In vain, or what?

This is how we do things: first you have to kick out the unwanted person, because there are suspicions, and then it may well turn out that the suspicions are unfounded. A member of A Just Russia, Gennady Gudkov, one of the participants in the protest movement, was deprived of his deputy mandate because he was suspected of entrepreneurial activity. The Investigative Committee then presented as evidence the minutes of the meeting of the founders of Kolomna Builder LLC, in which Gudkov allegedly participated (he owns 65% of the shares, but his wife Maria Gudkova seems to manage the share). Gudkov and his son, A Just Russia deputy Dmitry Gudkov, argued that there was no meeting: they say that the protocol was prepared by company employees in order to extend the powers of the director of the enterprise, who could not sign papers without this, and Gudkov’s wife, without which the meeting could not be held, was away at that time. However, at a meeting of the parliamentary commission to verify the income of deputies, it turned out that the Investigative Committee and the Prosecutor General’s Office formally had no grounds for Gudkov to be deprived of his mandate, however, as we know, the Duma expelled him anyway.

Now it turns out that the Investigative Committee did not find grounds for criminal prosecution of Gudkov. Moreover, the Prosecutor General’s Office has no claims against Gudkov. This became known from a letter to Duma communist Vadim Solovyov from Deputy Prosecutor General Viktor Grin. Solovyov demanded an explanation from Grin why the investigation into cases of attacks on communist deputies was moving so slowly. Grin, in a lengthy response, mentioned Gudkov’s incident and said that, as Nezavisimaya Gazeta quoted him as saying, “as it turned out, there were no tax crimes or illegal business activities behind him.”