Chita lawmakers sets Prosecutor up to avoid bribery charges
In reality, the lawmaker himself turned out to be corrupt.
The Prosecutor of Chernovsky district of Chita, Maxim Puchkovsky, who had been suspected of receiving a bribe of 150 000 rubles, turned out to be slandered by a member of the City Council Alexey Shuranov. This was reported to Zabaikalsky Rabochy media edition by sources in law enforcement.
The investigation found that in January 2015 a lawmaker Shuranov and his friend Nikolay Ushakov demanded 250 000 rubles from the director of a management company Alexander Prokopenyuk (also a member of the City Council). For this money they promised the businessman to help cease criminal proceedings against him. Since the criminals did not actually have the powers to do so, they planned to give 150 000 rubles from the received amount to the Prosecutor Puchkovsky. But in the end, Shuranov and Ushakov decided not to go to the Prosecutor, leaving the full amount of the bribe for themselves and cheating the company's director. Meanwhile, as investigators found later, the criminal case against Prokopenyuk had been discontinued "on legal grounds."
The investigation mistakenly believed that the bribe-taker in this case was Maxim Puchkovsky. In December 2015, he became a defendant in a criminal case under part 2 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code. The sources did not say when and how the investigators had reached the real extortionists. The only thing on record is that in the course of the investigation Shuranov and Ushakov admitted that they had initially slandered the Зrosecutor. The truth of their words was confirmed by a polygraph. It is worth noting that lawmaker Shuranov had been developed by the security forces since November 2015. He and the local influential businessman Magomed Magomedov, nicknamed Misha Modamed, are suspected of stealing an SUV Lexus from a businesswoman in 2013. Shuranov currently remains under house arrest.
The criminal case against Maxim Puchkovsky has been closed, and the Prosecutor returned to his duties after almost a year of investigation (he was removed from office this January). Since the very beginning, the officer has referred to the investigation as a professional mistake or malicious actions.