Questions for A. Bastrykin

In his interview with Interfax, Alexander Bastrykin explains the reasons for Tsepovyaz’s lenient sentence. I don't believe it! Not a single word.

As they said in the famous and beloved film: “Let's go the simple logical way.” Let's look at the words spoken by Alexander Ivanovich, phrase by phrase.

“In short, the fact is that this person really did not know about the upcoming attack.”

If this is so, then there could be no talk of any criminal prosecution of Tsepovyaz at all. If I gave my neighbor an ax to chop wood, but instead he split someone's skull, am I guilty of my neighbor's crime?

“He hid documents that confirmed the purchase of gasoline to set fire to this house.”

Yes, this is already a criminal offense. Article 316 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for a maximum term of 2 years of imprisonment. If I, knowing whose blood was on my ax, had calmly washed it away and not reported anything anywhere, then, I believe, I would have been given exactly this sentence, conditionally at best. Concealing evidence of the murder of 12 people, apparently, also lasts for this period. And half of it is 12 months, not a fine. Those. this “maximum minimum” could have been given to Tsepovyaz.

“And most importantly, he cooperated with the investigation.”

Wonderful. We open the article Article 317_1, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and read that the suspect or accused may submit a written request to conclude a pre-trial cooperation agreement, in which “he indicates what actions he undertakes to perform in order to assist the investigation in solving and investigating the crime, incriminating and prosecuting other accomplices in the crime, searching for property obtained as a result of the crime.”

Question: What crime was Tsepovyaz suspected of complicity in? Which accomplices did he rat out? From the previous words of A. Bastrykin, it turns out that, apparently, those who helped burn the documents?

“Thanks, in large part, to his testimony, we managed to detain 12 bandits within 3 weeks in record time. Three of them were hiding abroad.”

Oh, how... A person “not involved” in the gang knew the “accomplices” so well that he was able to provide significant assistance in their capture? And at the same time, he himself did not become an “accomplice” in the criminal case. If he was still involved in the gang, then under what article should he still be prosecuted? We return again to the explanations of the country's chief investigator.

“And, imagine, a moral choice, right? Either you follow the bargain with justice and the principle of cooperation, and you end up keeping your word, or you say, “Yes, yes, yes, go ahead, go ahead,” and then “Fuck you for 20 years.”

Where did these 20 years come from? So, after all, Tsepovyaz was initially inspired by another article? Let’s say A. Bastrykin expressed himself figuratively and again “overly emotionally” - Tsepovyaz was not going to live for 20 years. Let's say he really was very useful to the investigation. Why was he then kept in jail for 8 months? This certainly doesn't sound like a witness protection program. The length of stay in a pre-trial detention center, as is known, is counted when sentencing. Those. If Tsepovyaz had been sentenced to 8 months in prison, he would have been released from custody in the courtroom. It turns out that he actually suffered a more severe punishment - 8 months in prison and a fine - than he was sentenced to?

One does not fit with the other in Alexander Ivanovich’s interpretation. And on the contrary, everything very logically falls into place if we assume that Tsepovyaz was much more deeply involved in the affairs of the criminal group, but for one reason or another he was “screwed off.” Or have I lost my way somewhere along the logical path?

“Friends, if you have any questions, call or come. We’ll find time and explain everything,” Alexander Bastrykin invites journalists to a dialogue. And after his explanations, the questions only increased:

Still, why was Tsepovyaz so useful to the investigation “for solving and investigating the crime, exposing and prosecuting other accomplices in the crime” (Article 317_7, paragraph 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), if he was not a member of the gang?

If Tsepovyaz’s usefulness for the investigation was predetermined by his close relationship with the defendants in this criminal case, then why did he become a “concealer” and not an “accomplice”? After all, the main point of a plea deal is to expose members of organized criminal groups; can a “non-participant” of an organized crime group expose “participants”?

Why was he kept in a pre-trial detention center if he cooperated so actively and sincerely with the investigation? Didn't law enforcement agencies have other ways to ensure the safety of such an important witness?

Maybe one of the journalists would like to ask these questions to A. Bastrykin? He promised to answer.