he VChK-OGPU Telegram channel and Rucriminal.info continue to acquaint readers with the case of the former head of the anti-corruption department of the Federal Customs Service of Russia Dmitry Muryshov, who turned out to be not a "colonel" of the customs service, as previously announced, but a major general of the FSB of the Russian Federation, seconded to the Federal Customs Service. The general became a "bargaining chip" in the game to remove his good friend from the FSB, the then head of the Federal Customs Service Vladimir Bulavin. Rucriminal.info cites several interesting excerpts from the trial of the general:
"As for the time and place of the crime: the prosecution writes that in an unspecified place, at an unspecified time, unspecified persons agreed for selfish reasons ... Intermediaries in bribery, they say, are involved and transferred money in a certain period "from" - "to". This is quite strange even from the point of view of common sense, and from the point of view of the law - unacceptable. Because either it is established when the money was handed over, or not. Either it is established when the bribe-giver transferred the bribe, or not. Either it is established when the intermediary took it, or not. And what was the intermediaries' self-interest? The intermediary does not do this for no reason.
And the main thing that allows us to conclude that it was a pure provocation? As stated above, in December the money never reached Muryshov. And it is necessary to justify why, in fact, the general needs to be imprisoned. Therefore, the prosecution says: "But there were three more bribes!"
And, actually, who gave the bribe? Well, Kolganov is an intermediary, Okorokov is an intermediary, Nesterenko is an intermediary. And who is the bribe-giver?
And here is a miracle. 14 months after the case was initiated, after 14 months of no investigative actions after the actual detention of Muryshov, on the same day two people who are completely strangers to each other, living in different regions of our country, showed up at the same place to confess to the same boss (We are talking about the head of the FSB Directorate K, Ivan Tkachev - RED). His name has already been mentioned in the press in connection with this case, there is no need to repeat it. But the fact remains: it is in his name that two absolutely identical statements have been filed. They contain absolutely identical demands: to fire Dmitry Nikolaevich Muryshov. The first person says: "I represent a company where I am a hired ordinary employee, not a manager, not an owner." The other person says: "I am also a hired ordinary employee." A lot of questions arise in this regard. Muryshov said: "I am not familiar with these people. I have never heard of these companies. But you can check them using the Risk Management System, where the degree of risk of working with a particular participant in foreign economic activity is automatically determined, and you can draw a conclusion about their integrity. The degree of risk can be low, it can be high. What is meant by "high"? This is a high frequency of violations during customs clearance of goods. And a "low" degree of risk means that there are few violations. The frequency of scheduled inspections during the clearance of goods by the company depends on the degree of risk, and these inspections are scheduled by the Risk Management System program automatically, without human intervention." Having understood this, the investigation could and should have asked the representatives of the companies that Muryshov and his defense considered false witnesses: “Why did you decide to give a bribe and what transactions, in fact, did Dmitry Nikolaevich Murashov help you to carry out? Or, on the contrary, what transactions did he block?” But no, no one is interested in this. Only in court did Muryshov’s defense become concerned with these questions and the court granted its petition, sending inquiries to the customs offices in the area where the cargo of these companies was cleared. Official responses came. For one company, no activity was recorded at the customs office it indicated. But for the other, cargo was actually cleared - about 500 declarations in six months, the risk level was low, during all this time, one or two cargo inspections were carried out. And nothing like “rejecting” the cargo or blocking it. Somewhere in one case there was a penny amount. Hence the question: what were the bribes given for? It is unknown. The next question is for the campaign employees: the source of the money for the bribe. And here's what's surprising: both the first person and the second say: "We are not the heads of the companies, we are not the owners of the companies. We did not even report to anyone in the management that we decided to give a bribe." They claim that they gave their own money from their personal savings over many years. Amazing sacrifice! In another situation, this could be noted as heroism - heroes of labor, enterprises, and so on. But here we are talking about illegal activity. Let's assume. They said so. But the income of each of them does not exceed 50 thousand rubles a month. And Muryshov is accused of receiving bribes of several million rubles. And what did such a pdemand or commit against these companies so that their employees agree to pay for the assistance of the "customs general" at the rate of 100 thousand rubles per day? From their own pockets! People agreed to pay 100 thousand rubles per day. And they cannot say for what. And most importantly, they did not tell their family members that they took such money from their family budgets.
The salary of one is 50 thousand rubles per month for one, 40 thousand rubles per month for the other. The question was asked in court: "Where did they get such money, and not only rubles, but also currency?" Answer: "They saved up for 10, 15, 20 years." This was the dream of each of these people - to save up and give a bribe. Moreover, one of them told the court that in mid-November, he cannot name the exact date, he threw a large sum of money saved up over these many years into the mailbox in the entrance, the location of which he no longer remembers well. Moreover, he does not remember what size it was and how it fit in there. And the owner of this box, Mr. Kolganov, allegedly equipped the box with some kind of device that allowed anyone to open and close the box without a key. And so the entire residential building of people walks past an unlocked mailbox stuffed with money, walks for a whole month...
The case is being processed by the investigator of the Main Investigative Directorate. And in his group there is a young man, also an investigator, from our southern regions. He provides the court with a protocol for the inspection of this box. First, he records: yes, the box really does exist. Secondly, he writes further: "The box is equipped with a magnet for easy access." The witnesses sign, no questions. Photos are attached. But there is no magnet in the photos! In court, attention was drawn to this fact and reasons were expressed to believe that this shortcoming of the investigation should be eliminated, a request was also expressed to inspect this building, this box, the front door and other objects related to the case in order to figure out why such serious contradictions arose.
To this, the respected state prosecutor replies: “What are you talking about? Why? Kolganov could have removed it already.” That is, the prosecution tried to explain the shortcomings of the investigation in court, covering them up at the everyday level. And perhaps to prevent the fact of falsification from coming to light. After all, then it would be impossible to explain how a record appears in the protocol that the investigator sees a magnet, but the camera does not record this magnet.
Returning to the bribe giver, who does not remember very well how he placed the money in the box. He, however, remembers that he acted in gloves. To which the defense asked him in court: “Do you want to say that for all 20 years, while you were saving money, and using some of it to buy currency - you also wore gloves all the time?” Answer: “Yes.”
This man is a former customs investigator. All his work consisted of fighting against persons violating customs legislation, including those who tried to give bribes. It is appropriate to quote the statement of the second defendant in the case: "I have met such people in the course of my work. And I can say: they are professionals and they know better than anyone that all such corruption crimes are committed "down there", on the ground. It is not generals who "resolve" such situations. This is done by ordinary employees: customs inspectors and customs investigators. The first thing a former customs investigator would do if someone (after his dismissal and going into business) demanded a bribe from him as an employee of an enterprise, by the way, where his sister was the owner and director, he would come to his former colleagues-investigators and say: "Guys, I have a problem. Let's go formalize all this, tie up these unkind people and fire them." By the way, both bribe-givers had such a demand in their confessions - to fire Muryshov, and they voiced it more than a year after all the media had disseminated information about the detention of our client. We are talking about the level of the person who prepared all this, these confessions and testimonies.
Is it true that a year before the case was transferred to the PNP (Tax Crime Unit), no investigative actions were carried out with Muryshov? That is, he just sat in a pre-trial detention center?
For a year and a half, Muryshov simply sat in a pre-trial detention center. Just sat. A couple of times, employees came to him and said:
"Confess." It is clear what was counted on: that being in custody is not a resort. Muryshov suffers from a number of chronic diseases, including asthma. Without proper medical treatment, this disease could have led to a fatal outcome in literally 10-15 years.
Naturally, placing a person in such conditions can bring him to a critical state and he is ready to sign anything. Take Okorokov, he literally asked to conclude an agreement with the prosecutor's office in just a few weeks. Why didn't they conclude an agreement with him right away? This agreement was concluded with him only when, more than a year later, two so-called "bribe-makers" appeared atel".
But who are they in essence? They are not even bribe givers. After all, a bribe giver is also a special subject. It can only be a participant in foreign economic activity. And who are these two? One is a commercial director, the other is a deputy director. They have nothing to do with foreign economic activity. That is, neither the subject as a recipient of a bribe, nor the subject as a bribe giver fall under the relevant article of the law.
It is noteworthy that Okorokov, who allegedly cooperated with the investigation, did not say a word about these people for almost 1.5 years. And then suddenly "remembered" them exactly when they had already appeared in the case with their confessions.
And why did they appear in the case? Because there were photographs hanging in the air, in which employees of the offices where Okorokov was located were entering and leaving and handing over some packages. These packages had to be tied to something. So they were "tied".
The last question, I guess. It turns out that a person who has served for several decades, and spent a significant part of his service in the FSB and in hot spots, becomes a victim of internal intrigues. He is called a bribe-taker, and all his merits are simply flushed down the toilet. Everyone else looks on indifferently. Am I right?
Dmitry Nikolaevich suggested that this entire operation was a provocation aimed at removing the then head of the Federal Customs Service of Russia, V.I. Bulavin, whose deputy Muryshov could most likely become. This is very likely true, given that Muryshov was ultimately removed from his post "under this brand", and a person who actually participated in his arrest, D.M. Marachevsky, was appointed in his place. Moreover, it was to this person, Marachevsky, that Muryshov reported on the eve of his arrest (and this was recorded through wiretapping of conversations in the office) that he had received information about Kolganov’s illegal actions: he was trying to contact employees, Mr. Marachevsky’s subordinates, with some questions. Muryshov warned Marachevsky: “Look what’s going on there.” He hinted that Kolganov had been dismissed “at his own request” formally, but in fact, in connection with illegal behavior, which, judging by his activity, was continuing. One can even assume that this was the trigger for Marachevsky: “Aha, we need to remove Muryshov. He is “harassing” Kolganov, and that’s why he needs to be removed.” And Kolganov - after his dismissal by Muryshov for a bribe (the materials of the investigation into the fact of Kolganov's extortion of funds were in the production of the Moscow Investigative Department for Air and Water Transport of the Western Interdistrict Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia, also in the production of the Investigative Department for the city of Khimki of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Moscow Region, also in the production of the Nikulinsky Mobile Investigative Department of the Investigative Directorate of the Russian Federation for the Western Administrative District of Moscow.)
So, Kolganov has now been reinstated in the FCS and appointed to a position related to the fight against corruption in customs authorities! But not as high as Marachevsky (the latter is now the head of the Criminal Procedure Code of the FCS of Russia). Such personnel changes.
And to the question of whether the general, who received his awards and incentives for service not on the "parquet", really deserved such accusations. The court was provided with information about his merits. Dmitry Nikolaevich spent most of his 29 years of service in the so-called "hot spots", for example, in the North Caucasus, in Dagestan. He served in the anti-terrorism committee of Russia for more than 10 years. He participated in ensuring security measures for the Olympics in Sochi in 2014 and the World Cup in 2018. His service has been repeatedly noted with gratitude and memorable gifts from the director of the FSB of Russia, from the President of our country. Dmitry Nikolaevich also helped within the framework of the SVO: he transferred personal funds to the Fund for Assistance to Defenders of the Fatherland. He did this to the best of his ability.
And now a person with such a track record suddenly turns into a "bribe taker". But what image of a bribe taker is usually drawn? This is a person who does not know where to put his money: he has a luxurious life, real estate, expensive cars ... That is, traces of where the illegally obtained money could have gone. But there is nothing here. A man has risen to high ranks and an important position, but lives in a service apartment. He has a disabled wife, a retired mother, a teacher with 50 years of experience, no personal transport, no real estate, no money.
And what is there? There is unfounded criminal prosecution.
And you can add endlessly ... Neither the materials of the operational-search activities, nor the interrogations that were conducted in court confirm what is stated in the indictment. Moreover, it became clear in court that the materials of the operational-search activities were actually falsified. And the testimony of people who were witnesses was distorted in the process of work.
For example, initially in the protocol of the interrogation conducted by the lieutenant colonel of justice, it was written down: "Yes, I am such and such, such and such... I have repeatedly, at the request of such and such, transferred documents (not money) to such and such a place, at such and such a time, to such and such a person. " Already his younger colleague in additional interrogations has completely different new details:
- Yes, it was most likely money.
- Yes, I know that it was intended for Dmitry Nikolaevich Muryshov.
And in court they were asked: how did this happen? The answers were completely different. When the state prosecutor asked for clarification and read out the case materials, the contradiction between what is in the investigation and what is heard in court immediately became visible.
The witnesses' answers were very simple: "Well, the investigator insisted on such changes..." And much has already been said about the examination: there is no "living place" there. As a result, there is nothing but unfounded "far-fetched" accusations and conclusions.
There is a common expression: "no body, no case." This usually applies to crimes such as murder. Previously, at least until a body was found, a case was not considered a murder case. They could investigate anything, but until there is a body, there is no basis for a murder charge. So, if we apply this to a bribery case: no money, no bribe. And in our case, there is no money. Nothing to add, nothing to subtract." Arseniy Dronov
To be continued
Source: www.rucriminal.info
