On December 19, 2011, the Moscow City Court held preliminary hearings in the case of the neo-Nazi grouping "Autonomous Combat Terrorist Organization" (ABTO).
Recall that the case involved: Ivan Astashin (Spider), Bogdan Golonkov (Sapper), Alexander Bokarev (Pushkin), Grigory Lebedev, Kirill Krasavchikov, Andrey Markhai, Maxim Ivanov, I. Zaitsev, Y. Rudny, K. Povazhnaya (Wolf),.
The defendants are charged with the following articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:
M. Ivanov - pp. "a", "c" part 2 of article 205 (terrorist act, committed by a group of persons by prior agreement or by an organized group, negligently resulting in the death of a person);
B. Golonkov - paragraphs. "a", "c" part 2 of article 205;
I.Astashin - pp. "a", "c" part 2 of article 205; part 1 of article 280 (public calls for the implementation of extremist activities); part 1 part 3 article 223 (illegal manufacture of weapons, committed organized group) part 2 of article 167 (deliberate destruction or damage property committed out of hooligan motives, by arson, explosion or in any other generally dangerous way or negligently entailed the death of a person or other serious consequences); part 1 of article 282 (inciting national hatred); part 1 of article 205.2 (public calls for terrorist activities); part 1 part 2 part 3 Article 222 (illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, storage, transportation or carrying weapons, their main parts, ammunition, explosives and explosive devices committed by an organized group); part 1 of Art. 30 pp. "a", "c" part 2 of article 205 (attempt on committing a terrorist act);
A. Markhai - pp. "a", "c" part 2 of article 205;
K. Povazhnoy - pp. "a", "c" part 2 of article 205; part 3 of article 223; part 3 of article 222; part 1 of Art. 30 pp. "a", "c" part 2 of article 205;
G. Lebedev - pp. "a", "c" part 2 of article 205;
A. Bokarev - pp. "a", "c" part 2 of article 205;
K. Krasavchikov - pp. "a", "c" part 2 of article 205;
Ya. Rudny - pp. "a", "c" part 2 of article 205;
I. Zaitsev - part 3 of article 222.
According to law enforcement agencies, members of the group in 2009 - early 2010 committed eight terrorist attacks against law enforcement officers organs and visitors from the Caucasus. In particular, it is reported that in 2009, members of the group set fire to a trading tent, threw "Molotov cocktails" at the house in which the visitors lived, set fire to stronghold of the police and a cafe. And in 2010, they burned a patrol car in southwestern district of Moscow, a police stronghold near the Tepliy metro station Stan, a trading tent, and also blew up a Lexus car, which belonged to a native of Armenia in Solntsevo.
The group appeared in 2009 and joined the "Movement against illegal immigration” (DPNI, declared extremist in April of this year), but later left its ranks. Recall, earlier it was reported that some of the detainees belonged to such organizations as "Resistance", DPNI and "Slavic Union" (SS, recognized as extremist in April last year).
According to law enforcement agencies, I. Astashin created the ABTO under impression of the ultra-right St. Petersburg group Borovikov-Voevodin . Being chemistry student, he made explosive devices and incendiary mixtures, and also taught it to other members of the gang.
ABTO was divided into how many cells that operated in different areas Moscow.
On December 19, the Moscow City Court scheduled the consideration of this criminal case on the merits for December 26. The criminal case will be considered in open mode by a trio of federal judges. Court rejected the petition of the victims for the introduction of a closed regime because of their fear for their lives.
RAPSI reports only about 8 accused, six of whom are in custody, the period of their detention in a pre-trial detention center extended by the court for six months, and two defendants in the case after giving confessions, they are under house arrest.
On December 26, 2011, the Moscow City Court postponed to January 11 the start of consideration of the ABTO case. The court made such a decision due to the fact that one of the two defendants, who are at large under a written undertaking not to leave, did not appear in court due to illness. All participants in the process stated that to begin consideration of the case impossible without him, and the meeting was rescheduled.
Sources