Shooting at Moscow-city. Case against Rosgvardia officer closed
The investigator did not find signs of disorderly conduct and illegal possession of weapons by a Rosgvardia officer and two representatives of a private security company.
The Main Investigations Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia has dropped a legal case against a Rosgvardia officer and two representatives of a private security company after shooting in OKO tower at Moscow-city occurred on November 17, 2017.
The investigator failed to find a body of a crime in actions of a special forces soldier Dmitry Yakobson, a guard Kirill Titarenko and his colleague Platon Koyda who died during the shooting. Major case investigator of the Main Investigations Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia Vitaly Nikitchenko signed the act on termination of prosecution.
According to Kommersant, the investigator did not find signs of disorderly conduct and illegal possession of weapons by a Rosgvardia officer and two representatives of a private security company. Nikitchenko dealt with checking of actions of his Moscow colleagues who were investigating the criminal case into the shooting, after it was forwarded to the cental office of the Investigative Committee in late 2018. Nikitchenko noted the case had been closed due to the lack of “the body of the crime.” One of the accused - Platon Koyda - died due to injuries he had received during the shooting. At the present time, Nikitchenko’s act is in the General Procurator’s Office that is supposed to approve it.
Besides that, the central office of the Investigative Committee is going to check investigators of Moscow’s office who had investigated the shooting case to determine if there’s a body of crime in their actions under article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (bribe taking). The day before, sources reported seven major case investigators of the Main Investigations Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow had been fired due to an unsatisfying course of the investigation of the shooting case. However, the human resources of the Investigative Committee denied the dismissal due to the fact that the documents had not been written in a right way.
It is to be recalled that the massacre took place in a Crystal BallRoom restaurant in Moscow-city’s OKO tower during the celebration of the anniversary by an ‘influential’ businessman Dmitry Pavlov (who had prior records) also known as Pavlik. 80 waiters and more than 260 guests - including, according to the CrimeRussia data, representatives of the criminal world - were present at the event.
The conflict started at the parking lot, then escalated to the building. 6 persons got injuries following the scuffle. One of them died subsequently. The incident was caused by a Mercedes car from a cortege of an ‘influential’ businessman Gavril Yushvaev (aka Garik Makhachkala) that crossed the entrance to the building.
Initially, investigators thought the conflict was caused by Yushvaev’s guards - Magomed Ismailov and Eldar Khamidov - who were arrested on suspicion of disorderly conduct, assassination attempt and illegal possession of weapons. However, the investigation theory was changed - the injured representatives of a federal state unitary enterprise Okhrana who had been hired to protect the hero of the anniversary became the suspects. Disorderly conduct criminal case against Dmitry Yakobson and Kirill Titorenko was also initiated. In order to obtain the objective result, the central office of the Investigative Committee restarted the investigation of the shooting case.
Yakobson’s lawyer is convinced that the termination of the case of the special forces soldier and representatives of the private security company is not tied with a recent attempt of investigators to dismiss.
Mass protest rallies have been taking place in Moscow on a regular basis since the beginning of this summer. People are protesting for lots of different reasons. However, the reaction of the law enforcement authorities is always the same: repression. What is the reason behind the brutality shown during the dispersion of mass rallies? A conscious intimidation policy or incompetence of law enforcement functionaries escalating the violence and unable to imagine the potential consequences of this?