Convicted judge kleptocrat was granted amnesty in Moscow
In Moscow, a former judge, who had been convicted for miscarriage of justice, has been amnestied.
In Moscow, the investigating authorities have gathered enough evidence for court conviction of the former judge of the Ostankino District Court Sergey Tartynsky. He has been found guilty of Travesty of Justice (part 1 of Art. 305 of the Russian Criminal Code). However, last Friday on September 2, the former civil servant was granted amnesty.
According to law enforcement agencies, the investigation and the court have found that Sergey Tartynsky had committed a crime against justice, acting in the interests of his friend, a lawyer Dmitry Polyansky.
The lawyer appealed to Tartynsky in September 2012, asking him to award a judgment in his interest in case involving two apartments located on Academician Petrovsky Street in Moscow.
According to the investigating authorities, after the owner’s death, those apartments had to pass into municipal ownership as heirless property. The lawyer and his accomplices had made false property documents and registered the apartment ownership to his friend. However, the lawyer’s friend who had received the property refused to give Polyansky possession over the apartments.
As a result, the lawyer has backdated a fake loan agreement, under which the apartment owner owed 31 million rubles to Dmitry Polyansky’s accomplice Vladimir Stolyarov. This amount was the equivalent of the apartments’ price, which had been specified in the loan agreement as collateral. At the same time, the terms of the agreement contained the following paragraph: “The disputes between the parties under this contract shall be resolved in the Ostankino District Court”.
Violating the established order, Judge Sergey Tartynsky has personally taken charge of the production of the claim with an attached copy of fake loan agreement and statement of seizure of the disputed apartment. Then the judge has rendered an unwarranted determination on accepting of the claim and seizing the property.
After the manipulations, the judge decided to prepare the civil case for proceeding on October 15, 2012. He made an unlawful ruling without considering the case on the merits and fulfilling his lawyer friend’s request. The perversion of justice on the judge’s part has enabled the fraudster lawyer and his accomplices to pass into the ownership of the apartments.
Later, the Presidium of the Moscow City Court reversed this illegal judgment. After reconsideration in the court of primary jurisdiction, the applicant received a waiver to meet its requirements. In addition, measures for the provisional remedy through real estate seizure, taken by Tartynsky, have been canceled.
In 2014, the Perovsky District Court of Moscow sentenced Polyansky and Stolyarov to real prison terms for fraud with apartments.
The Investigative Committee of Russia added that there have been a lot of difficulties in the investigation of this criminal case, not only because of the large amount of investigative measures. A particular challenge has been the necessity to obtain the consent from the Qualification Collegium of Moscow Judges for the initiation of criminal proceedings against the former Judge of the Ostankino District Court Sergey Tartynsky.
It has recently been found that the court had decided to terminate the investigation of the criminal case against the former judge on the application of Sergey Tartynsky, citing part 6 of the Resolution of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation No. 6576-6GD of 24.04.2015 “On amnesty in connection with the 70th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.”
Rosfinmonitoring (Federal Financial Monitoring Service) analyzed the data of the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers and discovered thousands of offshore companies through which the Russians laundered billions of rubles. Materials on deputies and governors were handed over to law enforcers.
A spokesperson of the Prosecutor's office said that the ECHR had not studied all the materials of the criminal case, so they were offered not to overturn the verdict, but to send the case for a new review in court.