Former Speaker of City Duma and Nahodka Administration Deputy Head will go on trial for swindling with land
Senior officials of the Primorsky Region illegally handed out land spots that caused damage to budget of 4.5 million rubles.
The former Deputy Head of the Nahodka Administration Mikhail Pilipenko is accused of abuse of official powers and the former Chairman of Nakhodka City Duma Alexander Belov in the organization of malfeasance. They were charged under part 1 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code and part 3 of Art. 33, part 1 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code respectively, the press service of the Primorsky Region Prosecutor's Office reported.
As previously the CrimeRussia reported, investigators believe that on June 2015 defendants in the case organized preparation and signing of commercial certificate of approval free of charge with two organizations on the exploitation of the land. In these areas in the Wrangell village it was planned to transport and make rejected excavation.
Meanwhile, neither Pylypenko, nor Belov had official authority for issuing permits for land use. Only the Head of Nakhodka city district Administration had these exclusive powers.
As a result of criminal, the budget of the Nakhodka city district has not been paid the rent for the use of land in the amount of about 4.5 million rubles because of acts Pylypenko and Belov. The Office noted that in the course of preliminary investigation, defendants repaid damages in full.
The Prosecutor's Office of the Primorsky Region approved the indictment against the former Deputy Head of the Nakhodka Administration and the ex-Chairman of the City Duma. The criminal case was sent to court for consideration on the merits.
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.