About us
Collection
For researchers
Subscribe
Our Telegram
Newsletter
About RIMA
For researchers
Collection
Kronika Project
About us
Collection
For researchers
Subscribe
Our Telegram
Date
12/28/2015
Author
Hidden
Source
OVD-Info
Preserved copy
Internet Archive
Translated material

The judge returned the case of the head of the Society for the Protection of Consumer Rights to the prosecutor's office

Today, December 28, the justice of the peace of the court district No. 363, having considered the criminal case of Mikhail Anshakov, chairman of the Consumer Rights Protection Society, on charges of concealing the property entrusted to him for storage, issued a decision to return the case to the prosecutor. The basis for the return is formal - “the uncertainty of the time of the beginning and end of the crime”, as well as the fact that “other circumstances of concealment of property have not been established”. This is reported on the website of the organization itself.

Earlier, another justice of the peace began to consider Anshakov's case, but by order of the chairman of the Khamovnichesky District Court, Danilkin, the case was unexpectedly seized from him and transferred to another justice of the peace, Morozova.

As recalled by the OZPP, Mikhail Anshakov is accused of concealing property subjected to an inventory and arrest (under part 1 of Article 312 of the Criminal Code), namely, a computer power supply unit manufactured in 1999, a monitor manufactured in 2001 and a metal box for storing papers, valued at just - 1300 rubles, which were transferred to the chairman of the OZPP for safekeeping. Moreover, all three items are now in the OZPP office, but the bailiffs refuse to notice them.

“This indictment is nothing more than a collection of legal anecdotes,” Mikhail Anshakov himself comments on the document, “there was no crime event, and the prosecutors of the Khamovniki Interdistrict Prosecutor’s Office do not understand and deliberately misinterpret the foundations of Russian criminal law. In particular, the "hidden" property is in complete safety. In addition, it was not transferred to safekeeping against signature, as required by law, which means that the accused cannot be held responsible for its safety.”