Translated material
Indicative element
A deal with the investigation was applied against Navalny
Indicative element. The case of Kirovles, according to which the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation is trying to attract oppositionist Alexei Navalny, accepts a new revolution. One of his defendants, ex-director of the Kirovles company Vyacheslav Opalev, according to leaks from law enforcement agencies, allegedly went on a deal with the investigation and testified against the accomplices. The New Times found out what they threaten 
The case of the State Unitary Enterprise “Kirovles” and the participation of Alexei Navalny The New Times wrote in detail by studying the situation on the spot in Kirov, based on numerous evidence of the participants in the events and materials of the editorial office ** see. The New Times No. 23–24 of August 13, 2012. After the resumption of the criminal case, it became clear that they intend to bring the story at all costs. A new turn of the case makes you look more carefully at one of its defendants.
Vyacheslav Opalev led Kirovles until February 2010 and until this summer was not accused of the case, but the main witness, on whose testimony charges were built against Navalny and Officer. In particular, Navalny, who, in 2009-2010, was an adviser on a voluntary basis of the Kirov governor Nikita Belykh, accused of pressure on Opilyu - so that the enterprise was damaged for itself to sell wood through the Vyatka Forest Company, which belonged to Peter. The case against them three times over the past two years scattered at the stage of investigation for the lack of evidence - both in the hands of the Kirov investigators, and in the hands of law enforcement officers of the Volga Federal District. In order to return it to life, as the head of the Investigative Committee (SK) of the Russian Federation, Alexander Bastrykin, publicly demanded, in July 2012 the prosecution was re -qualified by turning Opilyu from witnesses to the accused. And if earlier, the charges were a million with a small missed benefit of Kirovles, now it is said about the embezzlement of a state -owned enterprise as part of a criminal group (Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) 16 million rubles.
"Not our war"
The message that Opalev allegedly went on a deal with the investigation was on September 28 in the newspaper Izvestia with reference to sources in the Prosecutor General. In the UK, they refuse to comment on it, and investigators who are directly conducting the case, other accused are not told about the transaction with Opalev. On the same day, September 28, Alexei Navalny was called for the next interrogation, but he was not notified by Opalyu’s position, according to lawyer Olga Mikhailova.
Perhaps the publication in Izvestia is a tactical course of the investigation: on the one hand, a demonstration of one’s own zeal, on the other hand, an indirect threat to two other accused, a signal indicating the tightening of the future kar if they do not repent (the transaction with the investigation guarantees a sentence with a period of severity of no more than two -thirds of the maximum). And at the same time, such a “drain” from the “true sources” experiences the reaction of the company: will it turn away from one of the leaders of the protest movement if it consistently brought more severe criminal charges?
However, it is quite possible to believe in the reliability of flowing information. In an interview with The New Times, Peter Officers said: even before the discovery of a new business, “... when I met Opalev during the investigation, Opalev told me:“ Peter, I'm sorry, this is not our war. I don’t want anything bad to you, but I have no choice. ”
That is, we, they say, with you, Peter, suffer because of high politics. Although if you look at the materials of the first, scattered business, and without politics, Opilyu has something to suffer.
Case On/Off *
Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Opalev - a very convenient figure for investigative cross -manipulations. He served as a “laying”, as explained in Kirov, between the small district forest “princes” and the regional organs, while he tried to not miss his own benefit, so there were a lot of sinfuls. The administration of the Kirov region, as the governor Nikita Belykh told The New Times, has repeatedly initiated the criminal case against Opilyu. In August 2009, following the meeting, the governor created a commission that studied the state of affairs in the regional GUP Kirovles, and already in September of the same year she made a conclusion: in the desperate economic situation of the enterprise, the general director is guilty. But only in January 2011, on the proposal of the regional department of state property (dated June 2010), investigators of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Kirov region opened a criminal case No. 14003 on Opilyu.
According to a strange coincidence, it was instituted the day after the first time the case was closed against Navalny and Officer. That is, when it turned out that Navalny did not put pressure on Opilyu, so that he worked with the officer, and the work of Kirovles with the company of Officer did not go beyond the usual commerce.
In new interrogations, judging by the protocols available to the editorial office, Opalev could not say anything new and more reliable: “Navalny A.A. and the officers of P.Yu., creating the VLK LLC, launched the financial flows of KOGUP (Kirovles. - The New Times) to their private commercial structure and thereby damage to the state enterprise ”; “I followed all their instructions”; “I understood that Navalny A.A. ... possessed power and was able to solve certain issues using an administrative resource, despite the fact that he worked on a voluntary basis ”; “Initially, until the conclusion of the contract ... I realized that for the Kirovles KOGUP, cooperation with LLC“ VLK ”would be unprofitable. However, he went to conclude this contract in the hope that Navalny A.A. Still, he will fulfill his promise about the organization of sales of products KOGUP "Kirovles" ... ""
If Opalev really concluded a pre -trial agreement, then with a high degree of probability his case will be considered by the court not only in a special manner, without studying evidence, but also in a closed court session. Navalny will be completely deprived of the opportunity to participate in this process
“During a business trip to Kirov, the correspondent of The New Times tried to find Vyacheslav Opalev and talk with him personally. We were interested in how the state relations with the VLK could influence the collapse of the state -owned enterprise, which did not reach the“ Kirovles ”turnover? What was Opalev sees a loss if, as well as along with it, Kogup could not have Kogup. To find a stable sales market for its poor -quality products? But Opilyu was not in Kirov, after the resignation of “at his own request” they did not see him, they said that he was in Nizhny Novgorod, but there was no connection with him to be charged.
Old "queen"
And now, again, with the help of Opilyu, the investigation must be proved that they were jointly-Navalny, officers and Opalev-they decided to rob the state, selling forests through the “Vyatka forest company” for 16 million rubles. So what was the fact that the forest was sold in accordance with the contract and the money returned to the Kirovles company. If it is necessary - our investigators and not this will bring this to the article!
But there will also be a court - open and honest ... Olga Mikhailova, who defends Navalny, has fears that it is precisely against such an open and honest - court that the “harvesting” of investigators is intended: “If Opalev really concluded a pre -trial agreement, then with a greater degree of probability his case will be considered by the court not only in a special order, but also in a closed court. In accordance with the law, Navalny will be completely deprived of the opportunity to participate in this process. And the accusatory verdict pronounced in relation to Opalev will have a pre -unit value * * The facts (and decisions) that the law enforcement authority established, checked and evaluated in the prescribed manner, as a result of which they are recognized as true, not subject to revision and not requiring a new verification., Which will completely eliminate the excluding verdict in relation to Navalny. ”
Apparently, without studying the evidence and in the absence of Navalny in court, it is possible to turn over a case that has a completely clear economic history and a dirty political background. According to the old principle of Stalinist justice: "recognition is the queen of evidence."
“For a normal court, the transaction with the investigation is subject to the same assessment as the rest of the evidence. The sentencing should be preceded by an assessment of all evidence in their totality. I would say that a pre -trial deal is subject to even more thorough study, since the one who entered it is clearly interested in being believed. Indeed, in our practice, this is not an isolated case. Navalny is a special figure, and even if in the most ordinary cases the accusation sometimes becomes at the counter "Smirno", "What do you delay?" - What can we say about the customs. As it was in our process in the second case of Khodorkovsky: although there is no evidence of an economic examination - to give to the whole coil. And Navalny is right, when he compares his job with the Khodorkovsky case, they also blame it here: he stole raw materials to sell, and money to the company. For Navalny, I hope the court will not be thunder among the clear sky. It is someone else who may from naivety to experience a shock, seeing that the evidence is not interested in anyone, that the investigation and the court have a different task ... They come from the presumption of guilt. Because in reality the case of Navalny is nothing but a political order. ”