The obstinate prisoner

Former defendant in the Klebnikov case again exposes the prosecutor's office

In the Preobrazhensky Court of Moscow yesterday, the trial began in the case of Moscow notary Fail Sadretdinov (pictured) , who was previously involved in the murder of the editor-in-chief of the Russian version of Forbes magazine, Paul Klebnikov, and was acquitted by the jury in May of this year. As at that trial, the notary again stated about falsifications committed by the prosecutor's office. The court, meanwhile, did not rush to conclusions and rejected all defense motions.

Yesterday's hearing in the Preobrazhensky Court of the capital was the first hearing of the new case of notary Sadretdinov on the merits. It began traditionally with the prosecutor reading out the indictment. This time, Sadretdinov is charged with three articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: “fraud,” “money laundering,” and “abuse of authority by private notaries and auditors.”

According to the investigation, back in 2002, a notary, with the help of a certain citizen Ivkin (now on the wanted list and formally involved in the case as an unidentified person), forged a signature under the will of citizen Ivanova - an old woman who refused her apartment to citizen Sitranova because she was behind her looked after. As a result, Sitranova sold the apartment to a certain realtor Edilova, and she, in turn, sold it to someone else.

After this, the court gave the floor to Sadretdinov himself, who categorically refused to admit guilt. He stated that the accusation was incomprehensible to him, “unspecific and completely vague.” According to the notary, the charge was falsified by the prosecutor’s office on the instructions of his “long-time enemy, black broker Pichugin.” It is worth noting that Mr. Pichugin was also one of the main prosecution witnesses in the “Khlebnikov case.” As part of that investigation, the prosecutor's office tried to prove that Sadretdinov had once organized a failed attempt on Pichugin's life. Yesterday, the notary said: “Pichugin repeatedly tried to slander me of committing various crimes because in November 2003 I reported that he was involved in the murder of our mutual friend.” Regarding the actual materials of the investigation of the current case, the notary drew the court's attention to the fact that there is no indication in them that he got that ill-fated apartment or that he received money for it.

To confirm his version that the new criminal case was falsified, Sadretdinov said that he had already found evidence of this. In particular, he tried to draw the court’s attention to the receipt for payment of fees issued to his accomplice Ivkin when registering the disputed apartment. The receipt, according to investigators, linked the two participants in the apartment scam. The notary stated that the document allegedly confirming the events of 2002 was drawn up on a form issued only in 2003. He also drew the court's attention to the strange death of two participants in the transaction with the ill-fated apartment - Edilova died in the pre-trial detention center, and Sitranova died a little later, shortly after interrogations.

As a result, by the end of the meeting, Sadretdinov and his lawyers had filed about a dozen petitions, including requests to return the case to the prosecutor’s office for revision or to postpone the consideration of the case until all the material evidence had been reviewed. In particular, as Sadretdinov’s lawyer Ruslan Koblev said, they did not see the very will on which the notary allegedly forged the signature.

However, the court refused to satisfy the petitions, deciding to continue the consideration of the case and proceed to the questioning of witnesses.

Eduard LOMOVTSEV