Case Overview: Russian Court and the Kan Crab Empire
An outline of a high profile dispute shows that the Russian Supreme Court did not review an appeal tied to a General Prosecutor’s Office effort to recover more than 358.7 billion rubles from the seafood magnate Oleg Kan, widely known as the King of Cancer for his crab business, and his associates. The report has been attributed to RIA Novosti, highlighting the scale and stakes involved in the case.
According to legal summaries, cassation complaints were not transferred to the Judicial Panel for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court, and the court left the lower decision in place. The proceedings describe enforcement actions where assets connected to Kan and his business network—along with firms such as Moneron, Sevrybflot, Aquamarin, and related suppliers—were identified as targets for state claims.
During the enforcement phase, the first instance court moved to implement measures that reflected the state’s interest in recovering the alleged sums. The actions touched the ownership of assets tied to Kan and his corporate groups, including entities associated with the Crab Kings brand and related enterprises.
In 2023, Kan faced formal charges on several counts, including involvement in a criminal group and illicit crab trade. Investigators alleged that about 3,000 tons of crab, valued at roughly 2.6 billion rubles, avoided taxes and customs duties totaling approximately 3.69 billion rubles. The investigation contends that from 2014 to 2019 the entrepreneur allegedly supplied crab illegally to buyers in Japan, South Korea, and China.
Reports from April 2024 mention ongoing legal action and public interest surrounding individuals connected to the enterprise. A detainee under a strict regime was described as linked to a 2010 case involving entrepreneur Valery Pkhidenko, while Kan and related figures remained on international watch lists.
Earlier actions by executive authorities resulted in the seizure of state assets connected to Kan and to Dremluga’s Crab Kings brand, reinforcing the state’s position in the proceedings and signaling the breadth of the asset freezes involved.