1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office regarding the recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery as state revenue, namely two vehicles acquired during the marriage of the defendants.<\/p>\n
2. The court, partially satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that PERSON_2, being a civil servant, acquired ownership (jointly owned with his wife) of property, the value of which significantly exceeds his legal income. The court established a connection between the assets and PERSON_2, since the property was acquired during the marriage, which creates joint ownership. The court also took into account that the income of PERSON_1, received from entrepreneurial activity, is also an object of joint ownership. An important point was that the court recognized the contractual value of one of the assets (Toyota Land Cruiser) to be significantly lower than the market value, and therefore applied the minimum market value to calculate the sufficiency of income. Regarding the other asset (Audi RS Q8), the court established partial unjustified nature, since legal income was not enough to fully pay for its value. At the same time, the court rejected the defendants’ arguments about the lack of consent of PERSON_2 to the acquisition of the property, referring to the presumption of spousal consent and the insufficiency of evidence to refute this presumption. The court also noted that in order to recognize assets as unjustified, it is sufficient to refute the presumption of legality of the acquisition of ownership, and not to prove the invalidity of transactions.<\/p>\n
3. The court decided to partially satisfy the claim, recognizing one vehicle as unjustified and recovering it as state revenue, and also recovering monetary compensation from each of the defendants for the other vehicle, which was recognized as partially unjustified.<\/p>\n