Absurd in a cage

In the Tver Court of Moscow, contrary to the will of relatives, morality and common sense, the process over the dead Sergey Magnitsky is in full swing

An empty cage in the hall of the Tver court is a symbol of the absurdity and madness of this trial

- Attention, cameras! We come in! We begin the protocol survey.

- The minute has passed! Cameras - to the exit! The following - to the input! - The young reddish bailiff commands photographers and television operators.

“I haven’t taken anything,” complains the operator of the Russia Today television company. It is not very clear that he did not have time to remove this. All photographers and television operators shoot the same thing - a huge empty cage for the defendants. The cell attracts the attention of everyone who enters the hall. It seems too large in this not the largest hall of the trial of the Tver court. The bailiffs explained to the journalists: “Sergei Magnitsky’s case” is obvious in this room, because only here the video camera is installed.

Actors

Two state prosecutors include in bright blue, from a needle of uniforms. Prosecutor Mikhail Reznichenko is a bald, smiling, self -confident. He looks around the journalists with curiosity and makes his way to his place - exactly opposite the empty cage. Opens a black laptop and delves into reading. Next to him, the prosecutor Svyatoslav Slobodin is tall, black -haired, in large glasses with a brown frame. He has a white laptop. Anastasia Gerasimova, a representative of the victim, is rapidly entering the hall - the Federal Tax Service of Russia (Federal Tax Service). She amazes journalists with her outfits. At the last meeting was in a mink coat. This time she is without a fur coat, in a fashionable velvet trouser suit the color of coffee with milk, in short suede boots. She is accompanied by a solid bald colleague - Kirill Mostova. On the process, he did not utter a word. But he also protects the Federal Tax Service.

The last lawyers appear. Unlike their opponents, dressed as a holiday, the defenders of the missing defendants are dressed as a blessed state, gloomily and dissatisfied with life. Recall that the family of Sergei Magnitsky refused to participate in the posthumous trial of him. Family lawyers refused. Therefore, the state appointed lawyers from lawyer No. 5 to represent the interests of Sergei Magnitsky and William Brower.

So Nikolai Gerasimov involuntarily became the defender of the deceased Magnitsky. In an interview with The New Times, he explained that with all his desire he could not refuse to participate in the process: he was afraid that he will be imposed on a disciplinary sanction of the Russian Bar Chamber.

"

Only Sergey Magnitsky could ask the main issues in the court. Only he knew and understood the essence of the matter

" The prosecution

There is no one to ask a judge Igor Alisov a question: "Defendant, is it clear to you?"

Judge Igor Alisov announces the process open and asks if the parties have petitions. The lawyer Gerasimov feverishly leafs through the pretty battered CPC (Criminal Procedure Code) and submits a petition. He asks the state prosecutors to tell in what order they will interrogate their witnesses. His offer causes a smile from the prosecutor Reznichenko. He explains that “the desire of a lawyer to make the prosecutor’s office an accountable body is understandable, but is not based on the law” and he does not intend to disclose the tactics of providing evidence. The judge agrees with him, and the interrogation of the victim begins.

- Do you know Magnitsky? Do you know Brower? - the state prosecutor asks the Girls from the Federal Tax Service.

- No, I don't know. Only according to publications in the press, - Anastasia Gerasimova is cheerful and begins to express the accusations, which the prosecutor read at the last meeting. According to the materials of the case, Magnitsky, Brighter and other unidentified persons in 1998-2004 joined the “criminal group” and agreed to jointly avoid taxes by including knowingly false information in the tax return. They registered in Kalmykia and put on tax records two companies - LLC Dalnaya Steppe and LLC Saturn Investments. These firms were controlled by the Hermitage Capital fund and were engaged in the buying stock of Gazprom. In Kalmykia in 2001, tax benefits for those enterprises that took disabled people and invested money in the economy of the republic operated.

The state prosecution believes that Magnitsky and Bright, taking advantage of these tax preferences, deceived the state and damaged him, underpaying more than 520 million rubles. In obviously false information, the accusation believes that the disabled people hired by Sergei Magnitsky in the staff of two companies registered in Kalmykia did not actually work in these companies, so the companies did not have the right to use benefits. In addition, neither the Dalnaya Steppe LLC nor LLC Saturn Investments LLC invested any serious investments in the Kalmykia economy.

“They allegedly invested: each organization transferred one thousand rubles to the Kalmyk business center. This is a meager investment that is not comparable with the amounts of damage that the state budget has suffered. They allegedly hired disabled people, they were formally listed as financial analysts, but did not receive money ... This was done to use preferential taxation, ”the representative of the“ crime ”of Magnitsky and Brauder lists.

“Instead of 11 % of income taxes, they paid 5.5 %,” says the state prosecutor.

“Yes,” agrees the representative of the Federal Tax Service.

Protection

Anastasia Gerasimova spoke about fifteen minutes without a piece of paper. It seemed as if she was passing an exam on taxation in offshore zones. She “swam” only when the lawyers of Magnitsky and Broud began to ask her specific questions about how tax audits were carried out, what were the requirements for investment activities, how many times the case was suspended and resumed about tax evasion. The “victim” did not know anything of this - 12 years ago, when the events discussed in the court took place, she still went to school and did not work in the Federal Tax Service. But she was not embarrassed, wrote down the questions of lawyers on the sheet and promised to answer them the next time.

Passing her exam, Gerasimova looked right in front of her. And in front of her was the same empty cage.

And it was impossible not to think that the main questions were never asked to her - only Sergey Magnitsky could ask them. Only he knew and understood the essence of the matter.

The same accusation of Magnitsky was charged during his lifetime on October 7, 2009 after a one -year investigation in his case and a month before his death in prison*. He did not plead guilty and repeatedly stated that his arrest was a “repressive measure” for exposing the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the theft of William Brauder companies and the theft of 5.4 billion rubles from the Russian budget carried out by illegal tax returns from the treasury. “Sergey did not testify in the investigation, not because I didn’t want to say how it was really,” his lawyer Dmitry Kharitonov told The New Times, who refused to participate in the posthumous trial in the Tver court. - Such was our agreed position: change the preventive measure, and we will testify. As for the essence of the case, when we were versed in it, it was obvious to us that all the requirements that at that time were presented to such companies in offshore zones - the number of disabled people, the size of investments - were observed. Otherwise, these companies would not be registered with the relevant state bodies in Kalmykia. ”

Lawyer Kharitonov says that tax optimization is a practice adopted around the world. And it was used not only by the Hermitage Capital Foundation, but also by many other organizations.

“In any case, if the tax authorities have claims,” the lawyer continues, “they must go to the arbitration court and collect money from the company. Nobody entered the tax return. Disabled people worked in companies, therefore, they paid only 50 % of taxes. ”

"

The impression of Ponomarev’s testimony: the desire to take revenge. To whom? Magnitsky?

" Ptuno Magovich Kardanov

After a short break, the state prosecutor called his “trump” witness - classmate Sergei Magnitsky, former director of Firestone Duncan Konstantin Ponomarev.

He literally ran into the hall - a graying, intelligent -looking man of about forty in a snow -white sweater.

"Do you know Magnitsky?" The judge asked.

“Shortly before his arrest, he met him. Now there is no relationship with him, ”the witness answered.

He told the court that together with Jamison Fayerstone in 1994 he created a company, owned 51% of the shares in it, and arranged Magnitsky to work there. And in 1997, he had a conflict with Firestone, and he left the company. Magnitsky, on the other hand, remained there to work there, and when Ponomarev sometimes called him, he transmitted through the secretary that Ptuno Magovich Kardanov was calling. So allegedly suggested to him to be called Magnitsky - for conspiracy.

Speaking about his dead classmate as a “competent and meticulous specialist”, Ponomarev suddenly began to talk about him unpleasant things. “I took Magnitsky for negotiations with Browner,” said the witness. - It was in 1996. We have drawn up a plan for optimizing companies in order to circumvent obstacles to the investment activities of foreigners: to register companies in Cyprus, to take disabled people to the state. Magnitsky nearly spoiled the matter with his “sour comments”. He said that it was illegal. But when I left the company, and Magnitsky himself became a manager, he used the same schemes that we developed together then. ”

When asked by lawyers, how he knows that Magnitsky used the schemes allegedly stolen from him, Ponomarev muttered something inaudible: either he read in the newspapers, or he learned from the investigation. The impression of his testimony: the desire to take revenge. To whom? Magnitsky? Former partner Jamison Fayerstone, supporting Brauder in compiling Magnitsky lists?

Why did not lawyers object to the interrogation of this witness who, back in 1997, left Firestone Duncan?

“I cannot comment on the actions of my colleagues,” explains the lawyer Kharitonov. “But in their place I would insist that he would not be interrogated, because he cannot know how the financial statements of these two companies were prepared.” I think that Mr. Ponomarev’s invitation to the court is connected with the maintenance of the desired concept: everything was invented by Magnitsky - and we need a person who would confirm that the company has gone from taxes for many years. ”

When the court ended, the New Times correspondent asked Konstantin Ponomarev why he found it possible for himself to be a witness in the posthumous process against a person whom he calls his “good friend”?

“I sympathize with his wife, I knew the family,” he answered. “But I'm telling the truth.” Here the court is not over Magnitsky: there are two defendants and one of them in the UK. Being a witness is my duty. I am not on the side of the prosecution, I was simply declared as a witness to the prosecution. And in Magnitsky I am disappointed: when he was an employee, he said that he did not want to participate in some illegal activity, and in ten years he did not come up with anything new and used the same schemes ... "

The fact that Magnitsky cannot confirm or refute his words, Ponomarev was not embarrassed.

He simply did not understand the question.

According to Article 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the witness’s refusal to testify is punishable by a fine of up to forty thousand rubles, mandatory work for up to three hundred and sixty hours and the worst thing is to arrest up to three months. But cases of prosecution of witnesses, refusing to the court from the testimony they gave during the investigation are extremely rare.

Photo: Evgeny Feldman, Ap Photo