|
|
 |
Ten Cases of One Year
Year 2004 in Russia can be rightfully called the year of justice revelry. Vlast weekly analytical selected precedent cases out of the multiple cases started last year.
The Case on Tax Evasion
On February 5, Meshchansky court of Moscow passed the first ruling on the YUKOS case. The ex-president of YUKOS- Moscow Vasily Shahnovsky was sentenced to a year of prison for tax evasion (Article No. 198, RF Criminal Code) but was exempted from the punishment after paying 28,5 million rubles arrears. On June 16, Meshchansky Court started the case on YUKOS heads Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. Both were accused of plunders and tax evasion. On October 5, the Moscow City Court started a case against the chief of YUKOS security department Alexey Pichugin, charged with murder organization. Scheduled for January 17, 2005, was a repeated election of jurymen for Pichugin’s case. Four more people were arrested in link with the YUKOS case, and five people were declared for search (including YUKOS shareholders, Leonid Nevzlin and Vladimir Dubov, who had left for Israel). The case against the company heads was parallel to the tax route of YUKOS.
Notwithstanding the fact that the court has not yet passed the final rulings on YUKOS’ leadership (the sentence is expected to be made in 2005), it can be considered a precedent. First, because other businesses widely used the tax evasion schemes similar to those used by YUKOS. Second, because the society does not perceive this case as a fair trial but rather as a way for the government to get even with its political opponents.
The Case on Scientists Spies
On April 7, director of military technical and economic policy department U.S. and Canada Institute in Moscow Igor Sutyagin was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment. On November 24, an employee of Krasnoyarsk state technical university Valentine Danilov was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment.
Sutyagin was arrested on October 27, 1999, on accusation of disclosure of a state secret following from the information he published in his book Strategic nuclear arms of Russia. On July 24, 2000 the case was stopped because of absence of corpus delicti, but then the case was resumed with new charges of state treason manifested in disclosure of information to the British Alternative Future company, which is supposedly used as a cover of the U.S. and British special services. The defense asserted that the information passed by Sutyagin was open to the public. On February 26, 2001, the Kaluga District Court started a case and it was remitted for further inquiry on December 27. On November 3, 2003 a new trial was begun at the Moscow City Court. On April, 5 the jury ruled Sutyagin guilty of treason. On August 17, the Supreme Court validated the verdict.
Danilov cooperated with Lanzhou Institute of Physics (China). On May 18, 2000, FSB of Krasnoyarsky Territory accused him of passing secret information to the Chineese on the “imitator of complex influences of space environment on space devices.” The researcher was arrested on February 16, 2001. Danilov signed an undertaking not to leave the country in September 2003. He was charged with espionage and fraud (appropriation of 466,000 rubles the Chineese sent for research). On December 29, 2003, the jury acquitted Danilov but the Prosecutor’s Office appealed against the ruling. A new trial began on September 14. On November 5, the jury ruled Danilov guilty of treason and fraud. After the ruling the defense sent an appeal to the RF Supreme Court.
The accused were not the only ones shocked by the strictness of the sentence – many researchers (in particular those, who asserted that the existence of vacuum, space, magnetic fields, etc. was known to the Chinese spies without Danilov’s participation) were also surprised. The cases of Sutyagin and Danilov caused mass media to speak about the “spy trials” of the 1930s returning to Russia.
The Case of the Unexploded Shakhid Woman
On April 8, the Moscow City Court sentenced Chechnya resident Zarema Muzhikova to 20 years of imprisonment for terrorism (Article 205), crime preparation (Article 20), and illegal purchase and storage of explosives (Article 222) of the RF Criminal Code. Muzhikhoeva was arrested on July 10, 2003, downtown Moscow during an attempt to blow up Mon Café on Tverskaya Street. An FSB explosives technician Georgy Trofimov died while trying to neutralize the bomb. Muzhikhoeva cooperated with the investigation, and thanks to her evidences it was possible to neutralize a terrorist base in Tolstopaltsevo village near Moscow. The trial began on March 23. The defense was based on the fact that Muzhikhoeva did not want to commit the terrorist act and helped the investigation. However, on April 5, the jury ruled her guilty of all charges. On August 31, Russia’s Supreme Court confirmed the ruling, in spite of the appeal.
The case was unique because the “live bombs” had never before reached the court alive in Russia. The jury obviously was trying to prevent further incidents when they were passing the sentence. However, now the potential shakhids (among whom there are many scared and intoxicated Chechen young people) will think twice before surrendering to authorities or cooperating with the government after having been arrested: 20 years of imprisonment is not much different from a life sentence.
The Case on the “Second Kursk”
On May 18, the North Fleet Court of Severomorsk sentenced the Fleet Admiral Gennady Suchkov to four years on suspense with two years trial on charges of “negligence resulting in death of people” (Article 293 of the RF Criminal Code). Suchkov was accused of the crash of K-159 submarine, which sank on August 30, 2003, in the Barents Sea while being towed for utilization. Nine out of ten sailors died. On May 29, Suchkov was fired from his post by the RF President Vladimir Putin. On September 6, the RF Military Board confirmed the sentence.
Any trial on submarine emergency automatically becomes the center of attention after the death of Kursk. Besides, this is the first time in Russian history that an admiral was tried under charges other than theft in large quantities. However, the relative swiftness of the trial and the suspended nature of the sentence indicate that there was a need to demonstrate to the public that at least in this submarine case the government was able to find those responsible for the death of sailors (the trial of the second person accused - former commander of atomic sub pen division Sergey Zhemchuzhinov was extended to March 3, 2005).
The Case of a Criminal Order
On August 27, the Air Forces Military Board cancelled the non guilty verdict to four fighters of 541 the main intelligence department of spetsnaz Novosibirsk division – captain Eduard Ulman, major Aleksey Perelevsky, colonel Aleksandr Kalagansky and ensign Vladimir Voevodin accused for murder (Article 105), exceeding one’s jurisdiction (Article 286 of the RF Criminal Code). The case had been tried in the North Caucasus District Court since October 27, 2003. On January 11, 2002, Ulman’s group fired at the van with six civilians in Shatoysky District of Chechnya, and then it burned the vehicle by the orders of the commanding staff. The jury thought that the accused were simply following orders, not realizing its criminal character and on April 29 acquitted them. On May 11, the court pronounced them not guilty. After the ruling was cancelled by the Air Forces Military board a new trial was scheduled for November 22, but it was postponed for a month because of the jury’s non appearance in court.
The canceling of the acquittal is not a precedent: it happened before with Yury Budanov’s case. The precedent is in the fact that the court must answer the question, which was not answered even during the Nuremberg trial: should a serviceman fulfill criminal orders and what is the possibility of evaluating an order as criminal during military operations.
The Case on Using Drugs on Animals
On September 15, Zamoskvoretsky Court of Moscow ruled the veterinary Aleksandr Duka guilty for illegal purchase and storage of drugs (Article 228, RF Criminal Code). He received a year of imprisonment by a suspended sentence and was later released “because of change of the situation.” On November 25, 2003, Duka was detained by the State Drug Control officers during a “criminal” use of cetamine. The officers called the veterinarian to their office under an excuse of their dog needing medical assistance and caught him “red-handed.” On September 3, during the trial hearing, the RF Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov passed the regulation on the use of narcotics and psychotropic substances in veterinary medicine, which legalized cetamine and provided legal bases for Duka’s release. On November 1, the Moscow City Court canceled the final verdict satisfying the lawyers’ appeal and sent the case back to Zamoskvoretsky Court. On November 11, the presidium of the Moscow City Court cancelled the repeated trial and validated the sentence as guilty.
The idiocy of the State Drug Control fight against veterinarians was widely covered by the media. The suspended sentence allowed the court both to protect the drug officers from public derision and to stay in the boundaries of the common sense – imprisonment of a medical worker for using drugs would have looked like blunt cynicism.
 |
| Photo: Ilya Pitalev |
| Aleksandr Gafin, Alfa-Bank Vice-President |
The Case on Reputation Harm
On October, 20 Moscow Arbitration court satisfied the claim of Alpha Bank to Kommersant Publishing House on a refutation of the article published on July, 7 about a problem situation at the bank and compensation of reputation damage cause by the article. The court ruled Kommersant to pay 20.5 million rubles damage compensation and 300 million rubles for compensation of reputation damage as well as 100 thousand rubles of state duty. On November 24, Kommersant lawyers filed an appeal to the Moscow Appeal Arbitration Court No. 9. The appeal hearing was scheduled for December, 24.
The precedent in this case was the introduction of reputation damage to the Russian legal practice and the sum of estimated damage of more than $10 one million. A positive outcome of the Alfa Bank suit will open the road for others wishing to straighten their finances on account of mass media, which may lead to its total bankruptcy.
Case on Death of the Schoolboy
On November 5, the Sovetsky Surgut Garrison Court ruled lieutenant colonel Vladimir Zavadsky guilty of exceeding his jurisdiction followed by heavy consequences (Article 286, RF Criminal Code) and sentenced him to four years of suspended imprisonment prohibiting him to work with children for two following years. Zavadsky, an employee of the district military commissariat was responsible for organizing military training among school students in September 2003. On September 5, Zavadsky made the children run laps in gas masks. As result, eleventh grader Aleksandr Bochanov choked to death by his own vomit. On March 23, the court acquitted Zavadsky, but the Prosecutor’s Office of Privolzhsko-Uralsky Military District appealed the sentence. On October 20, a new court hearing began and ended by a guilty verdict. Zavasky’s defense sent an appeal to the Military Court of the Privolzhsko-Uralsky Military District.
This is the first trial in modern Russia over a military teacher who tried to fulfill his duties too zealously. The cancellation of the acquittal was obviously caused by indignant public. However, the suspended sentence clearly demonstrates what is of more value to the military court: the life of a child or freedom of a criminal wearing shoulder straps.
Case on Bribing Road Police Officers
On November 18, Dorogomilovsky Court of Moscow sentenced Ildar Bicharov to two years on suspense on charges of attempting to bribe a government official (Article 291 of RF Criminal Code). On August 9, Bicharov was stopped by Road Police official for making a U-turn through a solid double line. The driver wanted to pay the fine at the spot and offered 500 rubles (about $17) to the police officer, who refused it. Then Bicharov offered 950 rubles ($40). His conversation with the police officer was being recorded, so he was caught red handed. On September 27, the case was taken to court. The indictment insisted on three years of imprisonment; however the court chose a milder sentence. In spite of that, Bicharov’s defense appealed to the Moscow City Court. The appeal was declined on December 15.
The case was widely covered because almost every driver could imagine himself in Bicharov’s place. The media brought up the debate on what came first: the egg or the chicken (which is to be done first: control the Road Police bribe taking, or the drivers bribing the police). The majority supported the idea that the police taking bribes was to be dealt with. It is worthy of noticing that in spite of the mild sentence the case had its effect on the driver: for instance assistant to the editor-in-chief of our magazine remembering Bicharov’s case after violating the traffic rules to avoid a traffic jam (the same solid double line) not only refused “to pay the fine on the spot,” but stayed from following the inspectors to their car in order to get a report written. As result, the frustrated policemen let her go without charging a fine or writing out a report.
The Case on Murder of Tajik Girl
On November 22, the St. Petersburg City Court jury pronounced seven residents of St. Petersburg guilty of violent murder of a six-year-old girl. On September 21, 2003, a gang of young people, armed with knives, an axe and metal rods attacked two Tajik gypsy girls. One of the girls, Nulifar Sangoboeva, was killed (as many as 40 wounds were found on her body), the other girl and the women were hospitalized. On December 8, two of the murderers were sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment, one – to seven years, two received suspended sentences and the other two were sent to penal colonies.
Last year attacks on “foreigners” took place almost every month (especially in St. Petersburg and Voronezh). Before the courts recognized these actions as hooliganism, however, in 2004 the jury recognized these actions as murder on grounds of national differences (the only exception was the Moscow jury, which acquitted the participants of pogrom at Yasenevo). St. Petersburg city authorities for the first time publicly requested to “find and punish the scumbags” after the murder of eight-year-old Khursheda Sultanova on February 9, 2004 (the murder was disclosed in May, but had not reached the court yet). Such statements by authorities give hope, however, the Russian courts are still hesitant to recognize the presence of skinheads in Russia – most times it turns out that the “foreigners” were killed “by the neighborhood gangs.” Such explanations are not in the least encouraging: so far there is a limited number of skinheads in Russia, and the neighborhood gangs exist in every neighborhood.
Mikhail Alekseev
All the Article in Russian as of Dec. 20, 2004
|
|
|
Photo: Grigory Tambulov
