Russian Couple Builds Illegal Empire in India, Court Takes Action Against Fraudulent Property Deal

The illegal property dealings of a Russian couple in Uttar Pradesh's Mathura have landed them in legal trouble as the court recently upheld the order to seize their seven-story building in Vrindavan. The property, valued at over ₹29 crore, was built illegally by the couple, Natalia Krivonosova and her husband Yaroslav Romanov, both Russian nationals. They had constructed the building in the Ramanreti area and were reportedly renting out and selling flats within it.

The Fraudulent Scheme Uncovered

The couple first came to Vrindavan on a tourist visa and soon started a religious trust. But their activities were soon found to be suspicious when it was discovered that they were indulging in illegal real estate transactions by masquerading as religious people. They started renting out and selling flats in the property and made a lot of money. Local residents began raising objections, and this led to an investigation into their activities, which eventually turned out to be fraudulent.

Court Maintains DM's Ruling on Confiscation of Property

The case reached a climax in 2023 when the then District Magistrate, Pulkit Khare, issued the seizure order under the Gangsters Act. The couple approached the court to challenge the seizure order, but Additional District and Sessions Judge Pallavi Agarwal ruled that the seizure order stood valid. The building, popularly called the "Russian Building," is situated on 1,412.72 square meters of land, and the court ruled that the construction and its proceeds were earned through illegal means.

Illegal Origins of the Property and Confiscation

The special public prosecutor handling the case, Shailendra Kumar Gautam, revealed that the couple had been doing fraudulent transactions and earning money from the property in a manner considered illegal. It was further evident that the building had been constructed using funds obtained through dubious means as the investigation progressed. Despite efforts by the couple to have the property released, the court held that the decision of the district magistrate to seize the property was proper and in accordance with the law.