Loud processes of the week

Waiting for Drymanov

The prosecution completed the presentation of their evidence in the case of the former Zama Bastrykin

Court: Moscow City Court
Articles: Part 6 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code "Receiving a bribe by an official"
The defendant: Mikhail Maksimenko, ex-head of the Main Directorate of Interdepartmental Interaction and Own Security of the IC of the Russian Federation
Stage: judicial investigation
Threats: up to 15 years in prison

Mikhail Maksimenko, together with his deputy Alexander Lamonov and the deputy head of the Main Directorate of the UK in Moscow, Denis Nikandrov, is accused of receiving a bribe for retraining a criminal case for a less serious article at the request of the criminal authority of Shakro young (he is also under court). Lamonov and Nikandrov made a deal with the investigation, their case is considered in a special order, Maksimenko does not plead guilty. According to investigators, Maksimenko, Lamonov and Nikandrov contributed to the release of Andrei Kochuykov (Italian) from the pre -trial detention center, detained in the shooting case near the Elements cafe on Rochdelskaya Street.

In early March, the court interrogated witnesses on the second episode of the prosecution. According to prosecutors, in October 2015, Maksimenko received a bribe of $ 50 thousand from the St. Petersburg entrepreneur Badri Shengelia. The businessman was upset due to the conflict with the police who allegedly stole his expensive watches, and asked Maksimenko to organize their criminal prosecution. The defense of Maksimenko considers the second episode fabricated, the defendant himself claims that he never met with Shengelia.

The process is sluggish-Judge Muzychenko often delayed meetings due to illness. However, there were no surprises. So, on March 7, the prosecutor Boris Loktionov read out a report, which the investigator of the Investigative Department of the FSB Mikhail Savitsky sent the head of the department Mikhail Shishov at the end of 2017. The report said that Denis Nikandrov himself “as gratitude for assistance” by his appointment to the post of first deputy head of the Main Directorate of the Main Investigative Committee in Moscow thanked his direct chief with a bribe of 9850 euros. The name of the head of Nikandrov was not called in the report, but since December 2015 this position has been held by General Alexander Drymanov. He passes in the Maksimenko case as a witness: the court hears his testimony this week.

On March 12, Badri Shengelia arrived in court again - it turned out that the judge had not fully explained to him the rights of a witness. After completing the formal procedure, he left the hall. Following the stands, Roman Polozaev stood - the head of the fifth, the so -called "thieves" department of the threat in the Leningrad region. According to the prosecution, Polozaev was the main suspect in the case of the theft of the clock near Schengelia - at the time of the allegedly completed theft, he held the post of deputy head of the department. Introducing himself to the court, Polozaev instructed Schengelia:

-This is a major fraudster, he played a very large role in the possession of real estate in St. Petersburg, has numerous ties in criminal structures and law enforcement agencies.

According to Polozayev, he knew about the presence of operational materials about the "stealing of the watch", but did not commit any theft. According to him, the employees of the West Department of the GUSB of the Ministry of Internal Affairs simply took accounts with him with the help of Maksimenko (previously the former employee of the West department Vitaly Fedosov gave similar testimony). The reason was the activity of Polozaev: in November 2014, when the colonel held the post of deputy head of the ORCH, his subordinates checked information about the sale of a large batch of expensive watches and, as a result, covered the gathering of “thieves in law” with the participation of Malkhaz Kutua and Shengelia. Later, the Cossack and Schengelia were taken to the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in St. Petersburg - this was the only time when the witness personally came across Schengelia. However, then the businessman did not declare any loss.

“It was logical to complain about the loss when all my bosses were in place,” Polozaev shook his hands.

According to him, the West department carried out wiretapping his conversations with employees. It was the phrase torn from context from conversations that formed the basis of a fictitious criminal case. Fedosov allegedly engaged in falsification of evidence, and Maksimenko “exerted administrative pressure” on the investigators of the Main Directorate of the Main Directorate in St. Petersburg.

- And what is the source of your awareness of the administrative pressure of Maksimenko? - Folding his hands on his chest, asked lawyer Alexander Vershinin.

-This is a whole ball of information rotating in the law enforcement community of St. Petersburg.

Maxim Malberg’s subordinate Polozaeva confirmed the testimony of the boss, the source of information could not indicate either - he only repeated the wording “I know from hearing”, “culou culuer conversations”.

“Usually gossip and rumors wear reliable information,” said the prosecutor of the Loquions.

The witness was released. After that, the prosecution read the case file: protocols for the inspection of premises, things found under Maksimenko during the arrest. In particular, in the notebook in the iPhone of the defendant found the contacts of Nikandrov, Lamonov, Kramarenko and Bogoroditsky (former Zamm Maksimenko, who is considered an intermediary in the deal Maksimenko and Sheikhametov). In Wotsap, Maksimenko and Bogoroditsky conducted active correspondence. Also in the notes of Maksimenko there were photos of Shakro young.

The evidence of the prosecution ended on this. The defense asked to call the wife of Maksimenko as a witness. Her interrogation will be held closed.

Sergey Lebedenko,
"New"

Light cosmetic repairs

The prosecutors will now be responsible for the extension of the arrests. What will change?

Recently, amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the government, which expand the powers of the prosecutor's office to change the terms of detention, initiated by the government. Now, investigators will no longer be able to apply to the court with a petition for the extension of house arrest or detention after completing a preliminary investigation. Prosecutors should now ask the courts to extend the preventive measure. They will also be responsible for compliance with the terms of consideration of the case.

A number of “new” lawyers surveyed that the new law will positively affect the fate of the accused and, among other things, will help increase cases of house arrest. Most experts, however, are sure: the amendments will not lead to the liberalization of criminal legislation, and the initiative is more likely to be purely “cosmetic”.

Alexander Huruji

Public Commissioner for the Rights of Entrepreneurs, detained:

- It is not so important who extend the terms of detention, it is important that the legislation and recommendations of the plenums of the Presidium of the Supreme Court are observed regarding the validity of the election of a particular preventive measure. Amendments can allow reducing the terms of the investigation, speeding up the decisions by the court, reduce expenses in terms of delivery of those arrested to the court from the pre -trial detention center and vice versa. In the 90s, the prosecutors had the powers to authorize arrests without a court decision and any serious violations were not allowed, so it is not worth waiting for any manifestation of voluntarism regarding violations of the rights of the accused.

Artem Karakasin

Lawyer, Head of Criminal Practice of the Law Firm "Infralex":

- The question of who to apply to the court - the investigator or prosecutor - cannot have a noticeable influence on the course of the investigation. What, in essence, is the difference for the accused who will sign a petition for the extension of his preventive measure - an investigator or a prosecutor? The alarm is a different moment that goes in the complex of new amendments - the opportunity at the pre -trial stage to renew the period of detention and domestic arrest from above the maximum, which is 12 months for serious and 18 months for especially serious crimes. The deadlines established by the Code of Criminal Procedure earlier set at least some framework for the investigation, forced to finish criminal cases and send them to the court. Now, it turns out that under the pretext of resolving issues with the approval of the indictment, the prosecutor’s office can be kept under arrest even longer. It is at least strange that the accused must be responsible for the shortcomings of the investigation.

Timur Khutov

The head of the criminal practice of the BMS Law Firm BMS Law Firm:

- Amendments, on the one hand, should help accelerate the investigation. But it is not yet clear how long this or that prosecutor will want to extend the case. It is possible that due to the amendment, the investigation will stretch for years, because it will not be necessary to prove the grounds for extending the deadline.

Vladimir Gorelik

advocate:

-These innovations do not contain any fundamental changes that improve the situation of the under investigation. Changes are cosmetic. But in general, the expansion of the powers of the prosecutor at the stage of the preliminary investigation is the idea is correct, as the prosecutors will oblige specific work in the case, study materials, understand the issues of the crime provenness and the validity of the investigation, which the prosecutors are practically not engaged in. The expansion of the powers of the prosecutor can create a system of retreats and counterweights, which in some cases will help innocent to protect himself from a biased investigation based on low professionalism or on the corruption component. However, such cosmetic means provide effective prosecutor supervision at the preliminary investigation stage. Practice shows that the vast majority of defense complaints to the prosecutor's office at the preliminary investigation either “vomit” to the same investigator or ends with prosecutors of the overseering prosecutor. Therefore, the current legislation needs specific legal norms that would oblige the prosecution authorities not to declaratively carry out prosecutor supervision of the investigation of the case and its result.

Vladimir Komarov

advocate:

- In fact, these changes carry the idea of ​​eliminating legal conflict. It is no secret that the intra -human relations between the investigation and the prosecutor’s office are stretched in nature, and the previous situation put the prosecutor dependent on the investigation. After all, violation of the terms of detention at a time when it was in the prosecutor’s office, threw a shadow on prosecutors. The new law will not lead to a reduction in the terms of detention, nor to their tightening. The most anticipated consequence of changes will probably be a decrease in cases of illegal detention due to the expiration of procedural terms. Accordingly, the number of satisfied complaints in the European court against the Russian Federation may decrease.

Rail Gizyatov

Lawyer of the European Legal Service:

- Pros of innovations: the prosecutor will now not be limited by the time of the decision of the terms of detention of the accused. Cons: changes can lead to abuse: an unreasonable increase in the term of detention, the prosecutor will always apply for the extension of the deadlines, even when the case file does not require this. In any case, you should wait for the way to law enforcement practice.

Denis Merkulov

lawyer

- The initiative is technical in nature. You should not expect softening or conditional liberalization of criminal procedure legislation. First of all, this measure is aimed at facilitating the activities of the prosecutor's office to comply with the terms of detention. It is about the legislative settlement of this moment, no more.

Vera Chelyishcheva,
"New"

Again on sick leave

Court: Moscow Regional Court
The defendants: Zafarjon Gulyamov, Khazrathon Dodokhonov, Sherejon Kodirov, Abdumukim Mamadchonov, Mirzomavlon Mirzosharipov, Holik Subkhanov, Anvar Ulugmuradov, Brothers Umar and Fazlitin Khasanov (Khasanov, Subkhanov, Mamadchonov and Mirzosharipov died, the case was discontinued)
Articles: Art. 105 of the Criminal Code (murder), Art. 209 of the Criminal Code (banditry), Art. 162 of the Criminal Code (robbery), Art. 222 of the Criminal Code (illegal turnover of weapons), Art. 223 of the Criminal Code (illegal manufacture of weapons)
Stage: judicial investigation
Threats: from 12 years to life imprisonment

The Moscow Regional Council once again postponed the consideration of a criminal case against members of the GTA, who are accused of a series of drivers murders on the M4 Don highway. One of the accused Khazrathon Dodokhonov was sent for a second psychological and psychiatric examination at the Serbian Institute.

Last week, the alleged member of the gang Dodokhonov during the hearing stopped reacting to the participants in the process, ignored the judge’s questions, in the interrogations of other accused sat indifferently with a curve smile on his face and looked at the floor. According to his lawyer for their intended purpose, her client stopped contacting her on March 1, when he was supposed to interrogate him according to the last episode.

On August 1, 2017, Dodkhonov, along with other four accused Mamadchonov, Mirzosharipov, Subkhanov and Khasanov, tried to escape from the court. They attacked the escorts and staged a shootout in the building of the Moscow Regional Council. As a result, three were killed, two were injured. The four defendants did not participate in the attack, at the time of the incident they were in the courtroom. Later, one of the wounded died in the hospital.

The surviving Dodokhonov was in the hospital with a diagnosis of "open traumatic brain injury, a blind gunshot wound to the head and edema of the brain." After discharge from the hospital, he was taken to court, where they appointed a psychological and psychiatric examination. According to the results of the study, Dodokhonov was recognized as sane and his condition did not interfere with participation in the process.

The administration of the pre-trial detention center sent a characteristic to the court, according to which Dodokhonov has disciplinary sanctions, when communicating with cellmates, acts as a leader, disrespectfully refers to the pre-trial detention center, and consists of preventive accounting due to a tendency to escape. As the doctors found out, the accused has an acute post-traumatic encephalopathy, which appeared after receiving an open traumatic brain injury.

As a result, Judge Natalia Valikova asked for an inspection in the courtroom. The expert said the decision that it was necessary to conduct an additional psychological and psychiatric examination in the hospital-the defendant did not respond to questions and looked at one point.

The court decided to appoint an additional examination at the Serbian Institute in order to clarify whether Dodokhonov could participate in the hearings and whether he needs forced treatment. The meeting was postponed until April 9th.

Andrey Karev -
Especially for "new"

Where, whom, for what

The case of "New Greatness"

On March 16, Dorogomilovsky District Court of Moscow, for two months, nine activists of the New Greatness movement for two months. Among the arrested there is a minor girl and leader of the movement Ruslan Kostylenkov. Activists are accused under Article 282.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (organization of an extremist community).

On the eve of the activists of the house, searches were held, which were attended by FSB officers. A video of Kostylenkov’s interrogation appeared on the Web, on which he says that he was detained for creating the organization “New Greatness”. “The purpose of the organization was to establish order on the territory of the Russian Federation, the organization of the tribunal over members of the ruling elite, the abolition of the current laws and the Constitution. <...> planned to organize rallies, to make direct actions against law enforcement officers. <...> For this, we went to the shooting and throwing of Molotov’s cocktail. The group members said they adhere to ultra -right views.

The case of the Penza anti -fascists

The Leninsky District Court of Penza for three days considered petitions for the extension of the arrest of anti -fascists accused of participating in the organization "Network". As part of the investigation in the case of a terrorist organization in October -November 2017, Yegor Zorin, Ilya Shakursky, Vasily Kuksov, Dmitry Pchelintsev and Andrei Chernov were detained in Penza. Then Arman Sagynbaev, Viktor Filinkov and Igor Shishkin were arrested in St. Petersburg. According to investigators, the organization acted in Penza, St. Petersburg, Moscow and Belarus. Allegedly, young people who adhere to anarchist views planned to make explosions in the elections and at the 2018 World Cup, and then arrange an armed coup and establish an anarchist state (!-as possible, in the case is not specified). The investigation considers the main evidence of their guilt the video frames of their games in Straykbol, which investigators interpret as "teaching the skills of survival in the forest and an armed rebellion."

Under torture, most of the detainees pleaded guilty. The fact of torture was confirmed by the members of the PMC who visited the detainees in the pre -trial detention center. Then Filinkov, Bee, Kuksov, Shakursky abandoned their confession, confirming that they gave them under pressure.

The arrest of five Penza anti -fascists was extended until June 18. Yegor Zorin did not extend the term - he has been under house arrest from December 18. Two more defendants, according to mediazons, are wanted.

Meanwhile, the court in St. Petersburg recognized the arrest of Viktor Filinkov, who told in detail about torture, as legitimate. Of course, the prosecutor’s office did not find the grounds for initiating a case in relation to the police who tried him. And after that, Filenkov was transferred to the well -known “torture” pre -trial detention center in the Leningrad Region.

Another defendant from St. Petersburg, who told about torture, Ilya Kapustin (he was a witness in the case), said that he had left Russia.

The case of vandalism

14 марта в штабе организации «Левый блок» у активиста Владимира Журавлева и у троих анархистов прошли обыски в рамках дела о вандализме. Так следствие квалифицировало акцию у офиса «Единой России» 31 января, когда там разбили окно и бросили внутрь дымовую шашку. Во время обысков в штабе изымали электронные носители, ноутбуки и телефоны, журналы и личные записи. В штабе задержали трех человек — Вадима Тимергалина, Григория Синеглазова и Дениса Авдеева, затем их отпустили.

Также обыск был у троих анархистов. Один из них, Святослав Речкалов, провел в ИВС сутки. Как он рассказал правозащитникам, к нему применялись пытки — надев на голову пакет, его били током по ногам, заставляя признаться в причастности к акции у офиса «Единой России». 16 марта Речкалова отпустили под подписку. Всего по делу, по данным ОВД-Инфо, были задержаны девять человек.

Ранее 13 февраля в рамках этого же дела о вандализме прошли обыски у анархистов — Елены Горбань и Алексея Кобаидзе. Они провели ночь в ИВС, дали признательные показания, после чего их отпустили под подписку о невыезде.

Вера Челищева, «Новая»,
Медиазона и ОВД-Инфо