchase by bank Otkrytie FK (bad assets of which are now transferred to the Trust balance) of bonds of one of the structures of the O1 Group, O1 Group Finance, for 35 billion rubles. The plaintiff believes that the transaction, completed in August 2017, shortly before the bank was reorganized, was non-market and brought losses to Otkrytie.



1 / 3