Criminal case against two targets of Sugrobov's case was returned to prosecutor's office
Court could not convicted the accused in attempt at selling the leading position in a federal agency for 420 million rubles without the decision in the case of the General Administration for Economic Security and Combatting Corruption (GAESCC) of MIA.
The criminal case, initiated against former member of the expert board of the Audit Chamber of Russia Sergey Zakusilo and Doctor of Economics Aleksander Belyakov, was returned to the prosecutor’s office. The defendants are accused in attempt to sell post of the head of the Administration of Federal Road Agency Severo-Kavkazskiye Avtomobilniye Dorogi for 420 million rubles.
At the same time, Zakusilo is a victim and Belyakov – witness in the case over organization a gang under control of former head of the GAESCC of MIA Denis Sugrobov. Latter is currently waiting for decision of the Moscow City Court, where the hearing of his case is in process, wrote Kommersant.
Decision of the judge from Tverskoy District Court of the case of Zakusilo and Belyakov was very unexpected both for the prosecution and for the defense. Judicial investigation over the case has been in process for 5 months already and everybody hoped for its ending. Judge Maria Sizintseva reasoned her decision with the fact that the defendants were involved in another criminal trial; therefore she could not close the case without decision of the Moscow City Court, where the case of Sugrobov is currently in process.
Photo: Denis Sugrobov
The case returned to the prosecutor’s office again. Zakusilo and Belyakov are still on their own recognizance. The defense is not going to appeal against the ruling, while the representative of the state prosecution claimed that there were no grounds to return the case to the prosecutor’s office. According to the state prosecution, the deputy prosecutor of Moscow Yury Katasonov without doubts knew that the defendants are targets of another process but still handed the case to the court. The state prosecution insisted that further consideration of the case is improper and offered either to suspend the hearing of to declare the defendants not guilty. However, the district court denied the petitions.
The process against Belyakov and Zakusilo was named “the case of fixers”. The policemen of the GAESCC detained them on September 10, 2013 in Moscow in Kiwi-bank. At the time of the detention, the criminals were receiving an advance (5 million rubles and 43 million rubles). The defendants were to receive 12,5 million rubles for the organization of inspection of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise Sport-Inzhiniring through the Audit Chamber. The company deserved this only because it denied to include the limited liability company Laardi in the list of construction contractors on the building of sport facilities for the FIFA Football Cup 2018 in Russia. Second favor was allocating of businessman Nikolay Armeyskov to the position of the head of the Administration of the Federal Road Agency Severo-Kavkazskiye Avtomobilniye Dorogi. Cooperation in this activity has coasted 420 million rubles.
During the money delivery for the organized inspection, Belyakov and Zakusilo were caught red-handed. It becomes a cause for the first criminal case initiation.
The second criminal case could have been initiated over the attempt to sell the leading post. Though the defendants had never received the money, they were still accused of fraud (art. 30 and art. 159 para. 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). They both were detained during the advance delivery at a value of 5 million rubles to the former assistant of the Minister of Transport and president of the Russian Triathlon Federation Sergey Bystrov, who allegedly was to solve the issue of allocating Mr. Armeyskov. Later, in 2014, the criminal case against Bystrov was stopped and he was adjudged a victim.
During the pre-trial investigation the accused claimed that they were to take all 420 million rubles, but later they corrected the testimonies and told that they planned to take only 10% of the sum. It is not totally clear – whom were the remained millions meant for – this question was not discussed in the court.