Chekhov: ex-Head of Investigation Department sentenced to 7 years for bribery

Chekhov: ex-Head of Investigation Department sentenced to 7 years for bribery
Andrey Suraykin during detention

The examination proved that at the time of bribe-taking Andrey Suraykin was stoned.

Former Head of the Chekhov MID ICR Investigation Department in the Moscow region Andrey Suraykin is sentenced to seven years in prison and a fine of 600 thousand rubles for bribe-taking.

The Moscow region Vidnovsky court delivered a verdict to Mr Suraykin. He was found guilty under Article 159 of the Criminal Code (Swindling) and 228 (Illegal Possession of Drugs).

The main episode of the Suraykin’s criminal case refers to the end of August 2015. According to the MID ICR in the Moscow region, the former investigator received a bribe of 3 million rubles from a lawyer for sentencing a non-custodial punishment.

Rosbalt reported that the bribe was received from representatives of Chekhov's official Vitaly Shilovsky accused of Abuse of Official Powers, Forgery and Swindling (Art. 285, 292 and 159 of the Criminal Code). According to investigators, in 2012 Shilovsky carried out a sale of the former school building with violations.

Also, at the time of a detention in the Suraykin’s office a mixture of amphetamine with cocaine was found, which the ICR officer druged - a fact was proved by the examination.

At the trial Andrey Suraykin outlined his own version of events. According to him, the package with drugs was planted. Tasting it he became inadequate and a bribe was planted.

It is worth noting that the scandalous arrest of Andrey Suraykin in 2015 led to major personnel changes in the management of the ICR in the Moscow region. The resignation was forced to face up Chief of the Investigation Department (MID) Committee Alexander Shchukin and his deputy Pavel Barkovsky, who is Suraykin’s relative.


In the case it was involved Chairman of the Chekhov City Court Andrey Yurchenko, for whom Suraykin asked longer arrest in the case of Shilovsky’s detention. However, the judge left the Suraykin’s request unanswered, in the present case Yurchenko was recognised as a witness. Suraykin’s case was referred to the Vidnoe Court under consideration.



1 / 3