The garbage part of the charges

The prosecutor in the “theater case” surprised the quality of “evidence of guilt”: there were certificates of the use of the garbage dump, but there were no specifics

In the Meshchansky court, the hearing of the case of the Seventh Studio continues. Among the accused is Kirill Serebrennikov, on the eve of the old New Year named the best filmmaker of the country - according to domestic film critics. I give Cyril diplomas and “white elephants” - he received two awards at once from the guild of film experts and film critics “For the impressive symbiosis of theater and cinema”.

The state prosecutor in a blue uniform with a dull, lulling voice reads an endless list of documents from the case. She has eight weighty brochop volumes on her table. Also blue. A bright blue phone is nearby.

... An agreement on the rental of property, invoices on the preparation of scenery for the play “Ordinary History”, documents on the transfer of property by performance, on storage of property, a list of scenery and props ...

The prosecutor talks about issuing loans to employees who were not returned, about the problems with the reports. But - in general, not specifically. It is immediately specified that the documents were studied by the charge selectively, and the non -confusion of violations does not mean that there were no other violations.

The prosecutor reads notifications from the tax, contracts with the Ministry of Culture, licensing agreements. In particular, on the holding of the Platform festival.

Alexey Malobrodsky asks to draw the attention of the court to one of the documents submitted by the charge. He asks to announce the application to him. The giant program of the Platform festival is read. Among the events: the play “Flotch”, the exhibition “Death of a virtual artist”, the discussion “Social Theater ...”, the lecture “Who needs modern music”, the discussion “Russian theater as a generic injury”, “Social function of experimental art”. Films, performances, master classes, open rehearsals. Watch of dance theaters, interactive installations (in particular, “Voice of Freedom”). The fantastic opera “Hunting for the Snark”, the production of the performances “History of the Soldier”, “Metamorphosis”, “A Summer Night Dream” ...

Malobrodsky insists on the announcement of this application, because, according to the prosecution, he and his comrades abducted budget funds without carrying out the “platform” events or unreasonably overestimating their cost.

I would like to hear the accused: what kind of events were not completed, what costs are overestimated? The investigation and accusation does not answer these polls.

The announcement of the events of an extensive program is a report on its work until August 2012. Alexey Malobrodsky and his comrades are still hoping to hear from the accusation of what they are to blame.

The prosecutor leaves the speech of Less Brusky unanswered and continues to be monotonously reading the names of documents, accounts, payment orders.

Sometimes lawyers interrupt this monologue with questions: some of the documents do not have a date. The prosecutor misses the remark by the ears and reads the documents related to the rehearsal of the play “Kafka”, which took place in 2016.

Serebrennikov’s lawyer Dmitry Kharitonov notes that this information has nothing to do with the charges at all. And if it has, then only from the point of view of the remarkable writer Kafka, and his great essay “process”.

(Recall that the investigative actions were related to the criminal case of the theft of 200 million rubles, which were allocated in 2011-2014 of the Seventh Studio.)

The prosecutor does not react. The “reading aloud” continues. The report on the sale of tickets in 2016 at the Gogol Center, when the Platform was no longer there. Ksenia Karpinskaya makes a statement: “Documents that are now announced are related to 2016. But in the 2016th year, her client was not brought against at all. I do not understand, in connection with which these documents are announced. The actions of the prosecutor are unreasonable, I object to such an accusation. "

The state prosecutor continues to be announced.

Lawyers are perplexed: "Everything that is announced today is not a study, but just a list of documents ..."

Judge Irina Lakorova is unhappy: "You already said this ..."

Lawyers ask to pay attention: a number of business papers, primarily manuscript - are not signed by anyone, there are crossed out, these are not documents, but drafts. The side of protection is interested in the source of the origin of some consolidated reports without signatures. The lawyer ITINA Yuri Lysenko reacts to one of the document indicated by the investigation. He says that the report just read belongs to a certain organization of the GBUK of the city of Moscow. “What does the Seventh Studio have to do with it? Maybe the documents in the case are too tight, ”he remarks,“ and the prosecutor simply does not see the true name of the document? ”

Lawyers cannot understand why investigators combined different documents into one.

Dmitry Kharitonov clarifies that on the financial report that the prosecutor just spoke about, there are signatures of Irina Tarasova, who replaced Sophia Apfelbaum in the Department of Minimult. But there is another report signed by Apfelbaum and Serebrennikov: but inside the report for 2014 was a report for 2013.

Serebrennikov looks at these fused reports and declares that under his last name there is not his signature.

Sofya Apfelbaum offers to read the application to the document on the production of the Fairy play (2011). It describes in detail the expenses, payments to the scenes, lighting equipment: the staged part for this performance receives more than 80 thousand rubles, fees are registered to the artists. The total amount of payments is 114 thousand 301 rubles. This is without night rehearsals. The same agreements exist according to the play “Summer Night” and other performances. The figures of the funds spent are easy to check. Lawyers emphasize: the case file has the costs of specific productions. And the expert, who conducted the examination, ignored these documents.

The prosecutor transfers the names of documents, reads, sometimes it seems, to himself, wanders in numbers, confuses thousands with millions.

When you look at these volumes of unsubstantiated documents, it seems that the investigation has filed everything that they came to hand. The investigation had to show the scale of the work that was spent a year and a half. At the same time, it seems that the state prosecutor sees some documents for the first time and reads from the sheet.

Why did the prosecution decide to list almost all the papers invested in 270 volumes of the investigation? Then we can say that all these tons of paper are a study of evidence.

PS

Actress Julia Peresild intended to congratulate the director a Happy New Year. She came to the bourgeois court with a tangerine basket and non -alcoholic champagne. The security carefully studied the tangerines. She did not miss champagne. Even non -alcoholic, on the label of which elephants are drawn. The day definitely passed under the sign of the White Elephant.