This is how they make fun of the law

The authorities in both the Russian and Western media present the situation in a very peculiar way: they say that in the 90s the national economy of the new Russia is working great, oil companies are pumping oil, everyone receives a salary, the equipment is in perfect order, and fixed assets are not worn out . Everything is fine. And suddenly the state, in the person of the so-called democrats, who, as we know, represent the interests exclusively of the “world behind the scenes,” decides to transfer these wonderful enterprises into the hands of bad people - the oligarchs. This, in particular, happened with YUKOS.

They are trying to tell us this outright lie, believing that many in Russia no longer remember what happened in the early and mid-90s, they do not remember what state the economy and extractive industries were in. They don’t remember that we inherited complete devastation from the Soviet regime. Russian publications repeat the text of the accusation almost verbatim, talking about the ugly ways in which Khodorkovsky and his associates acquired the wonderful company YUKOS, how a tidbit of state property passed into private hands and, instead of bringing income to the state, began to bring fabulous profits to insidious people. True, they still don’t directly call them thieves, but this is what they say about the well-known loans-for-shares auctions: that they were absolutely fraudulent operations to seize property from the state.

So, I want to answer those who are most likely not in this room. That when the state was forced to get rid of the property it owned, Yukos acquired by Khodorkovsky brought nothing but losses. Not to mention the fact that this asset was burdened with huge wage debts, oil production fell several times, production and processing equipment was worn out and needed not even repair, but replacement. This is the kind of company that Khodorkovsky acquired. It must be said that at that time the management happily gave many companies (not only oil) into private hands, because the people who initiated privatization were aware that the state with its planning system could no longer cope with anything and only effective the owners - people endowed with intelligence, talent, energy and a completely different attitude towards what they have acquired - will be able to pull these almost completely collapsed companies out of ruin. Which is what happened over the course of a few years. Moreover, as a person who has been involved in this is not the first case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, I can say that for a long time the shareholders received practically no dividends and all the profit that they managed to squeeze out of the company was spent on reinvestment and on updating equipment , for geological exploration, to pay off wage debts.

And within a few years, as happens when truly interested people get down to business, the company began to generate income and became the best in Russia. AND

The indicators we have clearly say that throughout the 90s, it was YUKOS that achieved the lowest production costs, it was YUKOS that paid the highest taxes per ton of oil produced, it was YUKOS that created an accounting system that met international standards and made it possible to show the real profit and practically not hide what was received as a result of production activities. As a result, over several years, oil production increased several times, and all profits were known.

Today the state, represented by the Prosecutor General’s Office, declares that all the company’s profits over several years were stolen. Moreover, when we begin to convert the amounts indicated in the indictment into tons of oil, it turns out that about four million more oil was stolen than was actually produced. But they have always been bad with numbers; they don’t even care about formally making ends meet. It is clear that all these accusations were specially constructed - both for internal use, and for the West, and for the court. The goal is quite clear - to create an image of predators, an image of people who worked exclusively for their own benefit, without thinking about anything other than personal enrichment.

It just so happened that the second case against the so-called oligarchs was brought against someone third or fourth, but again against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. There are probably several reasons. But one of them, obviously, is that these people did not break over the years of testing, even, if such a thing is possible, they became even stronger. They despise this government, which is bringing another unfounded accusation against them and... they will stand it. They understand that many people consider them their beacons. As I say to Mikhail Borisovich: “You are no longer a person - you are a function.” I am glad and proud that I have the opportunity to communicate with him and put my modest work, unfortunately ineffective, into helping him in some way.

The second thing I wanted to say is that any normal person understands that the current fate of Lebedev and Khodorkovsky (as in the previous case) was not determined by the Prosecutors General (first Ustinov, then Chaika), not by judges - their fate is being decided in the Kremlin. I assume that Mr. Putin personally, although not without the help of his friends, advisers, as knowledgeable people say, and also business partners. The touching unity of the prosecutor's office and the court is noteworthy. Here is a small example: in Chita, on February 7, a consideration of the prosecutor’s office’s petition to select a preventive measure for Khodorkovsky was scheduled; as the investigator announced, the case was to be heard in a pre-trial detention center. In the morning, my colleague comes to court to read the materials, and, saying goodbye to the judge, says: “So, we’ll meet at two o’clock in the pre-trial detention center.” To which the judge answers him: “No. I don't know yet where the case will be heard. You call me around one o'clock in the afternoon. I'll tell you." Do you understand what I'm talking about? The judge, an independent judge who must decide where, how and when the case will be heard, is not only ready to agree to have the case heard in a pre-trial detention center, but she does not even know where the case will be heard. I asked my colleague: “But you didn’t ask the question: who will call you and tell you where the case will be heard?”

This is not the only example: on January 10, lawyers for Lebedev and Khodorkovsky filed a complaint with the Bassmanny Court about the illegal transfer of their clients to Chita. From our point of view, the transfer is absolutely illegal, a gross violation of human rights. Complaints filed under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be considered within a shortened period of five days. Well, for starters, my complaint was lost. And this is not the first time! You know, when you send it by special mail, you receive a receipt, and then you call the court, and they tell you, we did not receive your complaint. One time there may be some kind of misunderstanding, the second time you understand that for some reason misunderstandings only happen with Khodorkovsky’s documents. The third time they lose a complaint, there are simply no censorship words left to comment on. But there was a complaint. Exactly three weeks later, when a consideration of the prosecutor’s petition to select a preventive measure had already been scheduled. That is, when the complaint about illegal transportation was practically meaningless. Still, I was curious what would happen to her next. And now I receive a notice that Lebedev’s complaint is scheduled for consideration on February 28, Khodorkovsky’s complaint on March 5. On February 28, Lebedev’s lawyer, having appeared in court, learns that the judge is very busy, so busy that he will only be able to consider the case on March 26. Today, with a new complaint, I come to the Basmanny Court and also find out that the consideration of the complaint scheduled for March 5 due to the judge’s busy schedule is also postponed to March 26. Like this. Violating the deadline from five days to seventy-five is, naturally, not the initiative of the court; it is clear where this initiative comes from.

When it became known that Khodorkovsky was sent to Krasnokamensk, and Lebedev to Kharp, we naturally filed a complaint, because there is a Criminal Executive Code, which clearly states that persons must serve their sentences either at their place of residence or at the place of court. In relation to Lebedev and Khodorkovsky, both coincided - yes, there are no colonies in Moscow, but they exist in the Moscow region. The law states that if there is no colony of the appropriate regime in the region where the trial took place or the defendant lived, then he must be sent to a colony of the appropriate type in the nearest region. But two years ago, Mr. Kalinin, the head of the Federal Penitentiary Service, publicly blatantly lied that in all the general regime colonies of the Russian Federation, numbering 230, there is not a single place closer than Kharp for Lebedev and Krasnokamensk for Khodorkovsky.

The trial based on our complaints was turned into a circus. We found the text of Yuri Chaika's speech in the State Duma, when he was still a minister, in which he says that at the time of Lebedev and Khodorkovsky's departure there were 154,758 vacant places in the colonies. We presented this speech to the court - the court wrote a decision: yes, Minister Chaika really said that there were vacant places, but the lawyers did not prove how many of these places were in general regime colonies. By the way, I addressed the Commissioner for Human Rights Vladimir Petrovich Lukin with a request that he send a request on this matter on his behalf. “Well, who will answer my request?” - said Vladimir Petrovich. This, mind you, is the Commissioner for Human Rights.

Now Chita. Where did she even come from? According to the law, a preliminary investigation is carried out at the place where the crime was committed; if several crimes have been committed, then the preliminary investigation is carried out at the place where the most serious of them was committed. There is one exception in the law, which allows, in order to fully comply with procedural deadlines, to conduct an investigation at the actual location of the accused. There are situations when a person prepares a crime in one place, there is evidence there, he was detained there, but he committed the crime itself in another - then it is really advisable. What is happening in our case?

Khodorkovsky is in Krasnokamensk, Lebedev is in Kharp, a few days before the New Year, this is also a special kind of sadism, they are transferred to Chita for investigative actions. Before the New Year, lawyers come to Chita, and what happens there? Nothing happens. Ten investigators from the prosecutor's office arrive, and for the three days we are there, they present us with absolutely insignificant documents, and then they announce a break for 10 days (after all, it's a holiday). There is nothing else to explain it except the desire to mock defendants and lawyers. It comes down to absolutely disgusting little things: on New Year’s Day, prisoners are traditionally put off curfew until one in the morning so that people can celebrate the holiday, watch a concert, listen to the speech of their beloved president, and this is what happened in the Chita pre-trial detention center. In all cells, except two: in which Lebedev and Khodorkovsky were located, curfew was announced at 10 o'clock, as on ordinary days.

So, we are sitting in Chita, waiting for the decision to select a preventive measure, but the preventive measure is chosen at the place where the preliminary investigation was conducted, and the preliminary investigation, according to the law, as I already said, cannot be carried out in Chita under any circumstances. And on the very day when a petition to select a preventive measure is drawn up, the Deputy Prosecutor General brings to the Chita court a resolution choosing the city of Chita as the place of the preliminary investigation. On what basis? Because the accused are there. He brought them there himself, and then, based on the location of the accused, he determines the place of the preliminary investigation for the purposes of objectivity and compliance with the criminal procedural deadlines for the investigation.

For three and a half years, the investigation took place in Moscow, and two weeks before its end, the Deputy Prosecutor General decided that, for the sake of completeness and objectivity, the investigation should be carried out in Chita. What was it like for three and a half years then? Was the investigation not objective, not complete? This is how they make a mockery of the law.

I know for sure that the Kremlin has a directive to move this matter along as quickly as possible and complete it before the elections to the State Duma. Our courts can perform miracles of speed - this is no secret to anyone. I recently re-read the Dreyfus case and noticed that the Prosecutor General thanked the judges for their speed - in 6 months they were able to study as many as 7 volumes of Dreyfus’ criminal case. As everyone knows, the Moscow City Court managed to study 500 volumes of Khodorkovsky’s criminal case in seven days. So the possibilities of our justice are limitless.

In conclusion, I would like to comment on one very significant fact. Here in front of me is a printout from the Pravda.ru website. I think this is a “drain” because we, lawyers, do not yet know where the case will be considered. In order for not only the investigation, but also the trial to take place in Chita, at least two articles of the Criminal Code must be changed. The law clearly states that judicial review is impossible anywhere except at the place where the crime was committed. Two articles. I wonder if our Duma will agree to change these articles? So the website Pravda.ru writes: “But for some reason lawyer Yuri Schmidt is convinced that it will be simply impossible to conduct a “fair, objective trial in Chita and ensure even formal respect for the rights of the accused,” but it will have a “most beneficial effect” on the court in Moscow on compliance with procedural deadlines, since it will take significantly less time. Again, relying on the innocence of the reader, inexperienced in judicial procedures. Any journalist who has ever attended criminal trials in the Moscow City Court is well aware that hearings here never begin before 11 a.m., and, as a rule, end no later than 4 p.m. This is not metropolitan sybaritism. The reason is simple: while the morning shift of the convoy, traditionally called a “funnel”, begins, the car finds itself in the thick of traffic jams, through which the “flashing lights” help little to get through...” And further in the same spirit. It's clear? Taking care of the defendants - there will be no traffic jams in Chita! And lawyers, it turns out, when they say that it’s bad to try a case in Chita, they are looking out for their own selfish interests. They don’t want to fly to Chita. Yes, I don't want to. By the way, the prosecution will most likely bring at least two dozen witnesses in this case - and all of them will be transported to Chita at public expense, placed in hotels, etc. But who keeps score when there are scores to settle with Lebedev and Khodorkovsky. And to do everything in a city six time zones away from Moscow, 7 thousand kilometers away, in the absence of journalists, especially foreign ones, in the absence of public control, is much simpler and more convenient.

And most importantly, the defense also intends to bring witnesses and experts to court. If we can call a witness in Moscow and the court has no right to refuse, then who will we bring to Chita? And who will go to Chita? In any case, five people with whom I spoke said that they would not go to Chita. Moreover, this was even before the ugly story happened with the detention of lawyers at the airport.

This is how the rights of the accused will be ensured when considering this case. I wouldn’t be surprised if Chita is declared a closed territory after some time. It is possible, for example, to start building a cosmodrome there, instead of Baikonur. And then completely close the city to the press, to observers.