Sochi police have declined to open a fraud case against the Savelyev family.

THIS MATERIAL (INFORMATION) WAS PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY FOREIGN AGENT MEMO LLC, OR CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN AGENT MEMO LLC.

The Savelyev family, who lost their home during the construction of the Olympic track in Sochi, learned that the barracks from which they were evicted ended up in the ownership of a local official before being demolished. Police declined to open a criminal case because they were able to locate the barracks' new owner.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot," in December 2011, the Savelyev family of five, including two children, was evicted from their barracks, which was later demolished during the construction of the Olympic track. Having received no replacement housing, in February 2015, the Savelyevs occupied a cottage in Vesyoloye Psou, a settlement for Olympic displaced persons in Sochi, but were also required to vacate it. Authorities offered the Savelyevs the opportunity to move from their occupied cottage to a three-room apartment, but they refused, demanding the cottage and land be returned to them. On February 8, a Sochi court denied the Savelyevs' claim for housing. In late April, they filed an appeal against the court's denial of their claim against the Sochi authorities, but a court in Krasnodar upheld the decision denying housing.

On January 27, the Savelyev family, who continues to fight for their housing rights, received another refusal from Adler police to open a criminal case for housing fraud committed by an official who, through forged documents, converted their multi-apartment barracks into her own private home in 2011. The family only learned of this last year after reviewing the court case materials.

For 15 years, the Sochi residents have continued to wander from apartment to apartment. "Our children have grown up, but the authorities' position on our issue hasn't changed. They continue to believe that 18 square meters of living space, or 3 square meters per person, was sufficient for a family of six adults," 75-year-old pensioner and disabled person Lyudmila Savelyeva told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent on January 27. She doesn't deny that an apartment of the aforementioned size was only provided to one family member—her son, Andrei, according to a court ruling. The other five people aren't listed anywhere and, therefore, have no rights to the apartment.

Savelyeva and other family members also claim that officials are lying when they write in formal replies that they were offered a three-room apartment, but they declined. "Are we crazy enough to refuse housing?" "Savel'eva is perplexed, adding that a three-room apartment would have suited them.

"But all of this is a deliberate fantasy by corrupt officials to create the appearance of assistance to us, which we ourselves are supposedly refusing," she nevertheless maintains.

Alexey Savelyev recalled that it was the housing issue and the actions of the authorities that effectively destroyed the Savelyevs' family ties and health. "I became disabled during my time as a homeless person. I have tuberculosis due to constant wandering. My family fell apart. My wife and I separated because we had nowhere to live. The children grew up in rented apartments. My mother became disabled. Wherever we turn, we are met with refusals and excuses: 'You received an apartment.' But what kind of apartment did we receive? My brother received an apartment for one person, 18 square meters. He has a separate family. We are not on any documents; they even deprived us of our registration, which was in a demolished barracks on Akatsii Street. "This means we've been deprived of virtually all rights—disability benefits, pensions. We're struggling to get all of this, all at once. We're surviving on odd jobs, but it's getting harder and harder for both me and my mother. We have no guarantees for the future," 50-year-old Alexei Savelyev told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

Police Unable to Question Official at Her Residence in the Demolished Barracks

On January 27, the Savelyevs received a refusal from the police to open a criminal case for fraud involving their housing. The response (a copy is in the possession of the "Caucasian Knot") stated that law enforcement officers were unable to interview the official, who, according to the family and supported by documents, registered the entire barracks where the Savelyevs lived in her name before its demolition. The Savelyevs claim that the official registered the entire multi-apartment barracks in her name during preparations for the Olympics, after which she received compensation and new housing as the sole owner. The barracks' residents, including a family with young children, never received housing. "We contacted the police demanding an investigation into why, in official BTI documents, our multi-apartment barracks suddenly became listed as a private home in 2011, and its sole owner turned out to be [the official], who worked closely with the Olympstroy State Corporation during that period as the head of the cadastral firm at the Adler BTI. We provided all her information. She has a new place of residence, but the police are not bothering her. "She's pretending she can't find it," said Lyudmila Savelyeva.

According to her, this only became known now, after 15 years, when she gained access to the court decision recognizing the barracks as private homes. The judge who upheld this decision has since died, and there's no way to file a complaint against his actions.

The ruling refusing to open a criminal case states that police officers went to the official's presumed place of residence, that is, to the aforementioned barracks, but no one answered the door, making it impossible to question her. Moreover, as Savelyeva recalled, the barracks were demolished back in 2011. "They're writing that they couldn't find a person in an apartment in a building that hasn't existed for fifteen years. "This isn't even a formality; it's absurd and outright corruption on the part of law enforcement," she believes.

The response also states that, according to the Sochi administration, the property was seized for federal purposes, and "payment to L.A. Savelyeva has been made in full." "They keep attributing things to us that never happened. Sometimes they refuse a three-room apartment, sometimes they provide Andrey's apartment for six people, sometimes they talk about some kind of settlement with us... But there's not a single document! They're all lying and saying it's a civil dispute. But we ended up on the street not because of a dispute, but because the documents for the entire building were suddenly registered to one person," Alexey Savelyev commented on the situation.

Lyudmila Savelyeva added that, as stated in the response, a final decision could be made after the official's location is established and she is interviewed. "At the same time, the refusal to open a case has already been issued," she noted.

The lawyer considers the police's refusal to open a case grounds for an investigation

According to independent lawyer Sergey Volynin, the police's refusal to open a fraud case raises serious questions.

"If a person registered an apartment building as an individual property, and there are documents to prove it, and received compensation for it, which is also proven by a court decision, then this is directly related to the fact that other residents were left homeless. "The investigation should begin with an analysis of registration and cadastral records, not with attempts to find someone at the address of the demolished building," the lawyer told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

According to him, the Savelyevs should seek a prosecutor's investigation, appeal the refusal under Article 124 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, and raise the issue of an investigation into the actions of the officials who made the decisions. The lawyer also believes that an investigation should also be conducted into the police officers who essentially falsified the refusal by claiming they were knocking on the doors of a nonexistent apartment in a nonexistent building, which had been nonexistent for 15 years. "This is either negligence or intent and concealment of a crime," the lawyer believes.