A $1.7 million wedding hall, a $2.2 million debt and a $130,000 payment: the property owner is expecting justice from Ramazon Ashrapov.
Effect.uz editorial office received an appeal regarding the re-registration of the Margilon soy wedding hall to another person's name and the failure to pay the agreed amount. The applicant asks for an impartial investigation into the circumstances surrounding the fate of the wedding hall.
In property disputes, along with the formalization of documents, the actual meaning of the agreement, the interests of the parties and whether the funds were actually paid or not are also of crucial importance.
Effect.uz editorial office was provided with an appeal stating that the Margilon soy wedding hall was transferred to other persons in several stages and describing the circumstances that arose during this process.
The proposal in 2018 and the agreement in 2025
According to the application, the wedding hall initially belonged to the woman. Her spouse was released from prison in 2016.
According to the applicant's information, in 2018, an acquaintance who had served a sentence together with her spouse came and offered to sell the wedding hall. However, the wedding hall was not sold at that time.
And in 2025, this acquaintance applied again.
As stated in the application, he said that he had a debt of 2.2 million US dollars to another person, and if this problem was not resolved, he could end up in prison.
According to the applicant's claims, taking advantage of this exact situation, he persuaded them to formalize the wedding hall in exchange for 1.7 million US dollars.
The wedding hall was transferred from one person to another
According to the information provided in the appeal, the owner of the wedding hall transferred the property to the name of her spouse. Then her spouse formalized the wedding hall in the name of the person to whom the said acquaintance owed money.
Thus, it is stated that the wedding hall was first transferred to the name of the property owner's spouse, and then to the name of another person.
The applicant states that as a result of these actions, the wedding hall lost its property, but neither she nor her spouse received the agreed amount of 1.7 million US dollars.
In this situation, the purchase and sale documents, the grounds for transferring the property and the content of the agreements between the parties are required to be studied separately.
$130,000 was paid, but the wedding hall owner says she did not receive the money
The application also noted the bank debt and legal service costs associated with the wedding hall.
According to the applicant's information:
120,000 US dollars — to pay the bank loan debt belonging to the wedding hall;
10,000 US dollars — for legal service fees.
It was reported that a total of 130,000 US dollars was paid by this acquaintance.
However, the applicant emphasizes that these payments do not mean that the agreed sale amount was given to the wedding hall owner.
In her opinion, the wedding hall was transferred to another person's name, the loan debt was paid, but the property owner and her spouse did not receive the agreed amount.
To clarify this situation, it is necessary to study the information regarding bank payments, notary documents and the subsequent fate of the property.
The property owner is waiting for help from the leadership of the Investigative Department
The applicant objects to the investigative process regarding these circumstances and asks for all aspects of the case to be studied impartially.
Her main hope is directed at Ramazon Ashrapov, the head of the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The applicant asks the leadership of the Investigative Department to:
check the grounds for transferring the wedding hall to another person's name;
clarify the discrepancies between the purchase and sale documents and the payments;
give a legal assessment of the actions of all parties;
consider the issue of protecting her property rights.
For the applicant, this issue is not just a sale and purchase of a wedding hall. In her opinion, as a result of actions carried out based on trust, the family lost their property, but did not receive the agreed amount.
For this reason, she hopes that the leadership of the Investigative Department will pay attention to this appeal and assist in conducting an impartial investigation.
Effect.uz awaits an official response
The circumstances presented in this material are considered to be arguments expressed by the applicant. Their legality and confirmation must be studied by authorized bodies.
Effect.uz editorial office awaits an official response from the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the responsible authorities related to this situation.
The article was prepared based on the appeal and the documents attached to it. The article does not draw a definitive conclusion about anyone's guilt.
The property owner hopes that justice will prevail. How the Investigative Department headed by Ramazon Ashrapov will respond to this appeal is also important for the public.
