"This is any conversation in the kitchen." The speech of the lawyer Daniil Berman, who defends the ex -police, talking about the war on the phone

In the Perovsky District Court of Moscow, the prosecutor asked for nine years of a general regime colony for an employee of the capital's head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Sergey Klokov (Vedel) in the case of the distribution of military “fakes” during telephone conversations. The number of the former policeman listened, and the decoding of three personal calls formed the basis of the criminal case.

Sergei Klokov (Vedel) is accused of publicly distributing “fakes” about the Russian army, committed by a group of persons using their official position based on hatred (paragraphs “A”, “B” and “D” of part 2 of article 207.3 of the Criminal Code). During the debate, the state prosecutor listed in detail that it was the investigation that considered the “distribution”. For example, on March 9, Leading by telephone informed his acquaintances “On huge losses” at the front, about the refusal to recognize these losses and take the bodies of those who died from the territory of Ukraine, on executions in units for refusing to fulfill orders, on targeted destruction of cities and murders of civilians, including children.

“More than 80 years have passed, and the methods and rhetoric of the propagandists are not changing. The source of this lie, which was distributed by Vedel, was Ukrainian propaganda resources, ”said the prosecutor. At the time of calls, Vedel served in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which means, according to the prosecution, he “distributed propaganda” among employees.

“He said that the Russian Federation is a killer country, that the Kremlin would take the Kremlin, that he would no longer need a Russian passport ... He described the events in the Crimea with genocide, namely a bloodless referendum,” the state prosecutor was torn. Separately, Brazentseva was outraged that the Vedel welcomed his interlocutors with the slogan “Glory to Ukraine!”: According to the prosecutor, it was a “system of recognition” of his - alien. ”

Lawyer Daniil Berman performed in the debate after the prosecutor and explained why personal telephone conversations cannot be considered the "public distribution of information" and what is absurd criminal proceedings against Sergei Vedel. "Mediazona" publishes a lawyer's speech with minor reductions.

Dear court, dear participants in the process, respected those present!

I am somewhat discouraged that the public prosecutor said, because, from my point of view, in principle, in his words there was a way beyond the scope of the accusations that were brought.

Ernst Telman, German political prisoner, said that we live in terrible times, because we have to prove obvious things.

Here, in my opinion, all the materials of this criminal case, including the words of the state prosecutor, are just an attempt to refute absolutely obvious things and to verify the existing facts. Just such a charge is a fake by nature.

The obvious for me is the fact that this criminal case is an attempt to interfere with public power in the private life of citizens.

The war, or a special military operation, military conflict - no matter how you call it, but such events are always surrounded by a certain fog. As when it begins, as when it occurs, and dozens of years after the end. Until now, people argue whose role was leading in the Second World War. The Americans in their textbooks write that they, ours write that we are. And they still argue among themselves. What of this is a fake, and what of this is an opinion?

In this case, absolutely domestic personal conversations of my client are issued for the public distribution of information. I am sure that both the state prosecutor and the investigator know perfectly for the decision of the Plenum, and what practice has developed, and that there is such a public dissemination of information. The public dissemination of information should include performances at rallies, in front of the crowd, in front of people, where, as a rule, there is one speaker and there are his listeners.

At the same time, when a person speaks on the phone in a private, private conversation, first with one person, then with another person and after some time with a third person, this cannot in no way be attributed to the public dissemination of information. In this, the accusation is at least mistaken.

And there is no point in talking about the rest of the circumstances of this case. All this would have at least some foundation only on condition that the article, which the legislator recently introduced into circulation-last March, would have the turnover of the “dissemination of information”, but it says: “Public distribution of information”.

According to the materials of the criminal case, the conversations of my client have been listened from the beginning of 2022. A special military operation began on February 24, 2022. And during all this time they found only three conversations that they consider crime. If my client was the same as his accusation represents, if he is such a malicious offender and faceometer, how did he have only three conversations? The thing is that simply the accusation of the whole mass of conversations only considered these conversations by the fact that they could at least try to impose as guilt.

I draw attention to the fact that all such articles that have appeared since the time of a new coronavirus infection, they are based on the most important thing: in addition to publicity, the obvious inaccuracy of the distributed information. The respected public prosecutor spoke a lot, but he did not say anywhere, why he was so convinced that my client was confident in the falsehood of this information.

Now many of my other colleagues in cases of this category are trying to enter the dispute with the state, with the state that there is a fact and what is not. And I do not see any need to do this. And here to draw large extracts from some international reviews, which describe events that are evaluated somehow differently.

All this is a shaft of opinions, not facts. For example, when it began, I went by train to another region. And I was amazed: all people were sitting with phones and everyone read about the war. That is, at that time the consciousness of citizens was captured by these events. My client is an emotional, excitable person, moreover, a native of Ukraine. Naturally, he perceived it all as personal and worried about it. And he talked about this, and thought about it, and searched for those with whom he could share this.

But pay attention, in any volume of a criminal case, there is nothing on any sheet, to say that he knew that the information that he disseminates is inaccurate. And from what did the investigation even draw a similar conclusion?

My client is in their first indications - and we do not agree with them, because they were given outside the established Code of Criminal Procedure, - pleaded guilty. Here is a person in front of you, he pleaded guilty. He is given the opportunity to sign some indications that are most convenient for the investigation. Even if we carefully look at these testimonies, we will see that it never occurred to the investigator to ask: “Did you know that this information is inaccurate?”

There is no such thing. On the contrary, my client and then said: "I was sure of the veracity of this information." Even in recognition. If a person gives confessions, you need to ask him in detail, in which he finds himself guilty. If he did not know that this information is false, in this case not that there was no corpus delicti - there is no crime.

Everything that is presented in the case file, including what the state prosecutor refers to is that a certain correspondence of my client was discovered, where he corresponds with a certain source from Ukraine. That is, they themselves present evidence that there were sources that my client used.

To date, there are no laws, nor norms, nor the rules that there is no use of such sources to use such sources. Everyone has the right to trust their sources or certainly has the right to doubt the veracity of official information.

One of the witnesses here gave a good example. At some point, the head of our state said that there were no conscripts at the front. And after some time, the Ministry of Defense confirmed that there are conscripts at the front. Did the head of our state spread at that moment Fake? No, he did not distribute, because he used the source of the third party, he was misled.

But according to the logic of the public prosecutor, he is also to blame! Because the accusation on all these new censorships, or you can call them military articles ... In them there is an objective imputation in all of them: if it was distributed, it means that it was sure that it was a lie. And what is it proved?

My client was sequentially, even when he pleaded guilty, he said that he was convinced that all this was true. The delusion is not a crime and cannot appear.

It seems to me that the recognition of my client in the case of such a category will essentially mean that any private conversation, even in the kitchen, even at different times with different people, can be recognized as a public dissemination of information. This is a monstrous intervention in the private life of people. Especially during the period of events that can be called global. Naturally, the consciousness of people is excited by all this, and they want to discuss it. They are afraid, they worry, they are worried.

The prosecution brought all the addressees of the so -called fakes to the court. And what did these witnesses say? They all unanimously claimed that they did not seriously treat Sergey’s words. In their patriotism, nothing has changed in their relationship. None of them retold any third parties to the content of these conversations. The witness Zimin said that he could not remember at all when there were definitely these conversations - until March 4 or after. And the law by which my client is judged entered into force on March 4.

There is generally an interesting aspect of the case. With public dissemination of information, it is usually about an unlimited circle of persons. And here we know everyone, these persons, because these were non -public conversations. I draw attention to your honor that there were no real things behind these conversations, there were no press conferences, there was nothing.

In response to my petition to terminate the criminal case, the investigator writes that my client tried to convince other people to disseminate inaccurate information. And then the investigation was simply confused in the circumstances of the case. If he tried to convince other people to disseminate information, then this is an incitement to the execution of the “fakes”. What is my client accused of? In incitement or in a finished crime? At what point was his crime ended? At the time of the first conversation, the second, third?

How the case of Sergei Klokov (Vedel) developed in Moscow the Investigative Committee initiated an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs about Fakes about the Russian military lawyer: an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs suspected of Fakes about the Russian military, arrested WSJ for a telephone conversation : an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who was arrested in the case of Fakes, was about to arrange a call between his colleagues and police officers from the State University of Revolutionary. years of colony to an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the case of the distribution of military "fakes" during a telephone conversation

Moreover, the criminal case was once returned to the prosecutor indicating that the crime was not established. And when the court abolished this decision, he indicated that this would be established in the process of consideration of the case. And we never established this, even the place of supposedly committing a crime. And this is the reason to return the case to the prosecutor.

Well, of course, it affects the requested time. This is almost the upper limit of the norm, and what did the state prosecutor motivate this? An aggravating circumstance, and in conjunction with mitigating, does not give reason to punish my client almost along the upper limit of the norm. He was not previously brought to criminal or administrative liability, he is characterized impeccably at work, a family man, married. All this time he honestly served his country.

No reason to tear it out of society for as many as nine years. He is accused of talking. I draw attention to the fact that at the very beginning, when the court was just starting the consideration on the merits, we immediately began to testify. My client testified that he does not plead guilty, but he repents of what was said and draws attention to the fact that these conversations became known to society only thanks to this criminal case. And so it would all be just talking.

I am deeply convinced that in the actions of my client there is no not only corpus delicti, but also an event. First of all, because his conversations were not public. The second reason: because he was convinced of the veracity of this information. And finally, the third: because those expert assessments that are the basis of the charges are by nature unacceptable evidence.

This is described in detail in the review, which is attached to the case file, and it is not refuted in any way.

Moreover, my client is accused of spreading inaccurate information based on hatred. But hatred for whom? If a person for a long time, for example, says that he hates the Chinese, and then inflicts serious bodily injuries to the Chinese, probably, the investigator may establish that this person expressed hatred for many years, and then realized it.

But do we not say some words that contain patterns of hatred often in everyday life? “I will kill you”, “I will explode this store if they don’t start selling normal milk” and so on. And we are not very taking care of ourselves when we speak with friends, joke and so on.

If all these conversations are qualified as hatred, it turns out that our whole life is moving with one hatred or hostility towards each other.

The only requirement that in this case is the non -alternative that I can announce here is only the fact that I ask my client to fully fulfill.

Editor: Dmitry Treshchin