In the epistolary genre

It would seem that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

New people, new approaches. V. Kolokoltsev, Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, publicly admitted at a meeting of the State Duma the fact that those reforms in the system were not reforms at all, but only preparation, and the real reform is just about to begin, and it will not be a formal work of renaming or certification of employees in the form of dismissal of people who do not fit into the system (as often in reality it turned out, on the basis of integrity and impartiality in work), but in a radical change in the methods and style of work.

But, as they say, there is a big difference between what we want and what we get as a result. A big fly in the ointment.

On the ground, work continues to fight for the honor of the uniform, the practice of concealing facts containing signs of crimes, which in essence is a crime in itself.

Moreover, this cannot in any way indicate a desire to reform oneself. It’s hard to believe the prospects for reforming this key link in the law enforcement system when you read messages in the epistolary genre, such as the response about the refusal to conduct an investigation into the commission of a crime, which was sent signed by the Acting Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Udmurt Republic A.A. Shchur.

Specific fact. A law-abiding citizen sent a statement of facts that, in his opinion, contain signs of a crime, to the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Udmurt Republic. The citizen believes that officials (names of the prosecutor, investigator) in 2001 closed a criminal case on the basis of active repentance, initiated earlier in connection with non-payment of tax payments, while in fact there was no crime, since the minimum wage increased, to which a large amount of tax evasion was tied; and indeed in 2003 the criminal law changed (Article 199 of the Criminal Code) and the crime was decriminalized.

Alas, the President of the Russian Federation in his Decree did not determine who is the legal successor of the tax police, who should be responsible for abuses of this service. And during their existence, they managed to break a lot of wood.

One thing is clear, since the functions of combating crimes in the field of tax legal relations were entrusted to the Investigative Committee under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, then this service will have to clean up all the “crap” that they inherited. But that was not the case.

Firstly, in a hurry, in accordance with the order of the Federal Tax Service and the Federal Drug Control Service of Russia, the archival information of this service was destroyed in 2008, so that citizens would not ask unnecessary questions. But if not, as they say, there is no trial.

And from the investigative department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as they say, there is no demand. We do not investigate cases that have not been received by our department. This is exactly what the head of the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Udmurtia, Mr. I.G., answered. Antuganov.

This begs the question: maybe Minister Pervukhin Alexander Sergeevich, who enjoys great respect from the population of the Udmurt Republic, who is waging an uncompromising fight against embezzlers and embezzlers, does not know that behind his back his subordinates, guided perhaps by short-term gain and the notorious expediency, are hiding the facts of crimes? This is not surprising, since having unearthed old facts from ten years ago that have sunk into the past, facts of improper work of the former Glazov prosecutor, now an honored lawyer of the Udmurt Republic, and other officials may be exposed in an unflattering light. What do you order to do, initiate criminal cases against them?

Everything has long been beautifully placed on shelves: where is black and where is white, and whoever remembers the old, “then look out.”

If we discard all the lyrics, one thing is not clear. Who and by what regulatory act gave the Acting Minister the right to refuse to accept a report of a crime, to refuse to conduct an inspection, and the right to issue a free-form response upon application, while the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly states how a law enforcement agency should proceed:

1. Conduct an inspection and initiate a criminal case.

2. Refuse to initiate criminal proceedings.

3. Send materials on jurisdiction.

The decision on the application must be formalized in the form of a Resolution. This is all.

In this regard, it is not clear how it is possible to demand that citizens comply with the laws if this same law of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is grossly violated by representatives of the same system?

If this is a law enforcement system, then who is it protecting and from what? Maybe the system is from its citizens?