The mystery of the gasket

Yulia Pelekhova, as the author of these lines recently wrote, found herself in a very difficult situation due to the fact that she very loosely interpreted the principles of journalistic ethics. Now the criminal case on charges of “extortion” (clause “b”, part 3, article 163) is being considered by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. However, as the trial progresses, the specific circumstances of the criminal case look increasingly strange.

Architector doli

It's time to admit that Pelekhova and I were once friends, although we haven't seen each other for probably the last ten years. Yulia is a hereditary journalist, in the mid-80s she graduated from the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University and worked at Mayak, then, despite her purely Russian origin, she became a Jewish activist and created a small Jewish news agency, Manishma. I remember her as a very energetic girl, who loved to show off and be demonstratively familiar with important gentlemen, but at the same time kind and sympathetic, inclined to patronize those around her. Subsequently, Yulia began working at Kommersant, in the banking department, while simultaneously receiving a second higher education in finance. From Kommersant she suddenly moved to the tabloid Versiya, and then became so carried away by fried materials that she opened her own small business: the website www.dosier.ru, where, however, at the time of her arrest, besides herself, there were only two employees .

Having learned about the arrest of my old friend, I called the phone number listed on the Dossier.Ru website and asked if I needed any help. Alexander Malinin answered the phone and said that Yulia Petrovna did not let anyone in on the essence of her affairs and that they would contact me. About ten minutes later, a certain lady called me back, who called herself Larisa Evgenievna and said that she constantly directed Yulia’s activities in the field of investigative journalism and took care of her safety. As it turned out later, it was Larisa Milovidova, an employee of the auditing firm Curator CJSC, which rents an office in the FNPR building on Leninsky Prospekt. She said that Dossier.Ru employees needed my advice on how to conduct PR, and we agreed to meet at a time convenient for me.

At a meeting at the Curator's office, I proposed two options. Or reveal the intrigue and make public the ill-fated incriminating evidence with which Pelekhova allegedly blackmailed someone. Or, if we have nothing to disclose and we don’t have any incriminating evidence, hold a press conference with the participation of Pelekhova’s lawyer, her 72-year-old mother, and also, possibly, her brother (who happened to be present at this conversation of ours) and Dossier.Ru employees. in order to present the arrested woman as an ordinary journalist who, even if she succumbed to temptation, at least deserves leniency. The fact is that reports about her arrest at that time formed a monstrous image of a “cool” black PR woman, allegedly behind whom stood influential and unsympathetic people. It must be said that Pelekhova herself was largely to blame for this, with her passion to show off, to present herself as an important and influential person.

Larisa Evgenievna gently rejected my plan, citing the fact that “readers in Yakutia and Khakassia” know Yulia as an incredibly large-scale figure and they should not be disappointed under any circumstances. She also asked how this whole story would affect Yulia’s reputation in the professional community and whether journalists would show corporate solidarity, since many are guilty of “ordering”. I replied that her reputation was undoubtedly damaged, and there was no way to count on “solidarity in sin.” If only because a banal “order” costs incomparably less than one hundred thousand dollars. I was surprised to note to myself that my interlocutor was concerned, first of all, about Yulia’s future career, when she was facing seven to fifteen years in prison, that is, she clearly had no time for a career.

True, Milovidova said that the victim, according to her information, is ready to withdraw her statement, but is very upset by unflattering reviews about her in the press. This rumor, which subsequently persisted in circulation, was intended for people clearly ignorant of legal issues. Because in cases of this kind it is categorically impossible to “withdraw the statement.” Attempts to do something like this can lead to the fact that the victim himself becomes the accused, and nothing else. Much later, I learned that the victim was Oksana Tokareva, whom Pelekhova called in the courtroom “the secretary of her business partners” (clearly hinting at Milovidova) and met no objections.

Along the way, Milovidova noted: “We have already posted several publications.” Apparently, she was hinting at the spreading cranberries published in the Stringer agency and on the Kompromat.Ru website . Let's say frankly that publications are usually “placed” for money. And the editors of Stringer themselves later indirectly admitted this . Meanwhile, Yulina’s pensioner mother had to urgently look for funds for a lawyer: her daughter spent money recklessly and left her mother only with debts. (At least, this is the conclusion I drew from conversations with the latter.) It turns out that the wealthy Milovidova, who so carefully looked after Pelekhova, had money for PR, but did not find a penny for her ward’s family.

The “curator,” however, complained that the ward was self-willed, went on binges and, instead of trying to get huge money from Mezhprombank on promissory notes, “fell for small bait.” Milovidova suggested that I announce that Pelekhova’s colleagues will continue, so to speak, the journalist’s heroic struggle for the truth, and under this brand attack Mezhprombank. If I agree, her acquaintance, a “former FSB employee,” will contact me and tell me a lot of nasty things about this bank.

The choice of the target of the information attack looked especially strange because Milovidova herself recognized this bank as having nothing to do with the story of Pelekhova’s arrest. Having carefully weighed all the arguments, the next day I sent Milovidova an email, where I wrote that Pelekhova’s fate would not improve her plan at all, and if someone wants to wage a war with Mezhprombank, then linking this war into a single semantic context with Pelekhova’s dubious case will only significantly weaken the effect of an information attack. I stated that I was personally ready to participate only in the implementation of the plan to “humanize” Yulia’s image in the eyes of the public. I did not receive a reply letter, and we did not communicate again.

Meanwhile, Yulia herself seemed to sincerely believe in Milovidova’s omnipotence. She sent her relatives a letter from the pre-trial detention center with the following words: “Only Larisa Evgenievna can get me out of here if she wants.” In addition, she sent a letter of repentance to Milovidova, in which she promised complete loyalty in exchange for freedom, and also ordered the Dossier.Ru website to suspend its work during the investigation. It was all very naive. In my opinion, Milovidova, who knew how to present herself as a powerful behind-the-scenes manipulator of everyone and everything, could no longer “hush up” this criminal case, even if she wanted to.

At the same time, at present I am practically convinced, although I have no direct evidence, that it was Milovidova, endowed by nature with the gift of intrigue, who played a fatal role in the emergence of this complicated case, as well as in many other things that stood behind Pelekhova’s scandalous publications during the last two years. I got the impression that she manipulated Yulia before her arrest, and then tried to use her name and, as she thought, my stupidity for her own not entirely clear purposes. In the comedies of Plautus, such a character was called architector doli, which can be roughly translated as “organizer of cunning.”

The “peace negotiations” between the former “business partners” apparently ended when Pelekhova announced that she was challenging her lawyer, Nikolai Ilyushko. It turns out that he was invited... by the victim. Immediately after the arrest, Pelekhova called Milovidova as if she were her “roof,” and she redirected her to Tokareva. The latter urgently sent lawyer Ilyushko, Tokareva’s father’s partner, lawyer Yuri Kukhta, to her. However, Yulina’s middle-aged mother had to pay the lawyer. On top of everything else, Ilyushko took his responsibilities carelessly: he received an advance and drove off to Kursk on another matter.

Cookie box

The interrogation of the victim Oksana Tokareva took place in court on July 6. She said that she had known Pelekhova for two years, and that last December they had a personal quarrel for some reason unknown to Tokareva. On the part of the defendant, “negativity began” towards the victim: she called her at home and said: “As I lifted you up, I’ll put you down.” On December 22, Tokareva threw a party to celebrate receiving the medal and, despite the conflict, invited Pelekhova. During this party, the journalist showed a contract for the supply of cars, signed by the general director of Auto-Invest-Stagecoach O.Yu. Tokareva, saying that this contract proves the fact of fraud. The victim perceived this as a threat against her.

Next, a whole series of meetings between Tokareva’s acquaintances and Pelekhova took place in order to dissuade the latter from criminal intentions. At Tokareva’s request, her acquaintances secretly recorded these meetings on a tape recorder from Pelekhova. But she did not deviate from her plan, but only clarified her demands: 150 thousand US dollars in exchange for stopping the journalistic investigation against O.Yu. Tokareva. Allegedly, she knows that the currency obtained through fraud in the office located on the seventh floor of the Beijing Hotel is packaged in cookie boxes and delivered, in particular, to the Chairman of the Government of Yakutia, Borisov. It looks like the notorious Chubais copier box, only the pipe is lower and the smoke is thinner.

The victim stated in court that it was all slander from start to finish, but for some reason she chose to sign an agreement with the defendant on January 15, reducing the amount to 100 thousand US dollars. And the next day - January 16 - she wrote a statement to the Department for Economic Crimes of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate about the fact of extortion. After this, the operatives got involved, and on January 28, Pelekhova was given a model of the funds of the first tranche, and after that she was arrested.

It should be noted that this testimony of the victim is very different from the content of her statement to the police. In that statement, she claimed that the extortion was committed “in early January” and that Pelekhova was a complete stranger to her.

A message for you from... the victim

Next, the defendant and her lawyer Alexander Toft began asking the victim questions. It's not often that you see such intense scenes in court. Tokareva was nervous, raised her tone, tried to avoid direct answers to questions, while Pelekhova, although noticeably haggard during the time she spent behind bars, remained calm and cheerful. Amazing things came to light. It turns out that Pelekhova was well acquainted not only with Tokareva, but also with her father Yuri Kukhta, and with her husband Maxim Tokarev, she knew where she not only worked, but also lived. All this time, when it seemed like a crime was being committed, the ladies continued to chat nicely on a variety of topics. However, Tokareva sent her acquaintances to negotiations related to the conflict, allegedly fearing for her safety.

Moreover, Pelekhova, according to her, was unfamiliar with these people and did not associate them with “the secretary of the business partners Oksana.” True, the victim claims that the defendant knew one of the intermediaries, Ekaterina Petrova. But on the tapes Pelekhova for some reason calls Petrova Margarita. Thus, there is not a single proven episode when Pelekhova presented her demands directly to Tokareva.

In addition, Pelekhova knew (the victim admitted this in court) that Howard Consult LLC, whose general director is Oksana Tokareva, has not conducted any business activities since 2001. Consequently, the victim does not receive a director’s salary. Where then could the demand to pay the astronomical sum of 150 thousand dollars come from?!

Tokareva had nothing to do with the Auto-Invest-Stagecoach company. The contracts for the supply of cars in question were signed by O.Yu. Tokareva in 2002, when Oksana still bore the premarital surname Kukhta. In a word, it turned out that all this time Pelekhova was convinced that O.Yu. Tokareva from Stagecoach had not the slightest relation to her close friend, the victim Oksana Tokareva.

And indeed, otherwise, would she have started calling Oksana Tokareva immediately after her arrest and asking her to urgently send a trusted lawyer?! Moreover, the victim herself called her back on her mobile phone twice after that. It is especially touching that the victim stated in court that she provided humanitarian assistance to the defendant during her stay in custody: she brought a toothbrush, toothpaste and even sanitary pads to the pre-trial detention center for her.

Steep turn

Everything fit into the harmonious picture of a classic comedy of errors. But suddenly, towards the end, the defense filed a motion to include in the case the findings of a handwriting study, from which it followed that the victim and O.Yu. Tokareva, who signed the ill-fated contract... are still one and the same person. According to Pelekhova, this indicates that the victim did commit fraud by forging fake papers.

True, the court rejected this petition, citing the fact that it was not the original contract (which is in the criminal case file) that was examined, but a copy of it. It so happened that I was sitting next to the victim and her father Yuri Kukhta, who was participating in the case as his daughter’s representative. They commented on this as a fact of forgery of documents on the part of Pelekhova herself.

The next court hearing will take place on July 16 and promises to be a reading of a new chapter of the picaresque novel.