Navalny case: Old and new

Today, in the Zamoskvoretsky court of Moscow, the process begins over Alexei Navalny and his brother Oleg: they are accused of fraud by embezzlement of 27 million rubles. And in the legalization of funds received by criminal means. The historical significance of the event is that the attempts of the authorities to play with a young and promising opposition on the political field are finally discontinued. An anti -corruption activist and politics, who had been giving up two months of Muscovites eight months ago than any opposition candidate in the city elections before him, must probably prepare for a real prison term. What has changed and what has not changed in eight months?

Which has not changed

The tools remained unchanged: it is old and proven. The articles incriminated by the Navalny brothers were repeatedly used in the past 10 years to plant anyone for anything. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, entrepreneur Alexei Kozlov, the powerful Luzhkovsky vice-mayor Alexander Ryabinin were convicted that way. And only the last one, Vice-mayor Ryabinin, a former employee of Inteko, received a short condition. Articles 159 (fraud) and 160 (assignment or embezzlement) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, burdened by Art. 174 of the Criminal Code (legalization), formulated so ornate, and judicial practice is so selective that when the charges are charged in these articles, specialists primarily seek the answer to the question “Cui Prodest?” ("Who benefits?").

The judge of the Zamoskvoretsky court of Moscow Elena Korobchenko will be judged by Alexei and Oleg Navalny. There is no news here either. Most of the Judges of the Central Administrative District of Moscow are well known to civil activists, Elena Korobchenko is no exception. “She also judged me twice,” journalist Sergei Parkhomenko writes about her. - For two accusations made by two different police officers who detained me, it turns out, at the same moment in the same place, but for various reasons ... neither documentary evidence, nor witnesses, nor video recordings made any effect. So she signed two pre -compiled template decisions, not even looking at the fact that one of them includes a punishment ten times higher than the permitted law. ” (Mr. Parkhomenko, convicted-among dozens of other citizens-for participating in anti-war shares at the end of February and for the fact that he came to the Zamoskvoret court on the day the sentence in the so-called swamp case was protected in a special way: he is a member of the PEC with the right to decide vote, and prosecution of this category of citizens is possible only with personal sanction of the Moscow prosecutor.) Familiar with Judge Korobchenko and Alexei Navalny, detained at the same time. His detention was taken in detail on the video, which he writes about: “We watched the video, made sure that there were no cries, and wrote in a court decision: shouted and waved his hands. By the way, the same judge Korobchenko will judge in the “Yves Rocher” case that she saw the chanting and cries on this video. Therefore, in court I will not prove anything. ”

That is why Alexei Navalny published documents from the criminal case (the first volume) that he considers proof of his innocence: the statement of the management of the company Yves Rocher, which reports that there was no direct losses, nor lost benefits, and the company of the head of the Subscription provided 4-15% cheaper than other counterparties. Alexey is sure that to initiate a loud criminal case on such a material is extreme stupidity.

But he is mistaken. The lack of damage, the absence of a statement by the victim and lawsuits does not stop Russian justice, and there is nothing new in this. The most probably similar case is the accusation of the Yukos lawyer Svetlana Bakhmina: she was accused of embezzlement of Tomskneft 18 billion rubles, for which she was sentenced to seven years in prison. But she has a rather exotic set of articles: the 160th and 199th (tax crimes). Why not the usual legalization? “So drew,” says Bakhmina lawyer. So, representatives of the Tomskneft company even at the investigation stage, not to mention the public court, continuously and absolutely officially stated that they had nothing to disappear, nor a penny. Which did not make any impression either for the investigation, nor the court, nor the state prosecution. And in the case of the Brothers Navalny, the initial statement from the company "Yves Rocher" was still, although disavowed.

What has changed

“Feel the difference with the Ministry of Defense: there is damage, there are no perpetrators. “Yves Rocher”: there is no damage, there is an accused, ”they joke on Twitter. But the brothers Navalny is actually not to jokes. The fact is that the investigation considers the final beneficiary a small factory by vine, which belongs to the parents of Alexei and Oleg. If (in fact not, but when, and when) the court shall pass the conviction, the criminal prosecution of Lyudmila and Anatoly Navalny can begin automatically.

But such cases in the rich history of modern Russian lawyers and justice have not yet been. In order for obvious political reasons to take a family in full force, including elderly parents, this is really the first time with us.

The novelty of the situation, of course, is that the second trial of Navalny begins in new political conditions. Less than a year ago, the pressure on the part of the company could still affect the Kremlin’s decision to “plant - not to plant”: the first trial of Navalny, the “Kirovles” case ended with a conditional sentence. Eight months ago, Navalny could still use public policy funds. In a situation where the candidate from the authorities had all the resource advantages, the Navalny team in less than three months reached a significant level of support and came close to the possibility of the second round in the elections of the Moscow mayor.

Last year, the Kremlin still made attempts to argue with a political opponent. This year, an attempt is made to send him in conclusion. The experiment is probably recognized as too dangerous.

And the whole situation has changed. The fundamental difference between yesterday and today is in new divisions between people. Separations were greatly deepened as a result of the foreign policy activation of Moscow and the reaction to it from other countries. These new deep divisions are an important part of the Kremlin policy. What, it would seem, the connection between such large -scale events as foreign policy destabilization around Russia, and such local events as the persecution of oppositionists?

The connection is that if yesterday it was difficult to make the enemy of the people from Navalny, today it is easier today. Today it is easier to do what the Russian authorities since Soviet times can do excellently: to harshly and brutally pursue without guilt, using the most rude propaganda techniques, with setting marginals, with ridiculous accusations and clumsy trials. In the situation of the beloved Chekists of all time of the man -made emergency, which Russia is immersed, and the accusations will not sound so ridiculous, and the process will look less awkward. For this, the emergency is needed so that such trifles as legality, no one else bothers anyone.

On the other hand, no one will be interested in anyone-whether a Navalny Nationalist or a populist is a little bit and whether it was necessary to sit on a paving stones on May 6, 2012. A new political time came in Russia. Navalny is the first politician of the New Age, who is morally ready to pay for his principledness by a prison term.