The case of experts

On February 27, a professor at the Higher School of Economics Oksana Oleinik, one of the six Russian experts participating in the public examination of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights (HRC) under the President of the Russian Federation in the second case of Yukos, was called in the IC of the Russian Federation. But the investigator canceled the interrogation. Does it mean that the “go -ahead” is given to stop repressions against world -famous scientists - the New Times sorted out

At one of the meetings of President Dmitry Medvedev with members of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, the idea of ​​conducting a public examination in the “second case of Yukos” was approved

“Experts love silence, we are not human rights activists, we never engaged in politics either,” says Mikhail Subbotin, candidate of economic sciences, senior researcher at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences. So he explains why, until recently, the defendants in the so -called “case of experts” were not publicized by the circumstances of this extremely absurd history, which led to the actual termination of the activities of one of the most reputable expert institutions - the “Center for Legal and Economic Research”*.

For the first time, the general public on the persecution of world-famous scientists became known only in early February, when the judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is retired Tamara Morshchakov at a press conference of the HRC was released by one of the decisions of the Basmanny Court, allowing a search in criminal case No. 18/41-03.

Communication with Khodorkovsky

On July 23, 2012, the judge of the Basmanny Court Irina Skuridina issued six of the same decisions for searches in the dwellings of employees of the Center for Legal and Economic Research and in the office premises of the Center. Applications to the court were sent by the deputy head of the Main Investigative Directorate of the IC Valery Alyshev and supported in court by the senior prosecutor of the Department for Supervision of the Investigation of the Particularly important cases of the Prosecutor General Vladimir Lakhtin (it was he was the state prosecutor in the process in the “second case of Yukos”).

The searches were carried out in the best traditions - simultaneously at six addresses. Both employees of the RF IC and the FSB officers participated in them.

“They came to me at 8.30 in the morning. They presented a decision for a search, ”recalls Mikhail Subbotin. - The decision says that the search is carried out in the Apatite case, initiated in 2003. I was asked to issue all electronic media, examined the printed archives. They did not hide that they wanted to find traces of some possible correspondence in my computer at least with someone from the proxies of the participants in the “criminal group”.

From the resolution on the resolution of the search in the home of July 23, 2012: “This criminal case was instituted on 06/20/2003 on the facts of causing property damage to the state of Apatit OJSC and intentional non -fulfillment of the court’s decision on the grounds of crimes under paragraph 3 of part 3 of article 165, part 3 of Art. 285 and Art. 315 of the Criminal Code. In the petition submitted to the court, the investigator indicates that Brudny M.B., Elfimov M.V. and other members of an organized group under the leadership of Khodorkovsky M.B. The appropriation of oil was made by OJSC Yukos and its subsidiaries in Yuganskneftegaz OJSC, Samaraneftegaz OJSC and Tomskneft OJSC, the legalization of stolen oil, as well as the legalization of funds received from the sale of stolen property. "

What is the relationship of scientists from the "Center for Legal and Economic Research", who have conducted searches on September 7, have to Khodorkovsky, his proxies and oil?

We read in the court’s decision on the search: “Currently, the proxies of Khodorkovsky MB, Brudnoy MB, Lebedeva P.L./ .../ Manage cash received as a result of the commissioned by the crime persons who are on the accounts of foreign banks and companies .../ for the purpose of preventing the proceedings through foreign banks of legalized funds are transferred to the accounts of public organizations and are used according to the instructions of the participants of the organized group to falsify evidence and perform other actions, including To finance and receive knowingly false conclusions of specialists under the guise of independent public examinations by paying to persons organizing them and experts. ”

“Our center has never given conclusions in specific legal affairs, we never received money from Khodorkovsky,” says Subbotin. I personally are not familiar with him, and in the early 2000s was an active opponent for his ideas on natural rents, the reform of the tax system in the fuel and energy complex. On this topic he wrote in books and in dozens of articles. In April 2011, the Human Rights Council under the President of the Russian Federation invited me to take part in the public examination of the verdict in the “second case of Yukos” **. My conclusion was included in the report of the Council, which was presented to President Medvedev. There I acted in personal quality, and not as the general director of the Center for Legal and Economic Research.

However, on September 7, searches were carried out with other employees of the Center: the scientific director of Elena Novikova and executive director Ilya Faglina. They did not participate in the public examination on Yukos at all. Other scientists who participated in this examination, as far as are known, did not conduct searches.

Cash mark

What did the investigators seek during the September searches last year?

The decision of the Basmanny Court on the search says that from May 2010 to January 2011, on behalf of P. J. Salas (France) *** and a certain Royal Association (in fact, a unit of the world -famous McGill University in Montreal) to the “Center for Legal and Economic Research” from accounts in foreign banks was transferred about $ 1 million. Of course, in of course, in of course, in The resolution does not say that this is a university, known for its 20-year support for legal reforms in Russia, including the promotion of the development of the Russian Civil Code, and the “round sum” was used to pay employees of the Center, which received very average income against the backdrop of Moscow salaries.

However, it was precisely the connection of this money with the proxies of Khodorkovsky, apparently, that the SK investigators and operatives of the FSB were looking for during searches. The “development” of the center of Elena Novikova began back in April 2012, when the bank, where the center had an invoice, carried out the seizure of documents and found transfers from the University of McGill.

Negotiations on the conclusion of a cooperation agreement with the world famous Canadian University began the center back in 2010, i.e. Almost a year before the start of public examination in the Yukos case. But this was not embarrassed by the investigators, they apparently rejoiced that they could build a chain between the authorized persons of Khodorkovsky, who “send money to Canada”, and from there they supposedly get to Moscow directly to the “Center for Legal and Economic Research”. And already this non -governmental organization pays for the examination in the “second case of Yukos”.

“According to the principles of the organization of public scientific analysis, which were approved at a meeting of the Council in the spring of 2011,” his chairman Mikhail Fedotov told The New Times, “all experts wrote their conclusions for free. Some experts rejected our proposal to take part in this work for this reason. But even if we assume that Khodorkovsky, through firms, could pay for the work of scientists, then in this case there is no crime, because this is not a forensic examination, but a scientific analysis. Such a document cannot affect either the court or the investigation. The legality of this form of public control of the judiciary is clearly said in the response of the chairman of the Constitutional Court Valery Zorkin to a request from the Council of Judges. ”

Bombay tunnel to London

Surprisingly, the investigators who request a search permit from the court, and the judge who gave this permission did not “bother” at all by the fact that documents that ensure the real repression for the expression of independent opinion are legally very imperfect.

So, for example, the decision on conducting a search talks about "falsification of evidence and obviously false conclusions of experts." These actions fall under Article 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Obviating the administration of justice and the production of a preliminary investigation”). But in his petition, the investigator refers to completely different articles. And the judge of the Basmanny Court Irina Skuridina, not paying attention to this, the searches allowed.

What is the relation to the case No. 18/41-03, i.e. The case of a ten -year ago, have employees of the Center for Legal and Economic Research?

“No,” said the lawyer Konstantin Rivkin. - The case, on which all these searches were carried out - the “maternal” “Yukos case”, from which all these years, others related to Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and his company were borne. I don’t know why investigators, justifying the need for a search, referred to this matter. With the same success, they could take the case of tax evasion or the digging tunnel from Bombay to London. If this goes further, then the next persons who allegedly repair obstacles to justice will be specialists involved in lawyers to the court for giving expert conclusions. The third "echelon" will go the lawyers themselves.

Mikhail Subbotin is one of the six experts who participated in the public examination of the HRC under the President of the Russian Federation in the “second case of Yukos”	Elena Novikova, Head of the Center for Legal and Economic Research, has not been able to receive a foreign passport from the RF IC from the RF IC for six months

Repetition of the completed?

For half a year has passed, but none of what was taken on searches on September 7, 2012 was returned to the center’s employees: neither computers, nor electronic media, nor mobile phones. The supervisor of the center Elena Novikova never received a foreign passport seized from her during a search. But there is a passport - they did not return diplomas on higher education and the award of the degrees of candidate and doctor of legal sciences. They did not return, despite the fact that Novikova is just a witness in the case. And the law allows the seizure of passports only from the suspects and the accused, and then in the presence of special circumstances.

“During the search, I asked the investigator:“ Can I go out into the kitchen? - recalls Mikhail Subbotin. He replied: "Yes, of course, because now is not the 37th year." I objected: “But it looks like the 30th. I'm afraid he does not know that it was then that in the USSR, economists were repressed for expressing their opinion. ”

According to The New Times, President Putin is known about this absurd persecution. In one of the letters in support of experts at the end of last year, he wrote a resolution to the chairman of the RF IC Alexander Bastrykin: “Consider and report!” The calls of experts for interrogation, meanwhile, continued in January, and only at the end of February, it seems, there was a turn: investigators canceled some pre -planned interrogations.

“I hope that this case does not have a legal prospect,” says lawyer Andrei Rakhmilovich. - Any sane lawyer blushes when he reads documents on this case. This is complete Akhineya: the authorities requested the opinion of experts in the Yukos case. It turned out that their opinion differs from the opinion of the authorities and the opinion of the court. And then people began to pursue for their beliefs. The goal is to intimidate. This is the return of Soviet approaches. My grandfather lawyer Mikhail Aronov in 1958 wrote a letter to Nikita Khrushchev, in which he criticized him for methods of government. He was accused under Article 58.10 (“counter -revolutionary propaganda and agitation”) and sentenced to five years in prison. When his grandfather came out, he laughed: "I was imprisoned for agitating Khrushchev against the Soviet regime." The situations are similar: he wrote a letter to Khrushchev, and experts wrote a conclusion for Medvedev. ”

Photo: RIA Novosti