PUBLISHING / SEIZURE

AVAILABLE BAN
In the criminal proceedings against 1. Dimitri Ananiev (or Ananev), born on
19.02.1969, CY-4041 Germasogeia, Limassol, Aiolou 1, Sirius Block, apt.
303
and 2. Liudmila Ananiev (or Ananyeva), born on 17.11.1971, Christaki
Kanou 21, Old Bridge, Complex Block B,. apt. 303, Potamos, CY-4041
Germasogeia, Limassol, in each case for money laundering crime
Section 165 (1), (2) and (4) of the Criminal Code is passed by the Princely
Court on the application of the
Liechtenstein prosecutor's office following

Decision:
1. Sigma Bank AG, Feldkircher Strasse 2, 9494 Schaan, becomes
according to § 97a Abs 1 StPO prohibited by law over all
Assets on the following customer relationships too
feature:
- Account number. 10.008214_0, based on Liudmila Ananiev,
- Account number. 10.504699 0, based on Snowmil Foundation,
- Account number. 10.504601_0, read on Dala AG.
This order is for two years, so until 25.11.2021,
temporary.
2. The Sigma Bank AG, 9494 Schaan, is in accordance with § 98a para 1
StPO
requested by the court to the Princely Landgericht within 14
All documents relating to customer relations
to Nos. 10.008213_0 (based on Dimitri Ananiev),
10.008214_0 (read on Liudmila Ananiev), 10.504699_0
(read on Snowmil Foundation), 10.504601_0 (read on Dala
AG) and 10.504652_0 (based on Kipford Ventures Ltd)
SPANIAGASSE 1 · 9490 VADUZ · PHONE +423 - 236 61 11 · TELEFAX
+423 - 236 65 39

including all sub-accounts and with these respective accounts

copy linked portfolios, in particular
all due diligence and opening documents as well
Account statements and detail documents since account opening to date.
These documents or their copies shall be processed in accordance with §
96 (1)
StPO confiscated.
3. According to § 98a para. 1 StPO, Sigma Bank AG, 9494
Schaan, requested by the court, the Princely Court
within 14 days the current balances or assets
the customer relations in accordance with point 1 in writing
tell.

Reasons:
The Liechtenstein prosecutor's office presented with a transfer note of
22.11.2019 the application for execution of the present judicial
Prejudices against Dimitri Ananiev and Liudmila Ananiev because
Suspected of the crime of money laundering according to § 165 Abs., 2 and
4
Criminal Code. The basis for the application is an analysis report of the
staff members FIU
from 21.11.2019 (ON 1). According to public sources, that
Alexey and Dimitri Ananiev as former co-owners of Promsvyazbank
be accused of misappropriating the assets entrusted to them by the bank
and this to offshore companies in which they were involved,
to have transferred. A Moscow court has according to public sources
against the two businessmen in absentia's arrest
arranged. Both brothers became international searchers
tendered. They were also placed on the "Ukraine Sanctions List".
In addition, the two brothers, the company Technoserv attributable. The
Technoserv has signed contracts with Russian ministries.
In this regard, there is a suspicion that the brothers Alexey and Dimitri
Ananiev received funds improperly on the basis of these contracts
have used or in this regard by deception such funds of
have fraudulently lured out the Russian ministries to them
illegally assign themselves or third parties. In Russia will be against the
Brothers Ananiev since 2017, a case of embezzlement
of more than 66 billion rubles (about CHF 1 billion), USO 550
Million (equivalent to approx. CHF 546 million) and EUR 24 million (c c.
CHF
26 million). The following companies are supposed to be in this situation
Minga Management Limited, Cyprus, Promsvyaz Capital B.V.,
Netherlands, Fin tailor Investments Limited, Cyprus, and Antracite
Investment
Limited, UK. From public sources it appears that the Ananiev brothers
Embezzlement and money laundering is assumed and therefore can not
be excluded that it is introduced and / or
advised assets on the relevant domestic domestic property
Customer relations is about incriminated funds, especially Dimitry
Ananiev, his children and / or his wife Liudmila Ananiev economically
are entitled.
The two suspects Dimitri Ananiev, born on 19.02.1969, and
Liudmila Ananiev, born on 17.11.1971, are married to each other. she
have five children, namely: Anastasia Ananieva, born on 03.10.1995,
Dimitri Ananiev, born on 24.04.1998, Liudmila Ananieva, born on
03.04.2003, Alexey Ananiev, born on 30.08.2005, and Pavel Ananiev,
born on 17.04.201 4.
Because of the against Dimitri Ananiev, born on 19.02.1969, and his
Brother Alexey Ananiev in Russia since 2017 conducted trial
to file number 11802007703000366, in which the suspect
is accused of assets in excess of CHF 1.5 billion
can not be ruled out to have acquired
the contradictory customer relations
Assets derived from these offenses and thus by their holding
on the said domestic customer relations over their incriminated
Origin deceived or this is veiled. Consequently, there is one
corresponding domestic money laundering suspicion.
The accounts in question are the suspects Dimitri
Ananiev and Liudmila Ananieva and the Snowmil Foundation, the Dala
AG and Kipford Ventures Ltd. The Dala AG is from the Snowmil
Foundation held to 1003. As beneficial owner becomes Liudmila
Ananieva led. At the Snowmil Foundation is also Liudmila
Ananieva recognized as beneficial owner. As circle of
Beneficiaries of the Snowmil Foundation became the five children of
Liudmila
Ananieva detained. At Kipford Ventures Ltd. it is a
BVl-Gesellschaft, with Liudmila Ananiev since 08.03.2018 as the only one
beneficial owner is shown. In the period from 18.07.20 14 to
08.03.2018 was next to her even Liudmila Perevozchikova as
economically entitled to 503 listed. According to the database
"WolrdCheck"
However, "Liudmila Perevozchikova" is Liudmila
Ananiev. In the account, which reads on Liudmila Ananieva, both she and
Dimitri Ananiev also authorized to sign. At the account, which is on Dimitri
Ananiev states that both he and Liudmila Ananiev are authorized to sign.
Also regarding the Snowmil Foundation, the Dala AG and the Kipford
Ventures Ltd. can not be excluded that the assets
from the painting verses of Alexey and Dimitri Ananiev in Russia
come.
The Alexey and Dimitri Ananiev in Russia accused of punishable
Acts would be transferred to the Liechtenstein legal situation as well
Crimes of infidelity under § 153 StGB or as a crime of the serious
fraud according to § § 146, 147 Abs 3, 148 second case StGB
to be valued. Consequently, these are predicate offenses to
Money laundering (§ 165 Abs 1 and 2 StGB). Are assets or
Assets resulting from such offenses,
stored in the country, this is the criminal offense of money laundering
realized according to § 165 Abs 2 StGB. Who such assets
conceals or disguises their origin from criminal acts,
in particular by being in legal relations concerning the origin or the true
Nature of these assets, property or otherwise
Rights to them, the power to dispose of them, their transfer or
about where they are, makes false statements, realizes that
Criminal offense of money laundering according to § 165 Abs. 1 StGB.
Who those acts in
Reference to a value exceeding CHF 75'000.00, realized
in addition, the qualification according to § 165 Abs 4 StGB. This suspicion
lies
now with respect to the assets on the subject-matter
Customer relations before.
Consequently, the prerequisites are met to ensure banking secrecy
Breaking:
According to § 98a Abs StPO are banks, if this to clarify a
Money laundering in the sense of the penal code, a predicate to
Money laundering, just like the concrete infidelity suspicion, or
an act related to organized crime required
appears, bound by court order,
1. name, other information known to him about the identity of the holder of
a
To announce the business relationship and its address,
2. Provide information as to whether a suspected person has a business
relationship
maintains with this institute, from such an economically justified or
is authorized for them, and as far as that is the case, all to the exact one
Description of these business relationships required information
as well as all documents concerning the identity of the holder of the
To establish a business relationship and its right of disposal;
3. all documents and other documents concerning the nature and extent of
the
Business relationship and related matters
Business Transactions and Other Business Transactions of a Particular
past or future period.
The same applies if, on the basis of certain facts, the
Business relationship has been or will be for the transactions of one
Property advantage obtained by the offense
or was received for them (§ 20 StGB) or the power of disposal
subject to a criminal organization or terrorist group or
as a means of terrorist financing has been provided or collected (§
20b StGB).
Due to the facts described above are thus the
Requirements according to § 98a Abs. 1 StPO for a publication of the
meet the required resolution.
In order to be able to prove the "Paper Trail" or the proof of proof
that the assets in question come from within the
Russia committed crimes are the
Proof of evidence for the subject
Procedure according to § 96 Abs. StPO of importance and therefore too
confiscate. They can serve as evidence in themselves
or further course of proceedings in the sense of § 60 Abs l StPO Witnesses
or suspects to make the evidence.
In the sense of proportionality, the subject matter and
Confiscation on copies are limited, as evidence in
for the time being no originals are needed.
Should be based on the subject customer relationships
assets actually arising from criminal acts
the beneficial owners actually come or should be the
have committed the above mentioned offenses, so
These are subject to the (extended) expiry according to §§ 20, 20b of the
Criminal Code.
In accordance with Section 97a (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the court has, at the request of the
Public prosecutor's office for the protection of the expiration (§ 20 StGB) or
the extended
Expiration (§ 20b StGB) the judicial prohibition of disposal over balances
or other assets if it is to be feared that
otherwise the introduction would be jeopardized or made much more
difficult.
By this prohibition acquires the state at the balances and other
Assets a lien.
Expiration and extended expiration are regulated in §§ 20 and 20b of the
Criminal Code.

These provisions are as follows:

§ 20
expiration
1) The court has assets for the commission of a punishable
Or obtained by them, for decaying.
2) The expiration also extends to uses and substitute values according to para
expired assets.
3) Insofar as the assets subject to the expiry pursuant to para. 1 or 2 no longer exist
exist or the decay is not possible for another reason, that has
Court to declare a sum of money equivalent to these assets.
The value replacement expiration is also subject to assets by committing a with
Punishment threatened action were spared.
4) Insofar as the scope of the assets to be forfeited is not or only with
can be determined without disgusting effort, the court has him after his
To state conviction.
1) Assets that are the power of disposal of a criminal organization (§ 278a) or
a terrorist association (§ 278b) or as a means of
Terrorism financing (§ 278d) were provided or collected, have expired
to explain.
2) Has a crime been committed for the commission of or through the
Assets have been acquired, those assets must also be forfeited,
which were obtained in a temporal context with this act, assuming the assumption
It is obvious that they are from an unlawful act and their legal origin
can not be made believable.
3) Are continued or recurring offenses under Sections 165, 278, 278c and 304 bis
309 committed for their commission or by the assets
are also those assets for expire, which in a temporal
Were associated with these acts, assuming that they
further offenses of this kind and their legitimate origin are not credible
can be made.
4) Section 20 (2) to (4) shall apply accordingly.

Since it can be assumed that the credit on the

contractual customer relationships from criminal acts
were and were the subject of money laundering operations,
It can not be ruled out that these credits will go to the (extended)
Expiry subject. To secure this decay, it is therefore now
necessary, a corresponding prohibition of disposal according to § 97a Abs.
1 Nr. 3
StpO to arrange. Without this lock would be to be feared that the balances
Transferred abroad and the access of law enforcement agencies
would be withdrawn.
According to § 97a Abs 4 StPO this order is to be limited. The Princely
Regional court has decided to set the legal maximum term of
two years, since it is not a matter of substance
insignificant sum goes, weigh the accusations accordingly heavy and
it is to be assumed that the present judicial preliminary surveys
will take time accordingly before the procedure
or filed an application for revocation on the part of the
Liechtenstein prosecutor can be brought. It applies
to take into account that probably in the further course of proceedings a
Request for judicial assistance to Russia must be made and that due
the international interdependence of the facts is to be expected that
also be sent to other countries, requests for judicial assistance,
whose answer will take some time. In addition, must
Also, further surveys will be made domestically, according to time
will claim. Consequently, the ordered duration of the
Prohibition of disposal for the time being two years.
Princely country court
Vaduz, 25.11.2019
Dr. Anton Eberle
Princely Land Judge
For the Ric production

RIGHT TO APPEAL:
This decision shall be canceled within the unenforceable period of 14 days
Service the appeal of the complaint to the Princely High Court in
Vaduz allowed. The complaint can be made orally at the regional court
be declared or in writing in two copies. The
Complaint must be an express or by clear indication
discernible explanation, whether against the whole content or against which
part
of the contested decision, the name
the grounds of the inadequacy or illegality and the
Complaint execution and a complaint for cancellation or
Amendments, if any, of the contested amendment
Decision included.
A complaint has no suspensive effect. The appeal court
However, it may, of its own motion or for an application seeking to that
effect, be subject to a
Reasoning must be attached, in the
Postponement of the effect justified, the same
put off.