Case Sechin

Sentence to Ulyukaev as a moral defeat of the elites

The answer of T. Putin T. Felgenhauer to her question about two legal realities in the Russian Federation unexpectedly turned into a direct indication of President Judge Semenova to support the position of Igor Sechin, that is, in fact, the side of the prosecution. “As far as I imagine, .. the law is not violated here ... The court has sufficiently collected material, including the testimony of Sechin himself,” the head of state stated at the final annual press conference. It was December 14, exactly the day before the final action in the Zamoskvoretsky court. After that, judges Semenova disappeared: the convict sentence, the penalty - the real, and not lower than the lower limit, as one could assume, given the age, health, family circumstances and merits of the defendant.

For Sechin there is a security letter - personally the position of the head of state. The person who began his true career, which everyone has already forgotten about, with the tending of the Empire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, can move on.

The rest are just typed in the mouth of water. For example, Suleiman Kerimov, the Russian elite, putting himself in his place, is trying to rescue with all his might from the French dungeons. And in the place of Ulyukaev, despite his fair remark in the last word in the court that the sentence calls not only on him, but for all the rest, no one in the elite.

Strange: the Minister of Economic Development for many years was part of the Putin establishment. But not a single representative of this elite, except for Alexei Kudrin, publicly outraged, nor a word, had a word about the doubtfulness of the prosecution or cruelty of the sentence. About this - as well as about the worthy behavior of Alexei Valentinovich in court - completely different people who have nothing to do with him or with the circle of people, among whom he existed all the Putin years. For example, Boris Akunin.

The sentence to Ulyukaev is a very bad precedent. The tradition of the indictment and cruel punishments, given the quality of the judicial corps, its intellectual abilities and moral qualities, can be gained extremely quickly

"Sausage" hospitalism

The sentence to Ulyukaev is the moral defeat of the Putin elites. First, they themselves built this system of “sausage” hospitalism, and then froze with stuffed animals paralyzed by fear. Moreover, just supporting the regime - words and money - no longer guarantees preservation of freedom.

The trial of Ulyukaev is the trial of the entire Putin system with its “sausages” and a special relationship between senior government officials and Zadorevni businessmen (which, however, is almost the same). From the point of view of the external image of the establishment of the time of Vladimir Putin, it is no longer very important who is right and who is to blame for the specific case of Ulyukaev, which can be safely called Sechin’s business - the process showed, as “they”, terribly distant from the people, live. What is the busy of their working time. How they are “friends” and revenge. How each step is monitored by special services.

In the process of Ulyukaev, nevertheless, many riddles remained. It was believed, for example, that Putin somewhat besieged Sechin and cooled his ardor, making the process open, that is, in fact, competitive. What it was even scary to say, a public procedure for proving the fault of the defendant. But Sechin defiantly ignored the challenges to court, and for this he was not only nothing - for example, forced drive, as it should be according to the law - but Putin defeated him openly throughout the country. So, maybe, there was no plan a little “torture” the main oil security officer using an open process? Or Putin, deciding to play a little in adversarial, then decided to curtail this whole booth.

The court excluded the extortion of Ulyukaev from the prosecution of a bribe. Well, in this case, the dramaturgy is completely different: someone just offers a bribe, and the second side takes it. But if Ulyukaev did not ask for a bribe, then how could he know what Sechin gives him? Maybe the wine is true. Moreover, it was completely not obliged to "gurgle". The complete collapse of all causal relationships.

You can argue: what are you saying - you took it red -handed, what other evidence is needed? Well, at least some other than the reports of the FSB representatives about the successfully conducted active operation.

Question: Was there a planned demonstrative cruelty of the sentence? Or did the judge just in this way removed all the potential claims of the authorities related to the softness of the court decision? Despite the fact that the FSB was involved in the very ears with all its Feoktistovs and “investors” - what to expect from these Ephesians, God knows.

Would you now have to play back - in the sense of soften the sentence in the second instance? And who knows - you can do this or not. And when Putin will give a new signal ...

If cruelty (namely cruelty, because stiffness is a little different) was still planned-this, of course, is easy to explain. Here you can talk about the message to the elites (it will be with everyone who behaves incorrectly), and about the additional injection of fear to all clans and groups - sit and do not grow old, and preferably for the next six years at least. In the verdict, which in its quantitative characteristics resembles the Stalinist verdicts, a lot of useful, didactic, educational can be found for both business and political communities. The case of Khodorkovsky was also educational in nature.

The fish of Russian state power rotted from the head - from its courts of general jurisdiction. For a long time. Having “Basmann Justice” for many years, it is strange to think that “Zamoskvoretsky justice” will be more qualified, smart and merciful

"Zamoskvoretsky justice"

The sentence to Ulyukaev is a very bad precedent. The tradition of the indictment and cruel punishments, given the quality of the judicial corps, its intellectual abilities and moral qualities, can be gained extremely quickly.

To begin with, this will contribute to the tightening of punishment and sloppiness of the prosecution of Nikita Belykh, whose case is even more white than the case of Ulyukaev, threads. If you can give 8 years of imprisonment in a maximum security colony with such an evidence base, then why not go along the same path on the process of white. Moreover, the same evil genius of the Feoktists, and all the same unit of the FSB, as if in a mockery called the Constitutional system, was involved there. It’s all the same as on the counter to write “meat”, and there will be not even fish or canned food, but some plastic flyboards or rubber batons.

The fish of Russian state power rotted from the head - from its courts of general jurisdiction. For a long time. Having for many years “Basmann Justice”, it is strange to think that “Zamoskvoretsky justice” will be more qualified, smart and merciful. And the point is no longer in the reform of the structure of courts and many years of battle for the “independence of judges”. The matter is in the human capital of these same courts - that is, in the judges themselves, in their heads and hearts. If you need any reform, then the radical modernization of the internal structure of people wearing a mantle as a joke outfit. It’s the same as putting on a medieval judicial wig on an employee of the Housing State House of Housing and a Housing Housing and a Hala on the head of a simple Soviet woman with all her prejudices and a difficult fate twisted into one expressive figure, it will still stick out from under the wig.

Radical changes are needed in the system of higher legal education in order to be taught law and mercy, and not the ability to manipulate law in the interests of lobbying groups and political clans.

Otherwise, 8 years later they will turn into 10 without the right to correspondence, and the entire judicial system will become a branch of Russian state corporations. Or one Rosneft. Judging by how famously it is cut with her business competitors. Moreover, it is in the courts.

* Permanent Columnist NT, head of the Moscow Center program of Carnegie

The author’s opinion may not coincide with the opinion of the editorial office