According to the records of the Fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeals in the Vologda region, the end of 2023 saw City Invest Bank’s appeal twice reviewed in relation to the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region in case No. A44-1127/2019.
The dispute, which has stretched since 2019, involved a prior ruling that City Invest Bank be ordered to immediately pay 2 billion rubles to the creditors of JSC Deka, a Nikola kvass producer in the Novgorod region. The court found that the bank allegedly caused the company’s bankruptcy and redirected its cash streams through favored management, creating a new entity that caused Deka to stall operations, lay off workers, and leave creditors without recourse.
Reports noted that the Central Bank of the Russian Federation seized the bank’s correspondent account in the process. The 2 billion ruble sum is substantial, roughly matching the bank’s own capital, and poses a significant hurdle to immediate repayment.
People familiar with the appeal in Vologda indicated that City Invest Bank’s shareholders engaged the law firm Shepel, Pantin and Partners to represent their interests. At the end of December, the appellate court delivered a decision that the bank sought, effectively overturning the first-instance ruling and declining to hold the bank liable.
One observer described how Evgeny Pantin, a partner at the firm, joined the December 18 meeting and spoke for about ten minutes. The opening remarks were deemed sufficient by the court to annul the recovery order for 2 billion rubles against the bank.
Observers noted that Deka’s creditors did not have representation from Shepel, Pantin and Partners before or after the hearing.
Commenting on the firm’s involvement, a spokesperson stated that the City Invest Bank’s position in the Deka bankruptcy case was legal and justified. The firm is known for professionally handling bankruptcy matters, and it was noted that the Bureau chose to intervene at the appeal stage. The position emphasizes that banks carry a special standing within the financial services market.
shepel family
Adjacent to a photo of Mr. Shepel on the firm’s site, a spokesperson noted an understanding of government decision-making mechanisms, aided by his family’s long-standing prominence in the Vologda region.
Vladimir Vladimirovich Shepel is the son of a former chair of the Vologda Regional Court and once shared a surname with the court’s head. Before pursuing law, Vladimir Jr. held senior roles in the regional public sector, most recently leading the regional Internal Affairs investigative unit.
His career largely unfolded within the Vologda region’s power structures, while his father served in the regional court and related roles. In 1996, Shepel Jr. began as an investigator in the Vologda Internal Affairs Directorate and later led the regional Investigative Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs when his father presided over the court.
Contemporary local media in 2011 reported a notable transition in Shepel Jr.’s career, with his appointment ending amid multiple complaints. While the precise reasons were not disclosed, his path then shifted to leadership in Kuzbass, and years later his professional trajectory faced stalls until a 2017 dismissal.
While both former judicial and prosecutorial figures in the Shepel family are frequently mentioned in regional media and on social platforms, their reputations are discussed with controversy. For instance, the elder Mr. Shepel publicly questioned the idea of civil servant status for lawyers, a stance that stirred debate about independence within the legal community.
The family’s most controversial chapter ties to Vladimir Gennadyevich Shepel, once manager of FC Shinnik Yaroslavl, who received a seven-year prison sentence in 2009 for embezzlement. Local outlets linked him as a relative by name, fueling ongoing public discussion.
Links
Reports suggested that a past head of Shinnik did not complete a term and faced questions about possible family ties to a judge and rumors of patronage after an early release. The exact nature of any relationship was not clarified publicly.
Irrespective of these debates, the participation of the Shepel family in the City Invest Bank matter did not appear to alter the overall assessment of Deka’s bankruptcy. While additional disclosures emerged about board members accused in the bankruptcy case, authorities indicated ongoing scrutiny of the entities involved.
There have been other criminal investigations tied to the bank’s leadership, including cases linked to deliberate bankruptcy actions in other ventures. Some individuals have relocated abroad and obtained citizenship through programs for second nationality. Despite these developments, the prevailing legal view in the appellate decision reiterated that there were no established grounds to pursue liability against the bank or its employees in connection with Deka JSC’s bankruptcy, with creditors continuing to seek redress through other avenues.