The court allowed Navalny to pay debt by installments

The judge of the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow Nelly Rubtsova partially satisfied the request of the leader of the Party of Progress Alexei Navalny for the payment of debt in installments. This was reported by the correspondent of "faces" from the courtroom. However, instead of a five -month period, the court granted Navalny only two months.

According to the verdict in the "postal case" Navalny and his brother Oleg must pay the "multidisciplinary processing company" 4.5 million rubles. Navalny has already introduced 3 million. He asked to provide installments for five months with payments of 300 thousand per month. At the same time, even before the court, Navalny made the first fee.

The representative of the IPC did not object to the provision of installments. However, the bailiff Andrei Pleshakov said that Navalny is an unscrupulous debtor, and therefore he should be refused in installments.

On December 30, 2014, the judge of the Zamoskvoretsky district court of Moscow Elena Korobchenkosentenced the brothers Navalny in the "postal case". Navalny Sr. received 3 and a half years conditionally with a three -year trial period, and his brother - the same real term. In addition, each of the convicts was fined in the amount of 500 thousand rubles.

The charge required Alexei Navalny 9 years of general regime (and taking into account the verdict in the Kirovles case - 10 years), for Oleg - 8 years of general regime. The prosecutors argued that the brothers were guilty of part 4 of Article 159 (fraud on an especially large amount committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy and using their official position) and two years under paragraph 3 of Article 174.1 of the Criminal Code (laundering of funds by a group of persons by prior conspiracy).

However, Korobchenko retrained the charge from the 159th article on the less serious 159.4 (fraud in the field of entrepreneurial activity), which was the reason for the appointment of milder punishments.

Both the lawyers of the convicts and the prosecutor's office appealed the verdict. The supervisory authority objected to the re -qualification of the prosecution. However, on February 17, 2015 , the Moscow City Court left the verdict as a whole unchanged , only withdrawing a 500,000th fine from Navalny Sr..

On March 3, it became known that the Moscow City Court did not apply to the brothers a bulk economic amnesty, since they did not compensate for the damage to them . Compensation of damage "is a prerequisite for the application of this amnesty act," was emphasized in the appeal ruling of the court in the "postal case".

In September, Navalny reported that on July 31, the Kirovles enterprise filed a civil lawsuit for reimbursing 16 million rubles to him and two other criminal cases - entrepreneur Peter Officer and the former general director of the company Vyacheslav Opalev. In the course of the criminal process in the case of Kirovles, a claim for damages was not filed. Navalny explains this by the absurdity of the charges of charges. "But then there were other times. Now this will go, ”he notes. According to Navalny, the filing of the claim is directly related to his political activity.

On October 7, the Lublin Court of Moscow rejected the FSIN representation on the extension of the ongoing probationary period in the "postal case" and refused to limit it in the deadline for repayment of the debt .

On Tuesday evening, the bailiffs came to Navalny’s apartment to arrest his property. “They did not specifically come at the appointed time, but dragged on the night, looking to find me without a lawyer with a guarantee,” the politician wrote. The bailiffs wanted to enter the apartment with Navalny. He refuses to fulfill their requirements, referring to the absence of a lawyer. In addition, Navalny did not want to "arrange any arrests of property with children."

The representative of the FSSP department in Moscow Timur Korobitsyn said that Navalny refused to comply with the requirements of the bailiffs and disappeared from them. Answering the question of the late time of the arrival of the bailiff, Korobitsyn emphasized that the bailiff acted "in strict accordance with the law."