The VChK-OGPU Telegram channel and Rucriminal.info continue to acquaint readers with the case of the former head of the FCS Anti-Corruption Department 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 FCS. The general became a "bargaining chip" in the game to remove his good friend from the FSB, the then head of the FCS, Vladimir Bulavin.
It is quite obvious that the materials regarding Muryshov should have been sent, properly processed, to the Main Military Investigative Directorate of the same Investigative Committee of Russia. Why this did not happen is unknown.
But nevertheless, we see a picture where an investigator of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee, that is, not a military investigator, accepts all this. Why does he accept this, knowing the law perfectly well, and knowing that there are military colleagues who should do this, and not him? It is unknown.
The prosecution is now trying to say that, well, you know, he received the materials, he did not know that Muryshov was not just a colonel of the customs service, but a major general of the FSB, that is, a serviceman.
Well, let's say the investigator was so inattentive that he was not able to properly read the materials received by him. But when a man with an FSB major general's ID was brought to him for questioning on the night (!) of December 8-9, and he began interrogating him, he - a colonel of justice - could not help but realize that a serviceman was sitting in front of him, and Muryshov did not hide the fact that he was a major general of the FSB. And the first thing the investigator should have done was to report to his superiors and say: this is not my jurisdiction, I cannot do this, let's transfer all this to the appropriate military investigative body. But no, he did not.
More about this. All actions that were carried out in violation of jurisdiction, from the point of view of not only defense lawyers, but also the law, have no legal force, since they were carried out by an unauthorized person.
"Therefore, the interrogation of all persons on that night and in the morning of December 9, all the searches that were conducted by order of the investigator of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee, are inadmissible evidence. Therefore, the interrogation of all persons on that night and in the morning of December 9, all the searches that were conducted by order of the investigator of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee, are inadmissible evidence. And, accordingly, everything that was obtained in those first hours - objects, valuables, documents, testimony - all this has no evidentiary value. "Therefore, by doing so, the investigator essentially put an end to the evidentiary value of all the materials collected during this period of his vigorous activity," notes the Rucriminal.info source.
Further. As stated above, the money did not reach Muryshov. And, apparently, that is why someone pointed out the need to "tie" at least some money to Muryshov. And, I repeat, at night, a resolution is issued to conduct a search of the home. As mentioned above, there is a legal provision that states that a number of procedural actions are carried out with the permission of the court. A search of a home is precisely the case for which a court's permission is required. Yes, the law does contain an exception: in urgent cases, when it is necessary to prevent a dangerous life-threatening crime, to avoid some very serious consequences, this can be done by decision of the investigator, and then the materials can be presented to the court to confirm that this happened, and let the court give an assessment.
What was the need to issue such a resolution at night, without waiting for the morning? It would have been possible to calmly go to court in the morning, present documents to justify the search of the home and do all the same, as they say, within the framework provided for by the procedural law, that is, during the daytime. But no, a group of people, at least 25 in number, shows up at the Muryshovs' home, with another investigator, maybe even included in the group, it is not known for sure - since, naturally, no one shows any resolution on the creation of the group to Muryshov or his wife.
So all these people come to his home as a friendly group, accompanied by several FSB officers, including his fellow officers, take him out of the apartment, load him into a car, drive somewhere, and only upon arrival, when exiting the car, does he realize that he has been taken to the Investigative Committee for questioning by the investigator.
And at this time, in his absence, a search is being conducted in his service apartment. Again, violation after violation. A search of a home, according to the law, is carried out in the presence of a person who is either the owner or, in this case, the tenant of the service apartment. The tenant was taken away. And there is a woman there, half-naked, raised from her bed, by the way, a disabled person, who is not on the list of tenants, whose phone was immediately confiscated, and who asks to invite witnesses - neighbors. Indeed, where else can you find witnesses? in the middle of the night, except among the neighbors. Then she gives a phone number and says: "Here is a lawyer, please invite him." She asks to invite a lawyer to participate in such an action as a search. These are completely legal demands. But they are all ignored. It turns out that there are already witnesses. Guess who? Two more students from the same Moscow university, who completely by chance were walking near Muryshov's house at night. Well, you see, there is such a peculiarity of some Moscow universities - they send their students out for a walk at night to places where they will later be called in as witnesses. But what happens next? The remaining one and a half to two dozen unidentified persons, who were later identified partly due to the fact that some of them went to participate in another search together with Muryshov's wife, and the second part was indicated by Muryshov himself when he opened the door to his apartment: he recognized his colleagues. What is significant is that among these colleagues was Denis Mikhailovich Marachevsky, who now holds the position of Dmitry Nikolaevich Muryshov, the head of the Anti-Corruption Department of the Federal Customs Service of Russia. How is this connected: his participation in this event and his subsequent occupation of Muryshov's position? A very interesting question, unfortunately, there is no exact answer to it, but there is a reasonable assumption that it was probably not by chance that this employee took part in such work against his colleague.
"One could describe for a long time what kind of mess happened next. It is difficult to describe what happened in any other way because when a search is conducted anywhere, according to the requirements of the law, access for unauthorized persons is terminated. Just as the investigator forbids people from leaving the search: none of those who were in the premises at the time the search was announced can leave there without the investigator's permission, - said the interlocutor, - Accordingly, all these people had to be recorded in the protocol, indicating that they participated in the search and in what capacity. None of this is happening. The door is left wide open. People are coming in. People are coming out. People are moving around the apartment uncontrollably. Because it is quite obvious that a woman who was woken up from her bed, who was forbidden to even get dressed and who threw only a robe on herself, alone at night among a large number of hostile men, is in an extremely agitated state. Such incidents did not happen every day in her life. She was not able to control who was doing what in each room, in each area of this apartment." And what is the result? No golden toilets, no documents for real estate, even ordinary, not to mention elite, no documents for ownership of vehicles. No cars, no motorcycles, no planes, no boats, no yachts, no gold bars. No information or documents about any accounts for fabulous sums in Russia or abroad. Nothing that would indicate the receipt in such a short period (six months before these events) of such sums of money, which are incriminated to our client, no traces of this money were found during the search. But towards morning, 5 hours later, when everyone had more or less calmed down and all the participants had settled down wherever they could - on armchairs, a sofa, chairs, at the table, the investigator began drawing up the report in the kitchen. Naturally, Muryshov's wife was sitting next to him, and the witnesses were also nearby. And then a voice was heard from the hallway from an unidentified operative: "Oh, look what I found." The investigator did not even deign to get up. The witnesses and Muryshov's wife go there. And what do they see? A certain employee is standing there and holding a roll of dollars in his hands, like they show in American films. It is not wrapped in any way, he is holding it with his bare hands. Moreover, the witnesses who were questioned in court do not deny that they were in the kitchen, but they say that they saw the employee find the bills. Only one claims that they were in his left inside pocket, and the other - in his right outside pocket. It happens. More than a year later, people could have forgotten, but they should not. Or maybe the ability to see through walls failed.
The most interesting thing is that, unlike the previous expert with gloves, chemicals and a lamp, who worked with the bag of money found in Okorokov's car, and conducted a thorough inspection of them, recording the numbers, nothing like that happened here. To the question "What is this?" the wife answers: "I don't know. We don't have that kind of money." And she explains: "The family money was in the bedroom in a safe: some from the sale of my mother's apartment, some were wedding gifts, some were currency, 200 euros from the sale of surplus medications that were about to expire. Perhaps my husband bought something, but you need to ask him about that." They write in the protocol that this is "money acquired by my husband." That's how categorical it is, that's all. And now in court the prosecution claims: "You see, she said that this is money acquired by my husband." To which the wife's own arguments were: "Well, if I had known that I had the right to read the protocol and make a remark, I would have ation, I would have done so. They didn't let me do that. They just told me: "Sign here, hurry up. We've been sitting here all night because of you, everyone wants to rest." That's why I couldn't make such a remark."
Arseniy Dronov
To be continued
Source: www.rucriminal.info
