The Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the ruling against Oleg Tinkov, a businessman who has been labeled a foreign agent in Russia, in favor of Oleg Deripaska. The higher tribunal confirmed the decision of the first-instance court to award 20 million rubles in compensation for honor and dignity. This outcome is officially recorded as having entered into force, with the appellate ruling closing the dispute at the regional level. The case arose after Tinkov made statements directed at Deripaska on a social media page, which Deripaska described as damaging to his reputation. The case was brought as a protection of honor and dignity, and the court found merit in Deripaska’s claims, ordering the monetary award and a reversal of the offending content. (Interfax)
In addition to the 20-million-ruble award, the court required Tinkov and Meta Platforms to remove information that discredited Deripaska and to publish a denial on Tinkov’s Instagram account. Meta Platforms is treated as a company subject to heavy restrictions in Russia, cited as extremist and banned. The court also imposed daily fines of 100,000 rubles on each defendant for non-compliance with the decision. This financial framework underscores how seriously the judiciary treats reputational harm and non-compliance in this context. (Interfax)
According to Deripaska’s legal counsel, the funds collected from Tinkov are intended for charitable purposes. This stipulation aligns with the broader public perception that damages awarded in high-profile cases can support philanthropic or social welfare efforts, a turn viewed favorably by many observers. (Interfax)
Earlier in March, Tinkov announced the closure of his charitable foundation, a development that drew additional public attention to the case and its broader implications for philanthropic activity among Russian business leaders. The closing of the foundation has been discussed within media circles as part of a shifting philanthropic landscape in Russia, particularly for figures who have faced regulatory or reputational scrutiny. (Forbes)
Historically, Forbes has periodically highlighted lists of the wealthiest Russians, a context that informs public interest in the fortunes and legal challenges of prominent entrepreneurs. This case, contrasting Deripaska’s protection of reputation with Tinkov’s public role, illustrates how legal avenues are used to address perceived defamation and the balancing of free expression with personal honor in contemporary Russia. (Forbes)