The expression "shootout on Rochdelskaya" has become a kind of metaphor in security and legal circles in the ten years since those events. Some experts even consider this incident to be the "crime of the century." One can argue about the appropriateness of this loud statement, but the fact that this armed conflict and the events that followed it became significant for modern Russia is a fact that no one in the professional community disputes. The results of the shootout itself: two killed, five seriously wounded. The criminal-legal consequences for the main participants in this criminal episode are also impressive. The confrontation between the lawyer-fixer Eduard Budantsev and the thief in law Shakro Molodoy then effectively unleashed a behind-the-scenes war between the FSB and the Investigative Committee of Russia. Which, in turn, led to the imprisonment of both Shakro and Italianets, as well as police officers, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Central Administrative District, the Main Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Moscow, and the Internal Security Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. The latter were given long prison terms for corruption. The only one who got away with it was Eduard Budantsev, whose murder of two people and wounding of five others was attributed to self-defense.
In 2022, many of the participants in the shooting scandal on Rochdelskaya began to be released on parole or through the "purgatories of the SVO" (except for the former head of the SBU Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation - Maksimenko, who hanged himself in the colony). It is clear that these individuals are released with a thirst for revenge instead of a clear conscience. Over the past 10 years, Investigative Committee officers of all stripes have not been able to forget and forgive the shame that Eduard Budantsev brought down on their heads.
But being smart and legally educated people, they also understand that Budantsev can only be avenged by law. Only the law in this case needs a lot of help. Without professional help, the law will not cope with such a task. The shooter did not waste time all these years. While some were sitting and others were hanging themselves, he became a major "specialist in the field of international law", and literally "hung" his office on Taganka with signs with loud names of various organizations. Realizing that his name and the brand of the bar association "Dictatorship of Law" have become toxic and rather scare away serious people than attract clients, Budantsev decided to mimic and organized a certain ANO "International Organization of Eurasian Cooperation", which for some reason decided to promote a "common bright future" in Senegal, Mauritania, Algeria and other similar "Eurasian" states. Budantsev himself became a modest chairman of the board of trustees there, putting one of his employees, Dmitry Stasyulis, at the head of MOES. - In essence, this organization is a "dummy", the goals of its work are a set of cliches, since the essence of Budantsev's work has remained the same - "fixing" with the use of corruption schemes. And these things are going quite well, since after the actual departure of General Beseda (former head of the 5th Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation), a friend and patron of Budantsev, the latter quickly found himself other patrons in the FSB system. Although the criminal events with his two partners Shapiro and Bogdanov show that Budantsev should not relax.
Moreover, Budantsev's "admirers" thirsty for revenge have lined up. And they pose no less of a danger to Budantsev's shooter. The skashniks had time to come to their senses and organize an entire operation, the purpose of which was to try to organize a "reciprocal landing" of their hated opponent Budantsev. Using their professional skills and administrative resources, the skashniks decided to follow the path they had trodden. They worked through Budantsev's entourage and found his colleague and partner at the "Dictatorship of Law" Bar Association, Lyalin A.V., who, together with his lawyers, was exclusively engaged in legal practice. A candidate convenient for pressure - an ordinary lawyer, without affiliation with any structures or influence groups. One problem - there was no dirt or even a hint of it on Alexander Lyalin. In 30 years of work, there were not even any complaints against him. But, as they say, "I see the goal - I see no obstacles." Among the many cases involving lawyer Alexander Lyalin, the skashniks found one in which he acted as a witness (by the way, at the request of his client - the director of the management company). The case is already in court, but no problem. A representative of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee for the city of Moscow shows up in the pretrial detention center of the accused in the case and they come to an agreement with this accused in the case (a former FSB officer, by the way, and a former ombudsman for the protection of the rights of management companies under Titov), offering him release from criminal liability and subsequent rehabilitation in exchange for the fact that he will change his lawyers to those from the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee and will do everything they tell him. Then, as if by magic, this accused by the last name of Botonkin gets two new lawyers, Vakhromov and Zaika, former employees of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee for the city of Moscow (investigators of the 3rd Department of the 2nd Department of Internal Affairs of the Main Investigative Directorate), who quit, immediately received the status of lawyers and This case was their first in their careers as lawyers (!). An interesting point - they tried to join the case without even having received the warrants for work - they were in such a hurry.
And everything immediately changes in the most miraculous way. The case is returned from the court and for some reason not to the police, where it was previously investigated, but directly to the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, headed by Dobrodomov (a friend of the former head of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Kramarenko, convicted of bribery in the Shakhro Molodoy case and the shooting on Rochdelskaya). Then, with one stroke of the pen, the head of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Moscow Strizhov (the deputy and friend of the former head of the department Drymanov, also convicted of bribery in the Rochdelsky case) personally appoints lawyer Alexander Lyalin and another of his colleagues and employees guilty. Exactly appoints them guilty. And it doesn’t matter that the case is already 7 years old, that the police have investigated it thoroughly, that there is not a single piece of evidence against Lyalin, that in fact, he, representing the interests of his client, participated in writing statements that led to the initiation of two criminal cases in 2016 and 2020 - the desire for revenge outweighed all arguments and lawyer Alexander Lyalin turned from a representative of the applicant into an accused with one stroke of the pen. Once again - all that an outside reader needs to understand is how we now bring people to criminal responsibility. Lawyer Alexander Lyalin, under an agreement signed between him and the newly appointed director of the management company, provided legal services to the management company. Quite quickly, this director, during an internal audit, discovers theft of funds on an industrial scale (which is quite common for the management company). On this basis, a conflict arises between the director and the owner of the company. Lawyer Alexander Lyalin, on the orders of the director of the management company, prepares and sends out statements about the crime committed. During the inspections, it turned out that the company had been committing fraud for a long time not only in relation to finances, but also to the premises that this management company, represented by the owner, managed. Based on the results of the inspections in 2016 and 2020, two criminal cases were opened, in one of which Lyalin was questioned as a witness. During the investigation, investigators of the Investigative Department of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Central Administrative District examined all the evidence, as a result of which the investigation came to the conclusion that lawyer Lyalin acted within the law in accordance with the functions assigned to him by the contract for the provision of legal services. The prosecutor's office supported these conclusions (!). Moreover, in September 2022, investigator of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee for the Central Administrative District A.S. Shumkin came to similar conclusions, indicating in his ruling that lawyer Alexander Lyalin and one of his employees Kozlobaev did not go beyond the law and provided ordinary legal services. That's how it is! Once again - there was not and was NOT a single piece of evidence in the case of lawyer Alexander Lyalin's involvement in the crime. But then the above-mentioned investigator Shumkin (a specialist in such cases - a reference to the case of Deputy Minister Tsyb) took up the case. No, he did not investigate. And he did not even fabricate (!). Feeling that he had a huge administrative resource (which he spoke about directly), investigator Shumkin decided to act without any tricks and openly gave an ultimatum to lawyer Alexander Lyalin - to appear and testify against his partner Budantsev and the charges would immediately "fly off", that is, the decision to bring Lyalin and his employee as an accused would immediately be cancelled. It's that simple! Otherwise, Lyalin and his employee will go to jail and no one will save them, because Shumkin is great and there are very serious people behind him. And he conveyed this ultimatum not only to Lyalin himself, but also to the lawyers, witnesses in the case and relatives.
Another small aspect - investigator Shumkin and former investigator, and now lawyer Zaika, were family friends. Therefore, the contact was cordial and on a permanent basis.
The calculation was simple. Either Budantsev would come running to save his partner and get caught in the same way as the Skashniks themselves. Or Lyalin would end up in a pretrial detention center and there he would quickly "remember everything". It didn't happen: Lyalin refused to slander Budantsev, and Budantsev, by the way, "didn't come to war" to save his comrade.
And then an extremely inconvenient situation arises, everything went wrong. What to do next? Is it really possible to investigate the case? Then the innocence of lawyers Alexander Lyalin and Kozlobaev (Lyalin's colleague and employee) will be quickly proven. You can’t just keep the case to yourself indefinitely – the accused are lawyers and you can’t just hide it. And then a brilliant idea comes to Shumkin’s bright head – let’s send the case to court, wait until the term of bringing Kozlobaev to criminal responsibility expires (just a minute, this is July 2024 – and it’s March 2023 (!)), throw him out of the case and pass the desired sentence, which no one will dispute. And it doesn’t matter that there is a year and a half left before the term expires – we’ve pulled off worse cases. And the plan is really interesting: Alexander Lyalin is wanted, the “freeze” case tsya" in court until the required date. Then Kozlobaev is squeezed out of the case by joint efforts. And then the "necessary" witnesses come, the "unnecessary" ones do not come - the "correct" verdict is passed, which no one can appeal. Everything is super! On paper...
And judging by the subsequent events, at first everything went as investigator Shumkin planned. The Investigative Committee attracts the Central Administrative District Prosecutor's Office and the Basmanny Court Judge Nikolaeva to their side. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain how at first the Central Administrative District Prosecutor Grigoriev missed such an empty accusation against the lawyers - special subjects of law, in which there is not a single piece of evidence, and the investigator carried out only one formal investigative action. And then an outright farce begins in court: the prosecutor in one fell swoop refused 13 out of 18 witnesses (!), declaring that everything was clear to him anyway. Judge Nikolaeva, in almost a year and a half (!), held only 4 normal hearings, and simply postponed 10. And the dynamics in 2024 did not change until the cherished date of July 28. In parallel, Kozlobaev was being processed, especially the accused Botonkin and the lawyer and former investigator of the Investigative Committee Zaika, who openly bullied Kozlobaev, "distinguished themselves" - everything can be viewed on cameras in the building of the Basmanny Court. The agreements between the Investigative Committee for the Central Administrative District, the prosecutor for the Central Administrative District Grigoriev (this is a separate conversation - his department considered lawyer Alexander Lyalin innocent for several years and suddenly, without even the slightest evidence, suddenly "on the fly" changed its tune and supported the charges brought by the Investigative Committee against lawyers Lyalin and Kozlobaev) and the judge of the Basmanny Court Nikolaeva can be concluded not only from their actions in the case - the accused Botonkin, who considers himself deceived, directly states this in his appeals.
By the way, Shumkin did not live to see this "happy" moment. Six months after sending the case to court, he was arrested on charges of bribery and fabrication (strange, right?) in another case. There Shumkin admitted his guilt in full.
Meanwhile, things went completely wrong for our manufacturers from the Investigative Committee - Kozlobaev refused to leave after the expiration of his criminal liability, stating that he did not consider himself guilty and demanded further consideration of the case with his participation. When planning, our manufacturers from the Investigative Committee missed one important point - they did not take into account how truly innocent people behave, especially professionals. And then witnesses appeared (out of the remaining 5) and gave not just "bad and harmful" testimony for the Investigative Committee and the prosecutor about the innocence of Lyalin and Kozlobaev. They stated that all this time they were threatened and demanded to testify against Lyalin (!). Two statements were filed with the police about the threat of murder. But Judge Nikolaeva - a rock, said that this was not relevant to the case. Seeing such impunity, "unknown persons" came to threaten Kozlobaev personally right in the building of the Basmanny Court - they were not stopped by the cameras, nor by the fact that they had to leave their passport details at the entrance. Kozlobaev himself has already personally filed a statement about threats against him right at Petrovka - but here, too, Judge Nikolaeva did not bat an eyelid, also refusing to include this statement. I wonder how many other witnesses were threatened? After all, another witness twice asked to be questioned via video link, notifying the court about threats against him - Judge Nikolaeva refused to question him here too. What a consistent position! What motives did Judge Nikolaeva have in refusing a written motion to a witness in the case, who indicated in the motion about threats against himself, and briefly indicated the circumstances that he wants to present in court - and they were very important for establishing the truth in the case? By the way, if we return to the threats to Kozlobaev in the court building immediately before the hearing, there is an interesting and very explanatory moment - after his threats against Kozlobaev, an unknown person approached the prosecutor supporting the prosecution in court and the former investigator Zaika, who were peacefully talking on the sidelines, talked to them about something and shook their hands (!). The specific mood of Judge Nikolaeva to deal with the case is indicated by the fact that in 2023 she scheduled 14 hearings, of which 10 were postponed - in fact, the process was "frozen" by her, against the background of the prosecutor's refusal of 13 witnesses, all this looks extremely ambiguous. And all this time, let us recall, "someone" was processing the witnesses in order to force them to testify against Lyalin. At the final stage of the so-called trial, something completely unimaginable happened, the pressure on Kozlobaev was simply “off the charts” - the judge raised him twice and persistently asked him if he wanted to leave the case. The prosecutor called Kozlobaev’s defense attorney twice and directly demanded that he leave, threatening a special zone (?). This is recorded. Finally, the lawyers and former investigators Zaika and Vakhromov did not hesitate to directly demand that Kozlobaev leave, threatening some kind of complaint to the Bar Association and other unclear consequences. And why all this? Because this is a manifestation of fear of an appeal, where all this impudent and base behavior will be revealed in the appeal. trial fabrication. The troubles of the SKashniks and their allies did not end there. Lawyer Alexander Lyalin went on the offensive. He filed a complaint with the State Duma, the Prosecutor General's Office, etc. about the fabrication. And in this situation, he was supported not only by his lawyers, but also by veterans of military operations, the criminal investigation department, and members of the SVO. And why did they support him? Because it is not emotions that prevail here, but facts. Against the background of a complete lack of evidence of Alexander Lyalin's guilt, which they tried to compensate for by putting pressure on witnesses, a complete lack of investigation of the case by investigator Shumkin (which in itself constitutes the composition of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (well, if we consider the situation according to the law)). There is simply direct evidence of the fabrication of the charges and the connection of this fabrication with the desire of the SKashnikov to obtain testimony against the shooter Budantsev - as part of the lawyer's investigation, a total of 9 (!) witnesses confirmed in writing that Shumkin contacted and sought access to Lyalin and demanded that he appear to testify against his partner Budantsev. He admitted that the charges were devoid of factual basis and that he, Shumkin, would immediately release Lyalin from the charges brought against him (!). That's how everything is simultaneously brazen and primitive.
And what is happening now? Here's what. Judge Nikolaeva, having refused to include evidence, to interrogate a key witness who asked to be interrogated remotely, citing threats against him, ignoring the testimony of witnesses, issued a guilty verdict. Why did she do this? And why is a verdict needed? The second defendant in the Botonkin case told about this in his appeal to the AP, GP, MJ, OP and FPA, who considers himself deceived by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation and points to them as direct interested parties in this entire process (the editorial office has a copy of one such appeal). Considering that Kozlobaev is no longer on trial, Judge Nikolaeva expects to write the verdict in such a way that both Kozlobaev and Alexander Lyalin, who is not in the process and cannot defend himself, will be implicated in the crime. And Judge Nikolaeva for some reason expects that this verdict will stand in appeal or will not be appealed. Then the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation will receive an indulgence in the form of a guilty verdict and, as they believe, this will allow them to ignore the law and common sense, “torpedoing” all attempts to achieve an investigation into the statement about the commission of a crime against lawyer Alexander Lyalin by employees of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, as provided for in Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The Investigative Committee itself is now "playing dead" and is NOT really reacting to any parliamentary inquiries, or to appeals from SVO participants and veterans of military operations and law enforcement agencies, or even to a direct statement from lawyer Alexander Lyalin. Why aren't they reacting? Because they clearly understand that an investigation into the statement and appeals will immediately reveal the illegality of the actions of investigator Shumkin and the people behind him - everything is so obvious. So they have to fight it off, hoping that everything will resolve itself. It won't.
Let's be honest, many write that "guilt has not been proven", that there is not enough evidence, or that many violations have been committed. But not in this case. In the case of lawyer Alexander Lyalin, who became an unwitting victim of the showdown between the Investigative Committee and Budantsev, evidence of Lyalin's guilt is not only absent, even his so-called accomplice Botonkin denies it and admits in court that he was in conflict with Lyalin long before the incriminated crime - that's not the worst of it, as they say. The witnesses summoned to court (4 people in total) directly stated that they were bribed and threatened in order to force them to testify against Lyalin (!). But that's not all. A total of 9 witnesses confirm that investigator Shumkin himself was aware of the illegality of the charges brought against Alexander Lyalin and directly linked his release from them with testifying against Budantsev. No, of course, everyone knows the trick, as old as the world. You arrest a person for some sins and offer him, in exchange for the necessary testimony, release from criminal prosecution. In the end, that's how the entire mafia in the US and other Sicilies was jailed. But to simply find the "right" person and simply "cook up" an accusation against him, having NOTHING - this is Russian know-how. And it's unclear what is behind this - either blatant unprofessionalism (there must be at least some perverted one), or absolute confidence in one's own impunity. But the fact remains a fact. This is the kind of ricochet from the past that a person who was absolutely not involved in those events on Rochdelskaya received.
That is, it is not even fabrication. In fact, there was none - the person was simply appointed guilty under a condition. And who appointed him? People who took an oath to uphold the law. It is scary when people in uniform cross the line in pursuit of revenge. Apparently hoping that "war will write everything off." It will not.
Arseny Dronov
To be continued.
Source: www.rucriminal.info
In 2022, many of the participants in the shooting scandal on Rochdelskaya began to be released on parole or through the "purgatories of the SVO" (except for the former head of the SBU Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation - Maksimenko, who hanged himself in the colony). It is clear that these individuals are released with a thirst for revenge instead of a clear conscience. Over the past 10 years, Investigative Committee officers of all stripes have not been able to forget and forgive the shame that Eduard Budantsev brought down on their heads.
But being smart and legally educated people, they also understand that Budantsev can only be avenged by law. Only the law in this case needs a lot of help. Without professional help, the law will not cope with such a task. The shooter did not waste time all these years. While some were sitting and others were hanging themselves, he became a major "specialist in the field of international law", and literally "hung" his office on Taganka with signs with loud names of various organizations. Realizing that his name and the brand of the bar association "Dictatorship of Law" have become toxic and rather scare away serious people than attract clients, Budantsev decided to mimic and organized a certain ANO "International Organization of Eurasian Cooperation", which for some reason decided to promote a "common bright future" in Senegal, Mauritania, Algeria and other similar "Eurasian" states. Budantsev himself became a modest chairman of the board of trustees there, putting one of his employees, Dmitry Stasyulis, at the head of MOES. - In essence, this organization is a "dummy", the goals of its work are a set of cliches, since the essence of Budantsev's work has remained the same - "fixing" with the use of corruption schemes. And these things are going quite well, since after the actual departure of General Beseda (former head of the 5th Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation), a friend and patron of Budantsev, the latter quickly found himself other patrons in the FSB system. Although the criminal events with his two partners Shapiro and Bogdanov show that Budantsev should not relax.
Moreover, Budantsev's "admirers" thirsty for revenge have lined up. And they pose no less of a danger to Budantsev's shooter. The skashniks had time to come to their senses and organize an entire operation, the purpose of which was to try to organize a "reciprocal landing" of their hated opponent Budantsev. Using their professional skills and administrative resources, the skashniks decided to follow the path they had trodden. They worked through Budantsev's entourage and found his colleague and partner at the "Dictatorship of Law" Bar Association, Lyalin A.V., who, together with his lawyers, was exclusively engaged in legal practice. A candidate convenient for pressure - an ordinary lawyer, without affiliation with any structures or influence groups. One problem - there was no dirt or even a hint of it on Alexander Lyalin. In 30 years of work, there were not even any complaints against him. But, as they say, "I see the goal - I see no obstacles." Among the many cases involving lawyer Alexander Lyalin, the skashniks found one in which he acted as a witness (by the way, at the request of his client - the director of the management company). The case is already in court, but no problem. A representative of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee for the city of Moscow shows up in the pretrial detention center of the accused in the case and they come to an agreement with this accused in the case (a former FSB officer, by the way, and a former ombudsman for the protection of the rights of management companies under Titov), offering him release from criminal liability and subsequent rehabilitation in exchange for the fact that he will change his lawyers to those from the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee and will do everything they tell him. Then, as if by magic, this accused by the last name of Botonkin gets two new lawyers, Vakhromov and Zaika, former employees of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee for the city of Moscow (investigators of the 3rd Department of the 2nd Department of Internal Affairs of the Main Investigative Directorate), who quit, immediately received the status of lawyers and This case was their first in their careers as lawyers (!). An interesting point - they tried to join the case without even having received the warrants for work - they were in such a hurry.
And everything immediately changes in the most miraculous way. The case is returned from the court and for some reason not to the police, where it was previously investigated, but directly to the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, headed by Dobrodomov (a friend of the former head of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Kramarenko, convicted of bribery in the Shakhro Molodoy case and the shooting on Rochdelskaya). Then, with one stroke of the pen, the head of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Moscow Strizhov (the deputy and friend of the former head of the department Drymanov, also convicted of bribery in the Rochdelsky case) personally appoints lawyer Alexander Lyalin and another of his colleagues and employees guilty. Exactly appoints them guilty. And it doesn’t matter that the case is already 7 years old, that the police have investigated it thoroughly, that there is not a single piece of evidence against Lyalin, that in fact, he, representing the interests of his client, participated in writing statements that led to the initiation of two criminal cases in 2016 and 2020 - the desire for revenge outweighed all arguments and lawyer Alexander Lyalin turned from a representative of the applicant into an accused with one stroke of the pen. Once again - all that an outside reader needs to understand is how we now bring people to criminal responsibility. Lawyer Alexander Lyalin, under an agreement signed between him and the newly appointed director of the management company, provided legal services to the management company. Quite quickly, this director, during an internal audit, discovers theft of funds on an industrial scale (which is quite common for the management company). On this basis, a conflict arises between the director and the owner of the company. Lawyer Alexander Lyalin, on the orders of the director of the management company, prepares and sends out statements about the crime committed. During the inspections, it turned out that the company had been committing fraud for a long time not only in relation to finances, but also to the premises that this management company, represented by the owner, managed. Based on the results of the inspections in 2016 and 2020, two criminal cases were opened, in one of which Lyalin was questioned as a witness. During the investigation, investigators of the Investigative Department of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Central Administrative District examined all the evidence, as a result of which the investigation came to the conclusion that lawyer Lyalin acted within the law in accordance with the functions assigned to him by the contract for the provision of legal services. The prosecutor's office supported these conclusions (!). Moreover, in September 2022, investigator of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee for the Central Administrative District A.S. Shumkin came to similar conclusions, indicating in his ruling that lawyer Alexander Lyalin and one of his employees Kozlobaev did not go beyond the law and provided ordinary legal services. That's how it is! Once again - there was not and was NOT a single piece of evidence in the case of lawyer Alexander Lyalin's involvement in the crime. But then the above-mentioned investigator Shumkin (a specialist in such cases - a reference to the case of Deputy Minister Tsyb) took up the case. No, he did not investigate. And he did not even fabricate (!). Feeling that he had a huge administrative resource (which he spoke about directly), investigator Shumkin decided to act without any tricks and openly gave an ultimatum to lawyer Alexander Lyalin - to appear and testify against his partner Budantsev and the charges would immediately "fly off", that is, the decision to bring Lyalin and his employee as an accused would immediately be cancelled. It's that simple! Otherwise, Lyalin and his employee will go to jail and no one will save them, because Shumkin is great and there are very serious people behind him. And he conveyed this ultimatum not only to Lyalin himself, but also to the lawyers, witnesses in the case and relatives.
Another small aspect - investigator Shumkin and former investigator, and now lawyer Zaika, were family friends. Therefore, the contact was cordial and on a permanent basis.
The calculation was simple. Either Budantsev would come running to save his partner and get caught in the same way as the Skashniks themselves. Or Lyalin would end up in a pretrial detention center and there he would quickly "remember everything". It didn't happen: Lyalin refused to slander Budantsev, and Budantsev, by the way, "didn't come to war" to save his comrade.
And then an extremely inconvenient situation arises, everything went wrong. What to do next? Is it really possible to investigate the case? Then the innocence of lawyers Alexander Lyalin and Kozlobaev (Lyalin's colleague and employee) will be quickly proven. You can’t just keep the case to yourself indefinitely – the accused are lawyers and you can’t just hide it. And then a brilliant idea comes to Shumkin’s bright head – let’s send the case to court, wait until the term of bringing Kozlobaev to criminal responsibility expires (just a minute, this is July 2024 – and it’s March 2023 (!)), throw him out of the case and pass the desired sentence, which no one will dispute. And it doesn’t matter that there is a year and a half left before the term expires – we’ve pulled off worse cases. And the plan is really interesting: Alexander Lyalin is wanted, the “freeze” case tsya" in court until the required date. Then Kozlobaev is squeezed out of the case by joint efforts. And then the "necessary" witnesses come, the "unnecessary" ones do not come - the "correct" verdict is passed, which no one can appeal. Everything is super! On paper...
And judging by the subsequent events, at first everything went as investigator Shumkin planned. The Investigative Committee attracts the Central Administrative District Prosecutor's Office and the Basmanny Court Judge Nikolaeva to their side. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain how at first the Central Administrative District Prosecutor Grigoriev missed such an empty accusation against the lawyers - special subjects of law, in which there is not a single piece of evidence, and the investigator carried out only one formal investigative action. And then an outright farce begins in court: the prosecutor in one fell swoop refused 13 out of 18 witnesses (!), declaring that everything was clear to him anyway. Judge Nikolaeva, in almost a year and a half (!), held only 4 normal hearings, and simply postponed 10. And the dynamics in 2024 did not change until the cherished date of July 28. In parallel, Kozlobaev was being processed, especially the accused Botonkin and the lawyer and former investigator of the Investigative Committee Zaika, who openly bullied Kozlobaev, "distinguished themselves" - everything can be viewed on cameras in the building of the Basmanny Court. The agreements between the Investigative Committee for the Central Administrative District, the prosecutor for the Central Administrative District Grigoriev (this is a separate conversation - his department considered lawyer Alexander Lyalin innocent for several years and suddenly, without even the slightest evidence, suddenly "on the fly" changed its tune and supported the charges brought by the Investigative Committee against lawyers Lyalin and Kozlobaev) and the judge of the Basmanny Court Nikolaeva can be concluded not only from their actions in the case - the accused Botonkin, who considers himself deceived, directly states this in his appeals.
By the way, Shumkin did not live to see this "happy" moment. Six months after sending the case to court, he was arrested on charges of bribery and fabrication (strange, right?) in another case. There Shumkin admitted his guilt in full.
Meanwhile, things went completely wrong for our manufacturers from the Investigative Committee - Kozlobaev refused to leave after the expiration of his criminal liability, stating that he did not consider himself guilty and demanded further consideration of the case with his participation. When planning, our manufacturers from the Investigative Committee missed one important point - they did not take into account how truly innocent people behave, especially professionals. And then witnesses appeared (out of the remaining 5) and gave not just "bad and harmful" testimony for the Investigative Committee and the prosecutor about the innocence of Lyalin and Kozlobaev. They stated that all this time they were threatened and demanded to testify against Lyalin (!). Two statements were filed with the police about the threat of murder. But Judge Nikolaeva - a rock, said that this was not relevant to the case. Seeing such impunity, "unknown persons" came to threaten Kozlobaev personally right in the building of the Basmanny Court - they were not stopped by the cameras, nor by the fact that they had to leave their passport details at the entrance. Kozlobaev himself has already personally filed a statement about threats against him right at Petrovka - but here, too, Judge Nikolaeva did not bat an eyelid, also refusing to include this statement. I wonder how many other witnesses were threatened? After all, another witness twice asked to be questioned via video link, notifying the court about threats against him - Judge Nikolaeva refused to question him here too. What a consistent position! What motives did Judge Nikolaeva have in refusing a written motion to a witness in the case, who indicated in the motion about threats against himself, and briefly indicated the circumstances that he wants to present in court - and they were very important for establishing the truth in the case? By the way, if we return to the threats to Kozlobaev in the court building immediately before the hearing, there is an interesting and very explanatory moment - after his threats against Kozlobaev, an unknown person approached the prosecutor supporting the prosecution in court and the former investigator Zaika, who were peacefully talking on the sidelines, talked to them about something and shook their hands (!). The specific mood of Judge Nikolaeva to deal with the case is indicated by the fact that in 2023 she scheduled 14 hearings, of which 10 were postponed - in fact, the process was "frozen" by her, against the background of the prosecutor's refusal of 13 witnesses, all this looks extremely ambiguous. And all this time, let us recall, "someone" was processing the witnesses in order to force them to testify against Lyalin. At the final stage of the so-called trial, something completely unimaginable happened, the pressure on Kozlobaev was simply “off the charts” - the judge raised him twice and persistently asked him if he wanted to leave the case. The prosecutor called Kozlobaev’s defense attorney twice and directly demanded that he leave, threatening a special zone (?). This is recorded. Finally, the lawyers and former investigators Zaika and Vakhromov did not hesitate to directly demand that Kozlobaev leave, threatening some kind of complaint to the Bar Association and other unclear consequences. And why all this? Because this is a manifestation of fear of an appeal, where all this impudent and base behavior will be revealed in the appeal. trial fabrication. The troubles of the SKashniks and their allies did not end there. Lawyer Alexander Lyalin went on the offensive. He filed a complaint with the State Duma, the Prosecutor General's Office, etc. about the fabrication. And in this situation, he was supported not only by his lawyers, but also by veterans of military operations, the criminal investigation department, and members of the SVO. And why did they support him? Because it is not emotions that prevail here, but facts. Against the background of a complete lack of evidence of Alexander Lyalin's guilt, which they tried to compensate for by putting pressure on witnesses, a complete lack of investigation of the case by investigator Shumkin (which in itself constitutes the composition of Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (well, if we consider the situation according to the law)). There is simply direct evidence of the fabrication of the charges and the connection of this fabrication with the desire of the SKashnikov to obtain testimony against the shooter Budantsev - as part of the lawyer's investigation, a total of 9 (!) witnesses confirmed in writing that Shumkin contacted and sought access to Lyalin and demanded that he appear to testify against his partner Budantsev. He admitted that the charges were devoid of factual basis and that he, Shumkin, would immediately release Lyalin from the charges brought against him (!). That's how everything is simultaneously brazen and primitive.
And what is happening now? Here's what. Judge Nikolaeva, having refused to include evidence, to interrogate a key witness who asked to be interrogated remotely, citing threats against him, ignoring the testimony of witnesses, issued a guilty verdict. Why did she do this? And why is a verdict needed? The second defendant in the Botonkin case told about this in his appeal to the AP, GP, MJ, OP and FPA, who considers himself deceived by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation and points to them as direct interested parties in this entire process (the editorial office has a copy of one such appeal). Considering that Kozlobaev is no longer on trial, Judge Nikolaeva expects to write the verdict in such a way that both Kozlobaev and Alexander Lyalin, who is not in the process and cannot defend himself, will be implicated in the crime. And Judge Nikolaeva for some reason expects that this verdict will stand in appeal or will not be appealed. Then the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation will receive an indulgence in the form of a guilty verdict and, as they believe, this will allow them to ignore the law and common sense, “torpedoing” all attempts to achieve an investigation into the statement about the commission of a crime against lawyer Alexander Lyalin by employees of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, as provided for in Article 299 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The Investigative Committee itself is now "playing dead" and is NOT really reacting to any parliamentary inquiries, or to appeals from SVO participants and veterans of military operations and law enforcement agencies, or even to a direct statement from lawyer Alexander Lyalin. Why aren't they reacting? Because they clearly understand that an investigation into the statement and appeals will immediately reveal the illegality of the actions of investigator Shumkin and the people behind him - everything is so obvious. So they have to fight it off, hoping that everything will resolve itself. It won't.
Let's be honest, many write that "guilt has not been proven", that there is not enough evidence, or that many violations have been committed. But not in this case. In the case of lawyer Alexander Lyalin, who became an unwitting victim of the showdown between the Investigative Committee and Budantsev, evidence of Lyalin's guilt is not only absent, even his so-called accomplice Botonkin denies it and admits in court that he was in conflict with Lyalin long before the incriminated crime - that's not the worst of it, as they say. The witnesses summoned to court (4 people in total) directly stated that they were bribed and threatened in order to force them to testify against Lyalin (!). But that's not all. A total of 9 witnesses confirm that investigator Shumkin himself was aware of the illegality of the charges brought against Alexander Lyalin and directly linked his release from them with testifying against Budantsev. No, of course, everyone knows the trick, as old as the world. You arrest a person for some sins and offer him, in exchange for the necessary testimony, release from criminal prosecution. In the end, that's how the entire mafia in the US and other Sicilies was jailed. But to simply find the "right" person and simply "cook up" an accusation against him, having NOTHING - this is Russian know-how. And it's unclear what is behind this - either blatant unprofessionalism (there must be at least some perverted one), or absolute confidence in one's own impunity. But the fact remains a fact. This is the kind of ricochet from the past that a person who was absolutely not involved in those events on Rochdelskaya received.
That is, it is not even fabrication. In fact, there was none - the person was simply appointed guilty under a condition. And who appointed him? People who took an oath to uphold the law. It is scary when people in uniform cross the line in pursuit of revenge. Apparently hoping that "war will write everything off." It will not.
Arseny Dronov
To be continued.
Source: www.rucriminal.info
