Humanism came unexpectedly

Platon Lebedev should be released in six months

On this trip, Velsk, firstly, struck - but not with extreme heat, as last year, when the local court denied Platon Lebedev parole because of some pants stolen from him in the zone. This time the same district court decided to take into account the liberalization of the Criminal Code. And secondly, the journalists were allowed to enter the territory of the colony without a sound, where the prisoners from among the settlers gave us a mini-excursion. Last year, the same journalists were slowed down by submachine gunners at the distant approaches to the institution and at gunpoint demanded to “leave” from here.

A wooden fence in three rows with a thorn, lonely dogs occasionally come across towards you, stone barracks with bars - that, in fact, is the whole landscape of IK-14. Platon Lebedev was in one of the stone barracks at the moment when the Velsky District Court decided his fate so unexpectedly for everyone. He categorically refused to participate in the meeting, and it was not he, but his lawyers who filed a petition for a mitigation of the term - Lebedev has long, in Bulgakov's style, "does not intend to ask anyone for anything."

When the Velsky court wrapped him up with parole last year and the judge read out the refusal decision, since “Lebedev did not take the path of correction”, “did not repent”, etc., cheerful music rumbled under the windows - they played trumpets, drums and more God knows what - it was the orchestra of a touring circus tent. And Lebedev treated this with harsh irony, as he did all subsequent events: the regional court recognized the refusal of parole as legal, then the Constitutional Court pointed out the illegality of the decision, but the prosecutor's office refused to intervene and demand a review. And when, six months later, Lebedev automatically gets the right to re-apply for parole, the colony administration will reprimand him - for the fact that after charging he was in a tracksuit where one could only be in a robe ...

In general, Lebedev no longer wanted to take a personal part in any circus.

The lawyers continued the work of Sisypheus. With their new application, it was much easier than with parole. In this case, it was not necessary to be interested in the opinion of the colony and the Federal Penitentiary Service, since the law came into force, mitigating the punishment under article 3 of Art. 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“laundering”) is one of the so-called Medvedev amendments aimed at liberalizing and humanizing the Criminal Code. The essence of the Federal Law No. 420 adopted on December 7, 2011 is this. If earlier the sanction under the article on money laundering initially provided for up to 15 years in prison, then decreased to 10, now it has dropped to 7 years, and the lower limit of punishment is not provided at all. And what is important in Lebedev's case is that the law mitigating punishment is retroactive.

Explaining all this in the petition, the lawyers specifically emphasized: “Lebedev does not intend to ask anyone for anything, regarding his imprisonment as the result of a crime committed by persons vested with broad state powers. It is primitive and inappropriate to regard this appeal as an act of repentance on the part of Lebedev, or to perceive it as an indirect admission of guilt by him. Lebedev does not intend to ask for mercy or indulgence.”

... On August 7, the meeting was held in the same hall where the application for parole was considered a year ago. Only the judge was different - not Nikolai Raspopov, but the chairman himself - Viktor Ivanov. Everything took exactly an hour. The defense asked to reclassify the acts incriminated to Lebedev, to reduce the sentence to 9 years already served by him and to immediately release him. As an example of the fact that after the softening of this article, people are already being released, lawyers Vladimir Krasnov and Alexei Miroshnichenko cited the case of one of the Yukos members. Vladimir Pereverzin was charged the same as Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, and with the same criminal-legal qualification (part 4 of article 160, part 3 of article 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Yes, and he sat down, the lawyers stressed, later than Lebedev, but left earlier.

Judge Ivanov listened and listened, but did not add the decision of the Petushinsky District Court of the Vladimir Region, which softened Pereverzin's term, to the case file. As well as the decision of the Basmanny Court, which slapped Pereverzin with the same sentence as Judge Danilkin gave to the former leaders of Yukos.

Then the presiding Ivanov was asked to at least read the document that was read out a year ago in the same hall - a letter from the 9-year-old daughter of Platon Lebedev, who somehow quite in an adult way asked to let her father go, adding at the end: "... and let Khodorkovsky too comes out." Judge Ivanov did not respond to this proposal either.

In a word, everything is traditional: requests and petitions were rejected, and there was a general feeling that the main petition would also be rejected - under some simple pretext. But the scenario changed when Judge Ivanov unexpectedly asked:

- And what about the answer of the Supreme Court to the supervisory appeals of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev ( to the second verdict . - V.Ch. ). Is the answer already known?

- Known, - and the lawyer Krasnov listed: first, Judge VS Voronov closed the complaints, then the head of the Supreme Court Lebedev personally intervened, considered the complaints and submitted them for a new consideration to the presidium of the Moscow City Court, recommending that he check whether the first (tax) and second contradict each other (oil theft) case of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev.

“Understood,” said the judge. - The opinion of the prosecutor regarding the application for mitigation of punishment for convicted Lebedev?

And the surprises continued. The young prosecutor Yevgeny Yermoshko, with a reservation, “taking into account the nature and degree of public danger and other circumstances,” did not resist, but suggested that the court reduce Lebedev’s term - and not just for a few months, as everyone expected, but for 1 year and 7 months. In this scenario, Lebedev would have been released on October 2, 2014.

The next morning, Judge Ivanov issued his decision, more radical than the prosecutor's proposal, but not what the defense had asked for: to reduce the sentence by 3 years and 4 months. This means that Lebedev was supposed to leave the gates of the colony in 6 months and 24 days - on March 2, 2013.

None of those present immediately even understood what had happened. After all, the judge did not pronounce the number 3.4, but 9.8 years - this is exactly the period that the former 13-year sentence of Lebedev turned into. Silence hung in the hall: journalists pulled each other's sleeves - did they understand correctly; the lawyers looked at each other. As soon as the judge left, everyone began to convulsively count in a column. First, they broke up into professional groups, then, in disbelief and blaming colleagues for their inability to count, they united and got what they were looking for - 3 years and 4 months.

Journalists hastily dictated a sensation to the editorial office, lawyers - to the colony to Lebedev. No one hid any smiles or surprise. Of course, according to the law, as lawyers later commented, “there is nothing surprising here” - “the court could not but take into account changes in legislation” ... Yes, but earlier in the Khodorkovsky-Lebedev case, the courts (with the exception of the Supreme Court) allowed themselves to regularly ignore certain or other Medvedev amendments to the Criminal Code.

“I am almost satisfied that the lawyers have almost succeeded in reaching their goal. I will be satisfied when the goal of my lawyers is achieved in full, - these words of Platon Lebedev were conveyed to journalists by his lawyers after a visit to the colony.

Comment by lawyer Konstantin RIVKIN:

- This decision is unique in its very significant proximity to the correct application of the criminal law, which is so uncharacteristic of the Yukos cases. As the Constitutional Court explained, in such situations, the real punishment should be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the sanctions of the article of the Criminal Code, which does not happen everywhere - the courts usually reduce the terms in the minimum amount, calculating them in months. If other colleagues follow the example of the Veleska judge, who carried out an act of humanization, and not profanity, this can only be welcomed.

PS It is not yet clear whether Khodorkovsky's defense will follow the path of Lebedev's lawyers. However, the latest issue of mitigation of punishment in view of the humanization of the Criminal Code was previously raised in supervisory complaints to the Supreme Court.

As for the appeal against the decision, the prosecutor's office promises to decide on this issue within 10 days. Lebedev's lawyers have already appealed the decision - demanding that the sentence be reduced to the time actually served.