The case is pah ...

With the help of Usmanov, Navalny wants to get new evidence for his investigations

On May 30, a consideration of on the merits of one of the most scandalous processes of the year began in the Lublin Court of Moscow - a lawsuit to protect the honor, dignity and business reputation of businessman Alisher Usmanov to the Corruption Fund (FBK) and his head Alexei Navalny.

Usmanov did not declare financial requirements, according to him, he intends to achieve a refutation of “inaccurate” information from several investigations of the FBK

-About the allegedly bribe Dmitry Medvedev in the form of a land plot with a manor in the village of Znamensky, tax concealment, condemnation for rape, illegal seizure of mining and processing plants and introducing censorship in the Kommersant Publishing House.

Usmanova in court was represented by the famous lawyer Henry Padva and two more lawyers, he himself did not appear at the meeting for many. Navalny, on the contrary, arrived with his representative Ivan Zhdanov and FBK lawyers.

The meeting room did not accommodate all journalists and spectators, most watched the broadcast on the screen installed in the corridor of the court. At the beginning of the meeting, Navalny warnedly reminded the court his previous experience when the same Lublin court recognized the opposition’s information about the head of the Moscow Transport Department Maxim Liksutov, as well as the Vice-Speaker of the State Duma Sergey Nemgee: “At first, a respected court, you refused me in all petitions, and then I suddenly found out that you lost. I ask you to be unbiased this time. "

However, this time everything went according to the old scenario. Judge Marina Vasina wrapped absolutely all the petitions of Navalny and his team. There are almost two dozen in total. All of them concerned the collection of evidence in support of the facts from the investigations of the FBK.

The first tolerated the Fiasco to terminate the case due to the fact that it is subject to consideration in the arbitration court, since Usmanov is an entrepreneur. Representatives of the plaintiff objected: the nature of the dispute is not economic, we are talking about protecting honor, dignity and business reputation.

As for the essence of the trial itself, on May 30, the judicial investigation began with the same plot about the “secret empire” of Prime Minister Medvedev-the film “He is not Dimon for you”. FBK lawyer Ivan Zhdanov reminded the trial of the Fabula: on August 18, 2010, the Sotsgosproekt Foundation received a land plot and a manor in the village of Znamensky Odintsovo district as a gift from Usmanov. Since the head of the Supervisory Board of the Fund is the classmate of Medvedev Ilya Eliseev, Navalny claims that we are talking about a bribe. Navalny immediately filed a request for a call to the court of Dmitry Medvedev.

“This is our key witness,” the politician noted. - We need it to confirm whether Medvedev himself really uses this site, whether this is really a gift, which means a bribe. After all, Usmanov, after all, not only protects his interests, but is trying to essentially refute our investigation. If tens of thousands of people go outside with these questions, let him answer them ...

- Enough. Do you have something in essence? - interrupted his judge.

The lawyer of Usmanov Padva objected: before calling Medvedev’s court, it is necessary to have evidence that he is related to the Sotzgosproekt fund.

“So far, this is only the speculation of the defendant,” Padva remarked. “He cannot even decide on the name: whether it is a“ Rhole -Devil Fund ”, or the“ Foundation, controlled by Medvedev. ” I regard the arguments of Mr. Navalny as political statements not based on law.

The judge refused to call Medvedev.

After that, representatives of Navalny asked to call the first deputy prime minister Igor Shuvalov to the court-in 2012, in his investigation, Navalny accused Usmanov of giving a bribe of a deputy prime minister of $ 118 million under the guise of a loan returned to his wife.

“That is, the affiliated persons of Usmanov transferred the money to the affiliated persons of Shuvalov,” Zhdanov explained.

- And by the way, this is not mine. The fact that Shuvalov takes bribes from Usmanov and Abramovich was written by respectable American newspapers, - added Navalny. Usmanov’s lawyers objected, promising later “submit documents that would answer the court to many questions.”

Returning to the plot of the film “He is not Dimon”, the Navalny team asked to request a donation agreement with the details of the transfer of the land plot to the Sotskgosproekt Fund. Journalists in the hall whispered: it is strange that Navalny himself did not destroy them before.

- The defendants must present evidence, and not get acquainted with them in court. The burden of proof in this case lies on the defendant. And the defendant admits that I have not seen documents on the transaction. On what basis did they publish their investigation then? - asked Padva. - However, this all does not make sense, because we have these documents, and we are going to submit them in court.

During the break, Navalny made a selfie with an opponent of Padva. The plaintiff’s lawyer readily agreed to take a picture with the defendant.

... On this day, FBK lawyers also asked to call two classmates of Medvedev to the court - the chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Dar Foundation Ilya Eliseev and the director of the Support Fund for Supporting State Projects (Sotsgosproekt), Alexei Quateratkov, as well as the founder of the Sotsgosproekt Foundation Vitaly Golovachev. The refusal of the judge followed.

The following are requests to call witnesses to the court of Alisher Usmanov in hiding taxes and a criminal case of rape - former Deputy Minister of Energy Vladimir Milov, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Kreig Murray. Also, the request to attach to the case of a video interview Boris Berezovsky on the privatization of mining and processing plants. Refusal.
The same fate will affect the petitions of the FBK to introduce the publication of Kommersant (“Apple Pui” and “The Victory of Combines”), the articles “Gazeta.ru” “Alisher Usmanov on personnel changes in the Kommersant Publishing House, information about the low cost of iron -rifles, response from law enforcement agencies that materials about the bribe of Medveda transferred by the Investigative Committee to the Prosecutor General’s Office, rulings and sentences from the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan, regarding the criminal record of Usmanov, the public reporting of Lebedevsky GOK and metalinvest.

There was a petition at Henry Padva himself - regarding the most piquant topic in the investigation of Navalny - the question of the criminal record of Usmanov.

The lawyer asked to introduce a certificate from April 2017 to the case, “it can be seen that there is no data on the criminal record of Usmanov” and the document from the Supreme Court, which says that the businessman was previously convicted under Articles 117 (theft of state or public property by assigning or waste), 129 (fraud) and 119 (theft of state or public property by fraud), but by decision The Supreme Court of Uzbekistan was canceled and Usmanov was rehabilitated - this is a certificate of June 2010.

“There are no data on pursuit for rape,” Padva emphasized. The judge willingly introduced the papers presented by the plaintiffs and refused to the lawyers of the FBK in the call of the former ambassador of Great Britain in Uzbekistan, Kreig Murray, the author of the publication about the criminal record of Usmanov and the accusations of rape against him.

Representatives of Navalny and the FBK asked the court to introduce the reporting of mining and processing plants to the case.

“The fact is that the Quarterly Report of the Lebedinsky GOK reflects the export scheme of products to one-day companies to offshore, this is tax evasion,” Navalny explained. The court refused.

The representative of the plaintiffs previously objected to him that personally, the reporting of the plants had no attitude to Usmanov, but “has a certificate from the tax”, which they presented and from which it followed that from 2003 to 2016, Usmanov paid more than 12 billion rubles of taxes.

After each refusal of the judge to satisfy Navalny’s petitions loudly and confidently (as if at a rally) objected to Judge Vasina, and in the end told her a discharge. Judge Vasin did not take the allotment and began consideration of the case on the merits, listing the available materials-the protocols of the inspections of the Internet pages of Navalny and the FBK ...

And of course, the judge read to the parties the claim of Usmanov himself, indicating the inaccurate, according to the plaintiff, statements. The businessman requires a refutation on Navalny’s blog, Facebook and on other resources, as well as removing disputed publications.

- We object to the fact that it was a bribe by Medvedev and that the fund is headed by Medvedev. We argue that Medvedev has nothing to do with the fund. There is no reason to consider a donation as a gift of Medvedev, ”Henry Padva emphasized.

Lawyer Ivan Zhdanov objected: no one just does such gifts, we are talking about a bribe. Navalny added that he established the fact of a bribe “by open sources”, and this is enough.

After familiarization of the court with written materials, the representatives of Usmanov showed the court the promised contract of donation to the land plot to the Sotsgosproekt fund, the act of acceptance and transfer of property and another certificate from the tax that "Usmanov complies with all its obligations."

... At seventh o’clock in the evening, the court announced the completion of the consideration of the dispute on the merits. The debate is scheduled for May 31 at 12 hours.

Julia Lakivtseva