Translated material
Political pressure: media digest (July 10-16, 2015)
prosecution
The trial in the Tablighi Jamaat case has begun in Novosibirsk
“On July 14, 2015, in the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Novosibirsk, the trial began in the case under Part 2 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code (participation in the activities of an extremist organization) in relation to Nurlan Borbiev, Ibrokhim Dzhurakhudzhaev and 14 other people.
All of them are accused of spreading the ideas of the banned religious organization Tablighi Jamaat, recruiting supporters and participating in meetings held by Tablighi Jamaat.
Let us remind you that the case is under Parts 1 and 2 of Art. 282.2 (organizing the activities of an extremist organization and participating in it) was initiated on November 5, 2013 against Kamolitdin Rakhmanov, Nurlan Borbiev and three other residents of the region. According to investigators, the cell was led by a citizen of Tajikistan, Kamolitdin Rakhmanov, who in 2012 was expelled from the Russian Federation due to involvement in Tablighi Jamaat, with entry into the country closed for a period of five years, but later returned to Russia using a fake passport.”
And in St. Petersburg - in the case of the artist Pyotr Pavlensky
“In the court district of the magistrate No. 199 in St. Petersburg, the trial of the case of the artist Pyotr Pavlensky, accused of vandalism (part 2 of Article 214 of the Criminal Code; maximum punishment - three years in prison), begins. Pavlensky and two other participants of the “Freedom” rally were detained by the police for setting fire to car tires in February 2014 on the Maly Konyushenny Bridge near the Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood. In May, the artist refused the amnesty.
<...> Magistrate Yana Nikitina opens the meeting. The hall does not accommodate everyone; Some of those who came to court are sitting on the floor. Pavlensky is represented by lawyer Svetlana Ratnikova.
The prosecution believes that photography and video shooting should be prohibited in the courtroom, since the personal life of the defendant may be affected during the hearing; Pavlensky and his lawyer are against.
The judge asks him about his place of work. “I’m engaged in political propaganda,” the artist answers.
<...> The judge suggests that Pavlensky use the services of an appointed lawyer. He refuses, recalling that he is already defended by two lawyers: Ratnikova and Dmitry Dinze, in addition, he asks to be allowed to participate in the meeting of a third defender - Pavel Yasman, a former investigator who led the case of the actionist before his dismissal from the Investigative Committee.
“A year ago he was the head of the interdistrict investigative department in the Voronezh region and was involved in all sorts of fierce black earth criminal cases (...) But his wife wanted to go to St. Petersburg; he promised: we’ll move, and he kept his promise (...) At the new place we had to start over as usual. The story of burning tires became Yasman's first case in St. Petersburg (...) The investigator hesitated. He didn’t want to imprison Pavlensky. (...) Pavel Yasman breathed a sigh of relief and resigned from the Investigative Committee,” this is how Furfur described Yasman’s story.
<...> The prosecutor requests that the request to admit Yasman as a defense attorney be rejected: he previously participated in the case as an investigator and cannot represent Pavlensky’s interests. The judge retires for the decision.
<...> Judge Nikitina agrees with the position of state prosecutor Artem Lytaev: Yasman previously participated in the proceedings as an investigator and cannot be admitted to the trial as a lawyer. Pavlensky's petition was denied. As a sign of protest, the artist declares a “rule of silence” and refuses to speak at the meeting.
<...> Prosecutor Lytaev: Pavlensky is accused of a crime under Part 2 of Article 214 of the Criminal Code - an act of vandalism committed by a group of persons, as well as motivated by ideological hatred or enmity. He entered into a preliminary criminal conspiracy with his accomplices, sharing their roles in the criminal plan. The accused organized the delivery of tires, metal sheets and wooden sticks to the protest site and created noise by hitting the sticks against the metal sheets.
Deliberately violating public morals and generally accepted norms of behavior in society, realizing that their actions were a social challenge, knowing that the Maly Konyushenny Bridge would be desecrated by fire, the participants of the action doused it with flammable liquid and set fire to a total area of 10 square meters.
The fact of a criminal conspiracy, says the state prosecutor, is confirmed by preparations for the action: renting a GAZ car, loading tires and delivering them to the site. Carrying out his plan, Pavlensky continued to disrupt public order during the burning process, creating noise with sticks, waving a black flag and the flag of the Republic of Ukraine. As a result, the Maly Konyushenny Bridge was desecrated, the bridge's covering was contaminated, and damage was caused in the amount of 26 thousand rubles - the cost of cleaning the protest site.
The artist is silent.
Ratnikov’s lawyer: we don’t admit the charges, there is no crime in Pavlensky’s actions.
Article 214 of the Criminal Code defines vandalism as “desecration of buildings or other structures, damage to property on public transport or in other public places.”
<...> At the request of the prosecutor, the court begins questioning the victim Filin and witnesses. The defense has no objections, Pavlensky is silent.
The victim, Vadim Filin, a legal adviser at the unitary enterprise Center, says that he does not know the defendant, but “the fact took place”: his company sent workers to eliminate the consequences of the action on the bridge.
Prosecutor: what activities were carried out?
Filin: there was pollution on the bridge, cleaning machines were sent, watering was carried out with detergents, the cost of the work was 27 thousand rubles, this amount consists of the labor hours of workers, the cost of water and cleaning materials.
To clarify the amount of damage (Filin does not remember the exact figure - 27,014 rubles), the prosecutor reads out his testimony given to the investigation back in August 2014. Neither the prosecution nor the defense has any questions for the witness.
Judge: Pavlensky is silent, does not nod, I don’t understand his position, “we probably need some kind of specialist. Pavlensky, at least nod, can you hear me?”
<...> The second prosecution witness is photographer Alexander Koryakov from the Kommersant publishing house. Koryakov says that he filmed Pavlensky’s action until the moment of his arrest, did not see who exactly set fire to the tires (it was dark, only silhouettes), and that he finds it difficult to estimate the number of participants (three or four people, but there were also photographers there).
The prosecutor clarifies who exactly hit the iron with sticks.
Koryakov: “Then I looked at the photo - it was Pavlensky himself.”
<...> Ratnikov’s lawyer asks questions to witness Koryakov.
— For what purpose do you think people came to the bridge?
— Actionism.
— What was destroyed on the bridge?
- I didn’t see anything.
— Does this action offend morality?
- Mine - no.
The victim Filin asks permission to leave the hearing, the judge does not object.
<...> Witness Yulia Kharchilava, a monument protection specialist, tells how she inspected the bridge after the tire burning event.
Prosecutor Lytaev is interested in what constitutes “desecration of an object.” The witness quotes the law on cultural heritage sites. Ratnikov's lawyer asks what vandalism is.
Witness: Actions aimed at damaging an object and inappropriately using it, for example, hanging padlocks on a bridge, are the same vandalism as arson. “To me, the bridge is a living object, and I believe he was offended.” In front of Kharchilava is a piece of paper with a printout of legal text about cultural heritage sites.
Judge: The covering of the bridge is made of large-sized stone, is it known to be ancient?
Witness: The stone was not replaced.
Judge: Did the fire cause damage to the coating?
Witness: No examination was carried out.
The prosecutor reads out Kharchilava’s testimony given to the investigation: no examination of the condition of the bridge was carried out after the action.
The witness once again says that the object was not damaged, but it was “desecrated.” She refers to Article 33 of the federal law “On Objects of Cultural Heritage”.
<...> The next witness is the head of the cultural department of the administration of the Central District of St. Petersburg, Andrei Pashkin.
No notification about the action was submitted, the official says, finding it difficult to remember exactly when it took place - “about a year and a half ago.” He only knows that “tires were brought to the bridge” and young people “made noises” until the police arrived, and then there was a “costly cleanup for the city.”
The prosecutor again asks whether, in the opinion of the witness, the bridge was desecrated.
Pashkin: I don’t consider myself an expert, but there was a threat - smoke, fire.
The judge clarifies what the witness means by the word “action”.
Pashkin: I used this term because this event was not a cultural event. I believe that there was a protest message there, it was a protest action.
Lawyer Ratnikova: In the protocol of interrogation at the investigative stage, which the judge has now read, it is written that you said that this was desecration, and now you say that you are not an expert.
Witness: This is my value judgment. I am concerned about the damage that may have been caused to the bridge.
Ratnikova: Did this offend you?
Pashkin: As a Leningrader, a St. Petersburger, I was insulted. In particular, the witness was offended by the “untimely cleaning,” he says.
<...> Witness Nikolai Maleev, unemployed and formerly an employee of the same company “Center” where the victim Filin worked, is invited.
Maleev tells how he arrived at the scene of the action - “the tires were smoking, there was ash, then the police arrived.”
The witness describes in detail the cleaning process: how the fumes spread across the bridge when firefighters doused the tires, how he saw the burnt tire frames. Maleev recalls that cleaning the bridge was different from usual: the pollution was not standard, it was necessary to use additional watering equipment. The cost of operating a dump truck is 600-700 rubles per hour, he clarifies.
Neither party has any questions for the witness.
<...> Witness Vladimir Kopshev, also a former employee of the Center (he worked as the head of complex cleaning), says that he does not recognize Pavlensky and asks who it is. Kopshev did not see the tires burning, and when asked by the prosecutor about what percentage of the bridge surface was contaminated, he answers - 15%.
During interrogation during the investigation, Kopshev proposed to “find and shoot” the protesters on the bridge; “I can’t express it any other way,” he said. The prosecutor reads these words from the protocol.
Judge Nikitina: Do you confirm your words?
Witness: Well, there is no need to shoot, the court will decide what to do.
Pavlensky’s lawyer notes that witness Kopshev, speaking of “insult,” evaluates the actions of her client.
Kopshev: What, you can shit on an architectural monument?
Ratnikova: What is “shit”?
-Make it inappropriate. A week ago I walked there at a wedding, and then I looked at photos of Fontanka with tires...
-What can you call desecration?
— Vandalism is damage to state property...
— How is the bridge damaged?
“You couldn’t walk on it, people were allowed around.”
— How often do you have to clean the city?
- Every day. Everyone wants to walk around a clean city. Someone walks around kicking trash cans, we lift them up.
— Is an overturned urn desecration?
- Of course, this is a desecration of public order.
- What else is desecration?
— A painted monument, an overturned monument, stolen eagles on Palace Square.
— How often do you experience the feeling of being insulted?
- Every day. I clean the city every day
<...>
Judge Nikitina invites the parties to agree on a hearing schedule; The prosecutor asks to postpone the next hearing due to the failure of a number of witnesses (26 in total), the defense does not object. The next hearing in the Pavlensky case will begin on September 16 at 10:00.”
Teacher from the Oryol region Alexander Byvshev was sentenced to compulsory labor
“ On Monday, July 13, judge of the Kromsky District Court of the Oryol Region Margarita Gridina made history by sentencing a Russian citizen for poetry. In Byvshev’s essay, the high court saw extremism and imposed punishment, namely: 300 hours of corrective (formally mandatory - OVD-Info ) labor, confiscation of a laptop and deprivation of the right to engage in teaching activities for two years.
“I slept very poorly today,” Byvshev admits. We are sitting on a bench outside the courthouse, there is still an hour before the verdict is announced. Alexander looks tired and is reluctant to communicate.
“Not because of the sentence,” he says. — At night, the windows in the apartment were broken. The second time already: the first was on June 14th. The police did not find anyone, they said that the broken glass was a “hanging fruit”: no witnesses, no video cameras. Today, however, they called and said that they would help with replacing the windows.
— Will they put it in themselves?
- Don't know.
During the court debate, the prosecutor requested six months of correctional labor for Byvshev, confiscation of the “weapon of crime” (that is, the laptop with which he wrote his poem) and deprivation of the right to teach for two years.
The verdict was supposed to be announced on July 7, but judge Margarita Gridina postponed the hearing to the 13th.
“My mother had her anniversary on the seventh,” says Byvshev. - 80 years old. Honestly, it’s a terrible feeling: congratulating my mother, knowing that in a week we could be separated, and we most likely will not see each other again.
Alexander told me before that if he were imprisoned, he would have to send his parents to a nursing home: there would be no one to take care of them.
“Father wouldn’t bear it,” says Byvshev. — He is very sick, he hardly walks. He knows nothing about my criminal case.
Half an hour before the meeting, a lawyer and journalists from three local media came. The bailiffs don’t let us into the meeting room at first; they carefully search our pockets and ask me three times to go through the metal detector.
Judge Margarita Gridina cannot be called a “stamper of sentences.” This is her first political trial; previously she only considered everyday matters.
Gridina conducted the meetings on the Byvsheva case with interest: she asked questions and clarified details. I tried to figure it out, at least for myself.
She announced the verdict with extreme detachment, without intonation, like reading an uninteresting book during a lesson at school:
“Byvshev publicly committed actions aimed at inciting hatred or hostility based on nationality, language or origin. <…> In the period from January 1 to March 1, 2014, Byvshev, as a result of his personal hostile attitude towards Russians, had the intention of committing actions aimed at inciting hatred towards Russians on the part of Ukrainians. Realizing his criminal intent, on March 1 at 20.24, Byvshev, while in his apartment, posted on his personal page on the social network “VKontakte” a poem containing signs of hostility towards Russians.”
Next, Gridina began to list evidence of Byvshev’s guilt. One after another, the names of his colleagues, teachers of the Kromskaya school, sounded.
“Byvshev’s guilt is proven by the testimony of witness Sukhorukov, who testified that Byvshev used to write poems about nature and children, but in 2014 he published poems in which he sharply criticized President Putin and recent events in Crimea.”
“Byvshev’s guilt is proven by the testimony of witness Agoshkova, who said that in the spring of 2014, she learned from her colleagues that Byvshev published a poem in support of Ukraine, in which he harshly criticized the Russian government and Russian policy towards Crimea.”
“Byvshev’s guilt is proven by the testimony of witness Mitasova, who testified that Byvshev published his poem with the aim of inciting hatred or hostility towards Russians.”
More than 20 witness statements. Each (!) ends like a carbon copy:
“In addition, this poem contains calls to destroy Russian citizens by force.”
The examination of Oryol State University professor Lyudmila Vlasova was also cited as evidence of Byvshev’s guilt. It was she who became the key witness for the prosecution, since the court for a long time could not decide whether Byvshev used the word “Muscovite” in his poem not in the meaning of “Russian”. Let us explain: the poem talks about the right of Ukrainians to defend the territorial integrity of their country from the “Muscovite” pack, including with weapons in their hands.
Vlasova, speaking in court, authoritatively stated: “The poem is written about events that are happening today. This means that Byvshev could not use the word “Muscovite” in a meaning other than “Russian”. Historicisms are not used in such poems. Consequently, he called for the use of weapons against the Russians.”
This argument could not be refuted either by the author himself or by specialists from the Moscow Guild of Linguistic Experts in Litigation Disputes (GLEDIS), who pointed out as many as four current meanings of the word “Moskal”, the main one of which, according to the Ukrainian-Russian Academic Dictionary, is “an armed person, aggressor".
Motivating her critical attitude towards the conclusion of GLADIS, Gridina stated: “The specialists’ answers are not specific, vague, and contain a large amount of specific terminology that makes it difficult to understand the meaning. They are presented in such a way as to mislead the court.”
“The court is critical of the statements of Byvshev and his lawyer that the poem was written in Ukrainian and, therefore, addressed to a Ukrainian audience,” Gridina said. — Witnesses in the courtroom explained that although they do not know the Ukrainian language, they understood the general meaning of this poem.
Gridina noted that she does not consider the fact that Byvshev has two elderly parents who need constant care to be a circumstance mitigating Byvshev’s guilt.
“The purpose of the punishment - the correction of the convict - can be achieved through public work,” the judge said. Alexander smiled barely noticeably.
“The court ruled. To impose a punishment of Fe. in the form of 300 hours of public work with the removal of a crime tool and the deprivation of the right to conduct teaching for two years, ”the judge summed up and calmly went to her office.
In the hall after her departure, there was a short silence. After that, the lawyer began to tell Thalo what to do next.
“Obscuring,” the teacher told me. - Of course, I do not agree with this. My colleagues will be very upset that I was not imprisoned. But the court kicked me out of school. ”
The lawyer of the formerly Vladimir Schukov intends to appeal to the regional court, and then, if necessary, - in the ECHR.
“The first claim to the verdict: it is not motivated,” Suchkov explained to Novaya Gazeta. - Have you heard in the speech of the judges quotes from the poem? No. That is, it is incomprehensible at all what the verdict is connected with. After all, the accusation was not brought against the whole poem, but on two specific phrases from it. They were not sounded in the sentence. The second claim: the judge’s reluctance to take into account the ambiguity of words like “Moskal”, on which the charge is charged. Third: Until June 28, 2014, Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provided for liability for the initiation of hatred or enmity only publicly, or using the media. And only in June they added to her: “... either using information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet. This wording is used both in the verdict and in the indictment. But Thamshev wrote and published a poem on March 1, 2014. Then this norm did not work. And the law of retroactive force does not have. ”
Ecocactivist Sergey Loshkarev amnesty
“The Rostov Regional Court refused to justify activist Sergei Loshkarev, convicted of illegal turnover of weapons. However, on July 15, he will be released in amnesty. <...> As the lawyer of the convicted Leonid Novikov told the Caucasian Knot correspondent, today the Rostov Regional Court of appeal in Loshkarev’s complaint did not satisfy the protection of the defense to justify him.
"The court did not satisfy the complaint of the defense. The court also refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s application for a reduction in Loshkarev’s detention to a year and a half. As a result, the court reduced the term for one month and released Loshkarev on an amnesty," the lawyer said, adding that Loshkarev would be released from the investigative Novocherkassk isolator July 15.
According to Leonid Novikov, he will dispute this decision in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and in the European Court of Human Rights.
"The amnesty does not justify Loshkarev, so this decision is illegally and absurd, since my client should be fully justified," the lawyer emphasized. "
The editorial office of the Saratov publication "Public Opinion" conducted a search of the case of slander of the deputy
“The police came to the editorial office of the Saratov magazine“ Public Opinion ”in the slander case, Sergei Vilkov, correspondent of the publication told Mediazone.
He clarified that the case was openly on the statement of local deputy Sergei Kurikhin.
“Ten police people came in, they conduct a search in the criminal case of slander, which was initiated at the request of the deputy of Kurikhin. The case has been opened about my publication on social networks. I posted documents there, similar to the service notes of the special services, which spoke about Kurikhin’s involvement in the organized crime group, ”said Vilkov.
According to Vilkov, he is now in the status of a witness in a criminal case.
Saratov journalist Anton Naumluk said on Twitter that searches are also at home with Sergey Vilkov and his parents.
Vilkov previously published in his VKontakte a copy of a certain operational certificate about a participant in the Parkovskiy organized crime group - Sergey Georgievich Kurikhin born in 1972, who allegedly wore the nickname “Little”. The name and date of birth of the “small” coincide with the data of the deputy Kurikhin, indicated on the website of the Saratov Regional Duma. The document, the authenticity of which is not confirmed, says that “Kurikhin and his group knocked out debts, were engaged in a racketeering” and “ATS are wanted for the attempt on Mr. Maksimov”. The certificate also describes the connections of the “small” with law enforcement officials.
Since the beginning of 2015, several administrative cases have been opened on Sergei Vilkov, and a criminal case was opened against him under Article 282. The journalist himself believes that Kurikhin stands behind the persecution. Also, journalists of “public opinion” connected the attack on Vilkov in January with his publications about Kurikhin. ”
On the Saratov journalist Sergei Vilkov did not start a case of arousing hatred
“The Investigative Committee of the Volzhsky District of the city of Saratov refused to initiate the case of the“ extremist ”article of the 282nd article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation against the journalist“ OM ”Sergey Vilkov.
We will remind, earlier an employee of the Center for Combating Extremism under the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Saratov Region Alexei Kuzin took away from him an explanation in connection with the publication of VKontakte the video of the Saratov anti-fascist hip-hip-hip of the Great rain group. In it, the members of the Antifa movement parody Ku-Klux-Clan. According to the policeman, the video is supposed to be in the federal list of extremist materials (which, we add, is open for overall access). The materials were transferred to the Kirov district prosecutor's office to make a procedural decision. They found out that there is no prohibited video in the list. Then the CPE sent materials to the UK in the Volzhsky district for criminal proceedings under the 282nd article “Extremism”. The deputy head of the district department of the SK for about two months conducted an audit and concluded that the absence of a crime in Wilkov’s actions. As the journalist himself explained, the video was humorous and was of a completely clear anti -extremist character.
Sergey Vilkov in the OM commentary said that he was inclined to connect numerous inspections in his attitude from law enforcement agencies with the political order of the deputy of the Saratov Regional Duma, major businessman Sergei Kurikhin, whose journalist investigated. We recall him, Vilkov considers the most likely customer of the attack on himself, which occurred on January 13 of this year.
It should be noted that last Friday, July 10, the editors of the “Public Opinion”, where Vilkov works, as well as his house, were searched as part of a criminal case of slander of the deputy Kurikhin, who was initiated by the request of the deputy. The parliamentarian remained unhappy that the journalist published some documents on social networks, which may indicate the criminal past of Kurikhin. Vilkov is still a witness in the case. The journalist also drew attention to the fact that the same employee of the Center for Combating Extremism Alexei Kuzin, who tried to start a case under the 282nd article of the Criminal Code, led the search in his house.
Moscow Region Journalist, persecuted on charges of corruption, may be released on bail
“On July 9, a court session in the case of a journalist and human rights activist from the Moscow Region Reutov Evgeny Kurakin was held in the Moscow Regional Court. At the hearing, the issue of territorial jurisdiction and a change in the preventive measure was decided, the journalist is in a pre -trial detention center for more than a year.
Recall that the journalist and human rights activist Yevgeny Kurakin are accused of fraud . Allegedly, being the chairman of the HOA "Parkovaya 8", he abducted more than three million rubles. According to investigators, Kurakin paid for the services of the Veles Criminal Code, which were actually not.
Kurakin’s colleagues and defense are convinced that the “landing” of the journalist is ordered, political in nature. By the family of his activities, Kurakin repeatedly published journalistic materials exposing the officials near Moscow, in particular the ex-mayor of Reutov Alexander Khodyrev. According to the protection, the investigating authorities simply found a reason to isolate Kurakin, put him in custody. ”
The elder of the Jehovist community in the Ivanovo region was fined for storing brochures
“On July 13, 2015, it became known that the founder of the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Teikovo, Ivanovo Region, was fined under Art. 20.29 Administrative Code (storage of extremist materials for the purpose of their mass distribution).
According to the Ivanovo Transport Prosecutor's Office, employees of the CPE of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in the Ivanovo region during a search conducted by the place of residence of the founder of the local organization of Jehovah's Witnesses seized over 600 publications, more than 10 of which were prohibited. ”
In relation to the Kuban activist, the case of the promotion of Nazi symbols has been instituted
“On July 15, 2015, an administrative case was opened against the activist of the“ Left Front ”from Krasnodar Yulia Usach under Art. 20.3 of the Administrative Code (propaganda and public display of Nazi symbols).
The reason was that on the Usach page on the VKontakte social network, several cartoons and demotivators were placed in the public domain that the swastika appeared on. All images had a satirical character and did not pursue the goal of the propaganda of Nazism. We also note that the barbel adheres to anti -fascist views. Recall that we are opposed to persecution for any demonstration of Nazi symbols without taking into account the presence or absence of a propaganda context.
Usac believes that the attention of law enforcement agencies attracted its opposition activity. The activist was the applicant and active participant in the Krasnodar opposition rallies, conducted single pickets against the arbitrariness of the authorities. In general, the pursuit of the barbel fits into the channel of extremely strict measures against civil activists and ecologists who take the authorities of the Krasnodar Territory, it is characteristic that the communication of activists with law enforcement agencies began with a visit to her by a representative of the local CPE, who asked her about Daria Polyudova , with whom the barbecue, In my own words, it crossed only once. Usach claims that law enforcement agencies are pressure on it, in particular, she was threatened with new administrative persecution in case she retires the materials of her case, to which the activist has every right in accordance with the law. ”
The official of the City Hall of Petrozavodsk can be fined for the poem with the mention of the drug
"Capital on the One", July 16 :
“ An employee of the administration of Petrozavodsk, whom drug police officers want to finish through the court for the quatrain, which contains the word“ methamphetamine ”, is perplexed about the incident. “The municipal employee, who is a small clerk, is perplexed about what happened. The few people know who is talking about the city hall,” the source in the administration of Petrozavodsk commented on the situation in the capital.
Recall, in April, an employee of the city hall for the sake of joke posted on one of the sites an image and inscription containing advertising and propaganda of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the press service of the city court said. For this he faces a fine of 4 thousand rubles. ”
extrajudicial prosecution
An opposition journalist is beaten into Ulan-Ude
“In the capital of the Republic of Buryatia Ulan-Ude, unknown people beat the opposition journalist Yevgeny Khamaganov, the editor-in-chief of the site“ Asia-Russia Today ”. The attack occurred on Sunday evening. Currently, a journalist with a fracture of the neck is in the hospital, the local activist Dorjo Dugarov, a member of the Buryat National Movement for Democracy and Freedom.
According to him, an attack on Khamaganov, who is a member of the Yabloko party, is of a custom in nature. The journalist wrote critical articles about the policy of the federal government and the president in the Russian regions, and defended freedom of speech. Dugarov notes that Khamaganov was repeatedly threatened. ”
Jehovist is beaten in Karachay-Cherkessia
“In the capital of Karachay-Cherkessia Cherkessk, police officers who introduced themselves as employees of the Center for Combating Extremism, including the head of the Center, beat the ministers of Jehovah's Witnesses of 53-year-old Vladimir Mirzoyan, demanding that he renounced a statement for the illegal actions of police officers, reported July 15 Kasparov.ru press service of the Jehovah's Office Center in Russia.
The reason for the situation was the Hall of the Kingdom of Jehovah's witnesses with 210 seats, built by believers in 2000 on Factory Street. For some time now, the building began to interfere with the construction of new retail space: believers received an offer to alienate the building and part of the adjacent territory. However, then they decided not to buy the building, but simply to pick up: confiscated for the "extremist activity" of believers.
According to the Circassian Jehovists, for this, the publications of Jehovah's witnesses previously included in the list of extremist materials were “discovered” into the hall. The organization itself and its two members were fined .
After that, the minister of the Hall Mirzoyan was twice to severely appeal to the police station. During the first “conversation” in early June, under pressure, he was forced to sign an explanation prepared by the police, but the next morning he filed complaints against employees.
Then Mirzoyan was so beaten by the police that he needed medical care. Now he is afraid for the safety of the family and hopes that the state will be able to protect him from police arbitrariness. "
Activists of the "Left Front" did not return things after the brutal detention on June 12
“Oppositionists from the“ Left Front ”and“ National Bolshevik Platform ”in the Nagornaya police department refused to return the things seized as part of the search on June 12 on suspicion of terrorism and illegal storage of weapons. This was reported to the correspondent Kasparov.ru by activist Alexander Shelkovenkov.
According to him, Evgeny Popov, a participant in the Left Front, who came on July 11 and 14, 2015 to the Nagornaya police department to pick up the seized, was verbally notified by the employees that they have no things: “Look for them from those who are you He delivered to us. " The police categorically refused to provide an explanation in documentary form.
Shelkovenkov specified: "When we were released, a citizen, who introduced himself as the head of the Center for Combating Extremism in the Southeast District of Moscow, said that we could take the seized only a month later in the police department." According to the opposition, during the search conducted by the forces of the Sobr special forces and the FSB operatives with the participation of the senior operative CPE, Alexei Obnoye, things were seized without drawing up protocols.
"My ASUS EEE PS netbook, Acer Popov laptop, my Sony Experia smartphone and two phones - Samsung Wave and Alcatel. Roman Sidorov and Evgenia Popov has one simple phone. Plus I had 6,000 rubles, and Popov has 8,000 rubles. This Everything is about 45-50 thousand rubles, ”he said.
Also, law enforcement officers took with them the banner of Freedom Sergey Udaltsov, without touching other agitmaterials.
The interlocutor Kasparov.ru suggested that the Sobrovtsy was probably stolen by the money, it was unlikely to be trenchless, ” clarifying that things were directly delivered with activists to the Nagorno police department. Oppositionists intend to write a complaint about the actions of the security forces to the prosecutor's office of the Southern Federal District. ”
The circulation of campaigns of the democratic coalition was arrested
“The leadership of the opposition party Parnassus reported the seizure of the entire circulation of election campaign materials by police officers, the party activists report on Twitter.
On the eve of the Babushkinsky district of Moscow, police were arrested by the circulation of the party’s campaign materials, which was printed for use in the election campaign in the Kaluga region. The circulation was removed while receiving it by activists from the printing house. The law enforcement agencies said that the materials were seized due to the call of an anonymous person who reported a suspicious car with extremist materials.
“These agitmaterials were in compliance with all the requirements of the electoral legislation: they were ordered and paid from the funds of the special electoral fund of the party in the printing house that appropriately notified of the production of appropriate campaign products,” the party received by Interfax said .
Activists clarified that the brochures do not contain any extremist statements, and were also outraged that for verification for extremism, law enforcement officers seized not a few copies, but all 40 boxes with leaflets. The party leadership is confident that the authorities deliberately deprive Parnas of the possibility of full participation in the election campaign in Kaluga and the region.
“It is well known how it ends: after the campaign, they will return with an apology, such as“ extremism is not found ”, only the train will leave,” said Leonid Volkov, member of the Central Council of the Party of Progress, ”in his Twitter account.”
The circulation was returned: activists reported this on the night of July 14
Tula coordinator of the "Left Front" is expelled from the university
“In Moscow, Dmitry Karasev, a member of the political council and coordinator of the“ Left Front ”of the“ Left Front ”, intend to expel from the Moscow Academy of Water Transport. Проблемы в вузе у первокурсника начались после неоднократных визитов сотрудников ЦПЭ в заведение, сообщает активист корреспонденту Каспаров.Ru.
Как рассказал Карасев, в вузе причиной его отчисления называют незначительную академическую неуспеваемость.
При этом в ведомости на отчисление стоит уже сданный им предмет.
"В отделе кадров мне сообщили, что я в списках на отчисление, а у меня не сданы зачеты по математике, лоции и английскому языку. Причем лоции я успешно сдал раньше автоматом", — уточняет Карасев.
По словам Карасева, погасить некоторые задолженности ему помешала политика преподавателей: "Зачет по математике я не мог сдать из-за его переноса, о чем меня в деканате не предупредили. Зачет по английскому языку я планировал сдать осенью, в вузе были не против".
Уведомление об отчислении стало для Карасева полной неожиданностью. Причину этого он видит в преследовании его спецслужбами из-за оппозиционной деятельности:
"По моей информации, сотрудники ЦПЭ, посетившие в марте вуз, отдали команду "фас" некоторым руководителям института, имеющим рычаги воздействия, чтобы способствовать моему исключению. Об этом мне рассказал один из сотрудников вуза, а один преподавателей потом уточнил: "В деканате интересовались, как ты учишься".
По предположению Карасева, инициировал его отчисление проректор Мищенко: "Он отстранил меня от практики на основании личного мнения и расспрашивал про обыски, про политику, наезжал. Когда вышел из кабинета, то подслушал, что он говорит кому-то: "Парень убежденный, ему надо часа по 2 в день говорить, что он не прав, но этого никто не будет делать, и курсе на 3 он попадется на митинге белоленточников, надо бы что-то предпринять"».
О расследовании отравления Александра Перепиличного, занимавшегося разоблачениями махинаций с НДС
«В Париже 26 июня начата доследственная проверка по поводу смерти в Великобритании Александра Перепиличного, информатора по делу Магнитского. Дознаватели проверяют, с кем он мог встречаться накануне смерти, проведя три дня в отеле “Бристоль” в Париже накануне даты смерти — 10 ноября 2012. Параллельно широко известный антикоррупционными делами следователь Рено ван Рюмбек ведет недавно открытое дело об отмывании денег во Франции, предположительно похищенных из бюджета РФ с помощью схемы, на которую указал Магнитский <...>
Уже после смерти Магнитского, в 2010 году финансист Александр Перепиличный передал фонду «Эрмитаж» инсайдерские документы в отношении Владлена Степанова, свидетельствующие, по его данным, о причастности к хищению бюджетных средств его жены, налоговой чиновницы Ольги Степановой. После того как эти данные были преданы огласке, счета Степанова в Швейцарии арестовали. В Швейцарии до сих пор продолжается расследование, начатое в отношении «неустановленных лиц» в марте 2011 года — об этом представитель прокуратуры Швейцарии Жанет Балмер сообщала официально. Stepanov, denying embezzlement from the budget, accused Perepilichny of treason.
On November 17, 2012, Perepilichny was found dead on the grounds of his mansion in Weybridge (Surrey). Ему было 44 года и он славился отменным здоровьем. Смерть наступила из-за сердечной аритмии во время утренней пробежки, что вызвало аритмию — было неясно, но и ничего подозрительного полицейские не заметили, в конце концов иногда такое бывает само по себе. But the Hermitage Foundation insisted on an investigation.
Анализы, проведенные ведущим специалистом по растительным ядам Моник Симмондс, выявили в образце содержимого желудка следы гельземиума – яда растительного происхождения, которое часто используют для убийств, так как его сложно обнаружить, а симптомы смерти напоминают естественные причины. The first article on the properties of gelsemium was published in a medical journal by Arthur Conan Doyle, when he was a medical student. Некоторые СМИ потом писали, что это вещество используется в гомеопатических препаратах, но как разъяснил The Insider к.м.н Ярослав Ашихмин, концентрация веществ в гомеопатии такова, что не то что отравиться, но и даже обнаружить следы этого самого гельземиума было бы невозможно. British investigators are now conducting additional examinations to accurately establish the cause of death.
It is noteworthy that in 2007-2008, three more people related to fraudulent VAT refund schemes died under strange circumstances: Valery Kurochkin (general director of Ryland, one of the companies through which funds were stolen, died of poisoning in Boryspil in 2008. ), Октай Гасанов (по версии следствия — организатор всей схемы хищений, умер в Москве в 2007 года от сердечного приступа) и Семен Коробейников (руководитель УБС, выпал из окна строящегося дома в Москве в 2008 г.).
Hot on the heels of Perepilichny’s death, an anonymous Interfax source in the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs stated that “Mr. Perepilichny was not involved in the investigation of the so-called Sergei Magnitsky case related to the theft of budget funds.” Kommersant, citing a source in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, reported that Perepilichny “on the contrary, was among the suspects,” however, in the future, any status of Perepilichny as a suspect was not officially reported.
According to Rosbalt (known for its connections with security forces) , shortly before his death, Alexander Perepilichny spoke with representatives of Russian law enforcement agencies about a possible attempt on his life.
<...>
As an acquaintance of Alexander Perepilichny told The Insider on condition of anonymity, Perepilichny was a specialist in “specific banking services” and, receiving threats from his business partners, went abroad. “Specific banking services are garbage companies, small banks, fictitious consulting companies that serve for money laundering. In general, only graduates of MIPT, MEPhI and the Faculty of Mathematics of Moscow State University work in this environment. As a graduate of MIPT, he fit into this environment like a knife into butter. He had enterprises that he received by chance, for debts, for example, Erconproduct, but he did not give the impression of a person involved in real business. Очень часто посещал Швейцарию по своим финансовым делам», — сказал знакомый Перепиличного. Based on Perepilichny’s type of activity, his acquaintance suggests that he “could have been involved in cashing out illegally refunded VAT.” This whole scheme, in his words, is “a cancerous tumor on the body of the Russian economy, which everyone knows about.” “This continues despite Perepilichny’s revelations and Magnitsky’s complaints. Если эту схему остановить, российская экономика просто рухнет», — иронизирует знакомый Перепиличного.
Perepilichny, together with his Phystech classmates Grigory Bubnov and Alexander Semenov, participated in several financial projects, the most famous of which were East Bridge Bank, Pushkino Bank and Financial Bridge (aka Finbridge). At the end of 2008, Alexander Perepilichny apparently lost funds due to the financial crisis. He remained in debt to his partners (although these were informal obligations), and, according to him, when he returned to Russia at the end of 2009 from a business trip to Ukraine, he was met right at the airport and, at gunpoint, forced into a car and forced sign formal promissory notes. In any case, Perepilichny was prosecuted for debts, first in the Smolensk region - there is a dairy plant of the Erkonproduct company, which belonged to Perepilichny, and then in Moscow.
Официально с Перепиличным с 2009 года судились компании «Альфа-Флорин» (зарегистрирована в 2001 году со счетом в «Ист Бридж Банке», вид деятельности — «содействие формированию и развитию в РФ новых экономических отношений»), «Джирса» и «Регион- Collector” Allegedly, Perepilichnyy owed these companies tens of millions of rubles. Alfa-Florin and Jirsa lawyer Evgeny Khametshin demanded Perepilichny’s personal appearance in court, who had already left Russia by that time. The court refused this demand, Perepilichny finally won the courts, and the seizure of his Moscow property - an apartment, a car - was lifted in October 2012, and the court did not satisfy the plaintiffs' demand to recover 37 million rubles from Perepilichny. The last decision to lift the seizure of Perepilichny’s property came into force after his death in 2012. Lawyer Evgeny Khametshin, who represented the plaintiffs, declined to comment on this case.
By the time Perepilichny finally won in the courts, he had already been living in the UK for a long time. Perepilichnyy went to London and approached William Browder in early 2010. Having handed over statements of accounts of Vladlen Stepanov to the Hermitage, Perepilichny, according to William Browder, at first avoided answering directly where he got this data, but then explained that he was a financial advisor to several wealthy Russian families, including the Stepanovs.
Obviously, having received protection from the Hermitage Foundation, Perepilichny hoped to solve his problems. И все же, передача сенсационных документов, изобличающих коррупцию российских чиновников в «Эрмитаж» была «загадочным и сильным шагом, который до конца так никто и не понял», — говорит знакомый Перепиличного.
<...>
It is clear that Bubnova and Semenov, like Stepanov himself, did not delight this sudden move of their peasant colleagues with the exposure of fraud with VAT. <...> Согласно выпискам официального реестра юридических лиц Кипра, обнародованным Георгием Албуровым, Александр Семенов и Григорий Бубнов владели на Кипре фирмой «Dream Yacht Club» на паях вместе с депутатом Госдумы Сергеем Железняком, по крайней мере, с 2008 по 2012 год. This company was used, in turn, for possession of elite plots in the suburbs, thus, financiers turned out to be neighbors with Zheleznyak. Среди других владельцев «Dream Yacht Club» значатся управляющий директора Russ Outdoor Максим Ткачев (унаследовавший компанию от перешедшего в Госдуму Железняка) и Сергей Полонский».