In Moscow, the courts delivered verdicts in a case involving the alleged embezzlement of assets belonging to the family of Alexei Batalov, a matter that has been reported by TASS as part of the ongoing coverage surrounding this high-profile inquiry. The proceedings shed light on a series of transactions tied to the late actor’s estate and drew public attention to the roles played by individuals connected to that estate, including Natalya Drozhzhina and her spouse, Mikhail Tsivin, who is a practicing lawyer. The case has unfolded over a number of years, with investigators tracing complex financial moves and property dealings that appear to have intersected with personal relationships and alleged misrepresentations. The courtroom has explored allegations that attempted to transfer, manage, or otherwise exercise control over various assets, escalating into a dispute that prompted detention and formal charges against the principal figures involved.
Drozhzhina, an actress, faced ongoing surveillance and legal scrutiny for four years as the investigation continued, while Tsivin faced a prison sentence of five years in a penal colony following his conviction. The defense argued that the documents in question were not properly understood or were misinterpreted by those who prepared them, and they denied any intent to commit theft or fraud. Prosecutors, for their part, contended that the actions under scrutiny constituted a deliberate attempt to misappropriate property connected to the family of the renowned actor, setting the stage for a contentious legal confrontation over the rightful ownership and stewardship of the estate.
From the outset, prosecutors described a sequence of steps beginning in October 2019, when investigations began to focus on the estate dealings that had attracted wide attention from local media and cultural observers. The defense maintained that the statements made by Drozhzhina and her husband reflected concerns about possible manipulation or misguidance by third parties who had influenced the signing of papers related to power of attorney and property management. While Leontenko, who shares a connection with the estate through the actor and his family, expressed certainty that she had been misled by others, the defendants consistently asserted their innocence, emphasizing that no fraudulent intent guided their actions.
In delivering his ruling, the judge considered the extent of the alleged offenses and the corresponding penalties, including the possibility of prison time and financial penalties. The court weighed the evidence presented, the severity of the alleged misappropriation, and the potential impact on the estate and its beneficiaries. While the precise terms of the sentences varied, the prosecution sought a different outcome for Tsivin, urging a seven-year term along with a substantial fine, while Drozhzhina faced a six-year sentence coupled with a monetary penalty. The eventual decisions reflected the court’s effort to address the alleged wrongdoing while taking into account mitigating circumstances and the specifics of the case as presented during the trial.