How the ex-head of RUSNANO legalized income of unknown origin and imprisoned unwanted people
Business partner of Anatoly Chubais, Boris Mints, is directly involved in the fraud of the Otkritie FC bank and the misappropriation of Russian citizens' pension funds by offshore companies (O1 TRUST, O1 Properties, Crizna Holdings LTD, Denian LTD, Rafinha Holdings LTD, etc.) entering or affiliated with the O1 Group financial corporation owned by Boris Mints.
Rucriminal.info has data that the constant financing of the life of Anatoly Chubais in cash and non-cash money went through the offshore companies of his friend, colleague and business partner Boris Mints.
Anatoly Chubais, using the services of offshore companies of Boris Mints, "legalized illegally obtained, undeclared" funds.
In the period from 2010-2012. it was on the initiative of Anatoly Chubais, under the guarantees given by him, that the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (currently TILSOKA LIMITED) - the ultimate beneficiary of which is Boris Mints, the Swiss company JSC "SFO Concept AG" for the construction of an estate for Anatoly Chubais in the village of Peredelki, Odintsovsky District, Moscow Region (hereinafter referred to as “ZhK Peredelki”) loans were provided in the amount of approximately USD 22,000,000.
Recall that the estimated cost of "ZhK Peredelki" amounted to around 47,000,000 US dollars, and the market, according to 3 (three) independent assessments, including the judicial one, amounted to: from 34,000,000 to 36,500,000 US dollars.
Further events developed as follows. The new shareholder of the Swiss company SFO Concept AG, Ilya Suchkov, refused to sell ZhK Peredelki to Anatoly Chubais and Boris Mints at an extremely low cost of 7,000,000 - 8,000,000 US dollars, that is, to launder for Anatoly Chubais and Boris Mints, the money spent on the construction of the ZhK Peredelki. After that, Ilya Suchkov instantly in October 2016, on far-fetched grounds, turned out to be a defendant in a completely falsified criminal case, and a little later in a pre-trial detention center.
In this article, Rucriminal.info would like to tell as objectively as possible about the legal lawlessness of the so-called preliminary investigation and legal proceedings in criminal case No. 123632 that has been happening for more than 6.5 years:
It is well known that one of the purposes of criminal proceedings (inquiry, pre-trial proceedings, the activities of the courts) is, among other things, the protection of the individual from illegal and unreasonable accusations, convictions, restriction of rights and freedoms (clause 2, article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).
There is also a requirement in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation for a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, there is a requirement for the legality and validity of the activities of courts, bodies of inquiry and preliminary investigation (Article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) and the right of the accused, including to declare: petitions, challenges, gets acquainted with case materials, file complaints, get acquainted with the minutes of court sessions, and also defend themselves in other legal ways (Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).
It would seem that with such a legal regulation of the activities of investigators, prosecutors, and judges, lawlessness is out of the question. But, unfortunately, this is only in theory, but in fact, most often everything happens differently. This is especially evident in "custom-made" criminal cases. Moreover, if the "customer" is a high-ranking official or a billionaire, then the rights of the accused should generally be forgotten.
Criminal case No. 123632 on a false denunciation by Anatoly Chubais and the so-called representative of the same offshore company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED, in which the Mintsy and the pension savings of Russian citizens were most likely invested, was initiated on October 16, 2016 against Ilya Suchkov under part 3 of Art. . 30 h. 4 tbsp. 159 SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district of the Moscow region.
And this despite the fact that back in December 2014, with the shareholdership of Ilya Suchkov, the Swiss company JSC "SFO Concept AG" of the offshore company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED for those taken in the period 2010-2012. it was on the initiative of Anatoly Chubais, under the guarantees of their return, loans, with shareholders, and in fact, Ilya Suchkov, part of the loan amount was partially, ahead of schedule, which excludes not only, allegedly, his (Ilya Suchkov) intent to embezzle funds by allegedly deception of the beneficiary of the Cyprus company - Boris Mints, but also the elements of a crime on a far-fetched and completely falsified charge under Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Further, in the case of Art. investigator of the SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district Yegorova Zh.A. false witnesses, imaginary victims were brought in, so-called evidence was rigged, physical evidence was sold, and the defendants were completely deprived of the right to defense.
In June 2017, in order to “strengthen” their illegal actions, Art. investigator of the SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district Yegorova Zh.A. and investigator of the same department and Mogilevskaya A.G., as a supplement against Ilya Suchkov, another criminal case was initiated and combined with the first case under Part 4 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The paradox of a criminal case under Part 4 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation lies in the fact that the false version of the investigation is based on the alleged theft from Anatoly Chubais of property that does not belong to him and causing alleged damage to him. This false statement by the investigation itself was later refuted in full by the documents available in the case file and the accounting expertise of the ECC of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, conducted in 2017 on behalf of the investigator Egorova Zh.A.
According to the documents available in the case file, it was established for certain that the property identified by the investigation as allegedly stolen from Anatoly Chubais was bought and installed in the residential complex "Peredelki" with the funds of the Swiss company JSC "SFO Concept AG" with the shareholdership of Ilya Suchkov. The innocence of Ilya Suchkov has been proven by the materials of the case, but the charge remains.
Thanks to the “falsified” criminal cases, in June 2017, a measure of restraint was chosen against the accused Ilya Suchkov, in the form of detention. Ilya Suchkov served in various pre-trial detention centers in Moscow and the Moscow region for almost a year, where from him, not without the efforts of the investigator Egorova Zh.A. have made the invalid of the II-group.
With the consent of the investigator Egorova Zh.A. during the period of the so-called investigation, material evidence was sold - ZhK Peredelki. These illegal actions of the investigator Yegorova Zh.A. completely deprived the defendants of the right to defense, to conduct a number of expert examinations, including construction, examination of the scene, discovery of allegedly stolen property, etc. According to unverified information, the property allegedly stolen from Anatoly Chubais is still located and mounted in the "ZhK Peredelki" and installed.
In fact, not a single petition of the accused was considered during the preliminary investigation, and all petitions were denied without explanation.
For 4.5 years, the preliminary investigation did not investigate criminal case No. 123632, but adjusted it to a deliberately determined result - to accuse Ilya Suchkov at all costs.
At present, after 6.5 years, the proceedings in this criminal case continue and, judging by the circumstances, the court does not intend to stop. Criminal case twice in 2020 and 2021 was returned for additional investigation by the courts of Moscow and the Moscow Region, and for 2.5 years the case has continued to be in the courts.
We must pay tribute to the "inventiveness" of the judges. Now they started a “baseball game” in which, instead of a ball, criminal case No. 123632. Absolutely on far-fetched grounds, first in April 2021, the criminal case was sent by the Odintsovo City Court of the Moscow Region, allegedly under jurisdiction, to the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, and now to In February 2023, the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow redirected him to the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow. The judges of these courts of Moscow and the Moscow region cannot in any way determine the place where the crime invented by the investigation was committed. This is natural. Finding a crime scene that wasn't impossible! How long gentlemen of the judge will look for "truth" is not clear? Obviously, until they are stopped by the authorized bodies.
After the return in June 2020 by the Odintsovo City Court of the Moscow Region of criminal case No. 123632 for further investigation, the investigators of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Odintsovo City District of the Moscow Region Egorova Zh.A. and Mogilevskaya A.G., instead of eliminating the violations committed by them, even more sophisticated frauds were carried out in the present case, namely:
- all this time the investigator Yegorova Zh.A. carried out “investigative actions” with the representative of the injured party on her own initiative, in the absence of a statement. To hide the criminal intent aimed at falsifying criminal case No. 123632, investigator Yegorova Zh.A. based on the same materials, initiates another 3 (Third) criminal case, attaches to it the missing statement of the representative of the victim and combines it with the one initiated in October 2016.
Thus it is the investigator Egorova Zh.A. covered up a gross violation of the law, we believe deliberately committed in order to bring an innocent person to criminal liability. She, without the appearance of new evidence in the case, on her own initiative, re-qualified the accusation to a more serious one.
Unfortunately, what has been done for 4.5 years by the investigator Egorova Zh.A. obvious lawlessness can be listed for a long time.
Egregious violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the rights and legitimate interests of the accused were systematic and gross due to impunity.
The defenders of Ilya Suchkov sent more than 300 complaints to the prosecutor's office. Unfortunately, there was no response. In fact, for more than 6.5 years, complete lawlessness has been going on against Ilya Suchkov, it should be assumed that with the tacit consent of the regulatory and supervisory authorities. This situation continued in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow.
In pro In the course of the consideration of case No. 01-0104/2022, in our opinion, it became clear that Judge Filchenko M.S. is extremely interested in the outcome of the case, as evidenced by the current legislation of the Russian Federation cynically, grossly violated by the above-mentioned judge, namely:
- the court has not familiarized the defendants and their lawyers with the materials of the case for almost a year;
- the court considered criminal case No. 01-0104/2022 in the absence of part of the case materials indicated in the indictment;
- the court completely ignored the consideration of the defendants' petitions and, as it should be assumed, did not even consider it necessary to attach them to the case file;
- the court refused to issue the minutes of the court sessions;
- the court refused to call defense witnesses;
- the court ignored the absence in the case file of a decision recognizing Mosin D.The. the representative of the victim - the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED);
- the court unlawfully considered criminal No. 01-0104/2022 with the amount of alleged damage caused to the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED) not established by the investigation;
- the court unlawfully considered criminal case No. 01-0104 / 2022 in the absence of the beneficiaries of the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED) Mr. Mintsev, despite the obvious, significant discrepancies in the case file in their testimony, the testimony of Anatoly Chubais and the testimony of the so-called representatives of the victim of the specified above the Cyprus company - Kuksa R.V., Mosina D.V. and the materials of the case;
- the court unlawfully considered criminal case No. 01-0104/2022 in the absence of the victim Chubais A.B. despite the obvious, significant discrepancies in the amount allegedly inflicted on Chubais by A.B. damage, i.e. on the circumstances underlying the indictment.
Unfortunately, the gross violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the constitutional rights of the accused in criminal case No. 123632 committed by the investigation and the courts can be continued indefinitely.
It seems that Judge Filchenko M.S. I've been waiting for something to happen for almost a year. On February 21, 2023, during the trial, Judge of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow Filchenko M.S. on far-fetched grounds, for the next, 2 (Second) time, she again sent, but in fact “threw off”, allegedly according to jurisdiction, criminal case No. 123632 to the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow.
Here it is appropriate to remind the gentlemen of the judges of the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation prohibiting the courts from arguing about the jurisdiction of criminal cases. Nevertheless, the courts in the above-mentioned criminal case for 2 (two) years “cannot decide on its jurisdiction”.
However, such “zeal” of the investigators of the SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district of Egorova Zh.A. and Mogilevskaya A.G., judges of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow and the prosecutor's office, can hardly be explained by professional inexperience. Here, as one should assume, the interest of Anatoly Chubais, and an obvious one at that. In what it is expressed, I would like to hope that the competent authorities will determine. It would be naive to believe that this interest is not coordinated by the people of Anatoly Chubais. And it is not at all appropriate, it is somehow even shameful to talk about justice, and even with respect for the rights of the accused, if we are talking about a case “ordered” by Anatoly Chubais and his fugitive friend Boris Mints. I would like to wait until gentlemen judges, prosecutors answer one question: How many more years do they intend to "administer criminal" justice not in the interests of the Law, but in the interests of Anatoly Chubais?
To be continued
Timofey Grishin
Source: www.rucriminal.info
