Source: Rucriminal

Territory of the city-forming enterprises "Togliatti" is now more like a staff of Makhno. Chairman Sergey Makhlai fled to the United States, behind him there zasobiralsya CEO Vyacheslav Suslov. All processes at the "rules" flock of the Moscow-managers nedouchek- Neplyuev Nikolai, Igor Grishin, Dmitry Mezheedov. Well, as "taxis" - all just stolen and nothing more. Workers from the factory laid off hundreds of fully liquidated plant protection. It was replaced by a kind of CHOP "Armor", controlled by Moscow top managers TOAZ and native of Chechnya, Magomed Shishkhanov and citizen of Turkey Bulent Ozdemir.

 

Shishkhanov Ozdemir

The latter two through the firm of "MCA Story" and engaged in "washing" money stolen from TOAZ. Shishkhanov bases in the Interior Ministry was listed as a member of one of the OCG, previously suspected of intentional damage of property and rape. Well would couple Shishkhanov and Ozdemir were exclusively criminal elements. So, in recent time, investigators have established their contacts with members of extremist groups, including the "Islamic State" (IGIL- terrorist group, whose activities are prohibited in the territory of the Russian Federation).

Therefore there is nothing surprising in the fact that on December 14, one of the shops (rented by the same company "MCA Story") in the territory of TOAZ staff OMVD Togliatti and the Federal Security Service of the Samara region RPG-18 was found ( "Fly"), the stock to Kalashnikov assault rifle, ammunition of various calibres, including with a displaced center of gravity. Also found extremist literature in both printed form and on electronic media. Also seized were letters addressed to Magomed and Bulent.

And the next day, "on the trail" of the caches on TOAZ, counterintelligence came to the lair of the representatives of the LIH in Samara. Two militants arrested in the apartment discovered a powerful bomb.

    As you can see, "Togliatti" real Khitrovka our time, inhabited by "authorities", extremists, robbers, etc. In such an object it is not that scary to go better and live from it for hundreds of kilometers. Nobody knows what these extremists with their arsenal come to mind at a chemical plant.

    Sergey Makhlai nothing to fear. He settled in the United States, 8 thousand kilometers from the plant. While Americans do not give it to Russia. However, after the search on December 14 the situation may change. It is doubtful that the US will want to have on its territory of a person who admits to LIH money and provides plant for armed militants. The question of a possible extradition Makhlai stretches from 2014. It was then that the Basmanny Court ordered his arrest in absentia. Rucriminal.com publish this document in its entirety.

DECISION

the election of a preventive measure in the form of detention

the city of Moscow December 23, 2014

Judge of the Basmanny District Court of Moscow Mushnikova NE, when Secretary Popova EM,

with the participation of the public prosecutor of the Russian Federation Prosecutor General's management department Lyutova DO,

investigator of the investigation group of the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Mikhail Tumanov,

Representative Panfilov victim GN,

lawyer Zamoshkin SD, and provide proof of the warrant,

Having considered in open court the decision of the senior investigator for particularly important cases of the Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Rassohova RG to initiate a petition before the court on the election of a preventive measure in the form of detention against Makhlai Sergei Vladimirovich, ....... Accused of committing a crime under Part. 4 Art. 159 of the Criminal Code,

ESTABLISHED:

The body of the preliminary investigation Makhlai SV accused of committing a crime under Part. 4 Art. 159 of the Criminal Code, in the circumstances set out in the judgment of the investigator.

December 12, 2012 of the criminal case number 201 235 204, initiated February 10, 2012 under Part. 1, Art. 185.4 of the Criminal Code, in a separate proceeding allocated a criminal case on charges of theft by fraud in the period from 01 January 2008 until 31 December 2011, the JSC "Togliatti" funds on a large scale, that is, on the grounds of an offense under Part. 4 tbsp . 159 of the Criminal Code.

Currently, the criminal case is under senior investigator GSM RF IC Rassohova RG

The term of the preliminary investigation of the criminal case extended October 23, 2014, First Deputy Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation before 12 February 2015.

November 18, 2014 the criminal case issued a decision to prosecute an accused Makhlai SV in the commission of an offense under Part. 4 Art. 159 of the Criminal Code.

November 24, 2014 SV Makhlai on the wanted list, and December 10, 2014 - the international wanted list.

The petition submitted to the court with the consent of the head of the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, stated that Makhlai SV He is accused of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years.

Incriminated Makhlai SV crime can not be regarded as having been committed in the sphere of entrepreneurial activity, since the actions of organized groups were not aimed at systematically profit from business activities, and self-serving and unlawful seizure of products of JSC "Togliatti" at artificially low prices.

Assessing the circumstances of the case under investigation as well as the identity of the accused Makhlai SV, who by the preliminary investigation bodies hiding the preliminary investigation concludes that there is reasonable ground to believe that Makhlai SV, at liberty, may continue to engage in criminal activity, influence the participants in criminal proceedings, to persuade witnesses and other persons to evasion from evidence, for perjury and other actions hindering the investigation, including the threatened witnesses to change their testimony.

These circumstances suggest the impossibility of electing Makhlai SV a preventive measure, since it does not exclude for the accused, while on liberty, opportunity to perform any act aimed at obstructing the criminal proceedings, while it is in the investigation stage.

In view of the investigator asks to elect against the accused Makhlai SV preventive measure in the form of detention.

At the hearing of the investigative group investigator Tumanov MV supported the statement of the petition, stating that the ruling given in the information that is confirmed by the materials submitted to the court, make it possible to conclude that Makhlai SV, while remaining free to continue to hide from investigation, can come into contact with other partners, which are also being sought with a view to agreeing a position to counter the effect. In his speech, the investigator also noted that at the time the decision to prosecute Makhlai SV as a consequence of the accused have reliable information that Makhlai SV He left the Russian Federation. Currently, he is a citizen of another state, he changed his name and surname.

Prosecutor Liutov DO at the hearing supported the petition of the investigator on the arguments set out in the decision.

The representative of the victim Panfilov GN at the hearing supported the petition of the investigator, stating that the investigation represented the necessary and sufficient evidence that in respect Makhlai SV, hiding from the investigation, it is necessary to elect a preventive measure in the form of detention. The investigation established that the whereabouts Makhlai SV known as the place of registration, he does not live, there is information that in 2006, he went beyond the Russian Federation, it is a US citizen and actually live in the United States. The foregoing suggests that Makhlai SV, knowing the prosecution against him, deliberately concealed from law enforcement. Being at liberty Makhlai SV, given his position in OAO "Togliatti", "Togliattikhimbank", may counteract the effect, exert pressure on witnesses

Lawyer Zamoshkin SD He objected to the satisfaction of the petition on the election of the accused Makhlai SV preventive measure in the form of detention, stating that the investigator accused Makhlai rights have been violated SV when making the decision to bring charges because of a ruling by the accused duly notified was not as had not been informed about today's court session. The investigator informed the lawyer of the accused Makhlai SV with the provisions on the wanted list, thereby depriving the defense of the opportunity to appeal this decision in accordance with the law. The charge contained in the relevant decree, unreasonable and not supported by evidence, no evidence of infliction of "Togliatti" any real damage, not presented evidence linking Makhlai SV the crime committed, as well as information indicating the commission Makhlai SV actions that prevent the production of the investigation. In his speech, the lawyer thought it impossible to apply in respect Makhlai SV a preventive measure in the form of detention, and also on the grounds stipulated hours. 1.1 Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure.

In an ad Makhlai accused SV an international arrest warrant, the lack of information about his whereabouts, the petition of the investigator on the election of a preventive measure in the form of detention on the basis of hours. 5, Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure considered by the court in the absence of the accused, with the participation of his lawyer.

The Court, after hearing the opinion of participants in the process, verifying the submitted materials, comes to the conclusion that the application by the investigator on the election of a preventive measure in the form of detention against the accused Makhlai SV be satisfied for the following reasons.

A criminal case was opened by the authorized officer, in the manner prescribed by Art. 146 Code of Criminal Procedure.

From the submissions appear that in the course of search operations, it was found that Makhlai SV absconded bodies, and therefore was declared wanted, and then in the international search in accordance with the applicable legislation. Do not introduce a lawyer with the provisions of tracing immediately after their issuance by itself can not be the basis for the recognition of these decisions as an imposed in violation of the law of criminal procedure, and does not interfere with the defense in the realization of its right to appeal against the above resolutions in the manner prescribed Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Decision on bringing Makhlai SV as the accused in the commission of an offense under Part. 4 Art. 159 of the Criminal Code, issued in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 23 of the Code, and submitted to the court the criminal case, contrary to the arguments of counsel, evidence of the reasonableness of the suspicion in the body of the preliminary investigation the accused of involvement in the crime.

According to Art. 172 Code of Criminal Procedure, charges must be presented to the person no later than three days after a ruling on bringing him in as a defendant in the presence of a lawyer, if he is involved in a criminal case, and the investigator shall notify the accused of the bottom of the charge in the absence of by the objective obstacles, caused by including the unknown location of the accused. As stated in the hearing, and it follows from the materials submitted to the court, at the time the decision to prosecute Makhlai SV as the accused investigators locate Makhlai SV on the territory of the Russian Federation was not known, on the other hand on the information received from Interpol Russian Interior Ministry, Makhlai SV living in the US and is a citizen of this state. Under these circumstances, and given that the sentences against SV Makhlai decision to prosecute as the accused was informed participating in the defender, the court can not recognize the valid arguments for the defense on the infringement of the rights of the accused SV Makhlai in this part.

Decision to open before the Court a request for measures of restraint in the form of detention against SV Makhlai meets the requirements of the criminal procedural law, it listed the grounds and reasons for the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention, set out the circumstances in which force is impossible to choose a less severe measure of restraint. Resolution submitted to the court within the framework of the criminal case, the proper authority, during the preliminary investigation period. In view of the above, the court finds this decision lawful, justified and motivated.

In accordance with Part. 1, Art. 97 Code of Criminal Procedure if there are sufficient grounds to believe that the suspect, the accused would abscond during the investigation or trial, continue to engage in criminal activities, threaten witnesses or other participants in criminal proceedings, destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the proceedings against him could be elected preventive measure.

According to Part. 1, Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure detention as a preventive measure applied by judicial decision against the suspected or accused of committing a crime for which the criminal law punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding three years if it is impossible to apply a more lenient preventive measure.

In considering the question of remand in custody as a court considers that Makhlai SV charged with a serious crime for which criminal law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment for a term exceeding three years.

Accused Makhlai SV disappeared from the bodies of preliminary investigation, the international wanted list, as evidenced by the materials submitted by the investigator.

The foregoing in conjunction with the circumstances of the crime, which is accused of committing Makhlai SV, data about his identity, give the court sufficient grounds to believe that, if at large, Makhlai SV could threaten the victims and witnesses, another way to prevent the criminal proceedings, including to make contact with other accomplices in the crime, agreeing with them a position to counter the effect.

These circumstances are real, valid, confirms the accuracy of the information contained in the submitted preliminary investigation body materials.

In view of the gravity of the charges brought against SV Makhlai circumstances that are the subject of a criminal investigation, the data on the personality of the accused, the court comes to the conclusion about the impossibility of the election in respect of the accused SV Makhlai another, milder preventive measure because the softer the preventive measure does not exclude the possibility for the defendant to perform any act aimed at obstructing the proceedings, including to continue to hide from the investigation and trial.

From the material before the court case, it follows that the act of committing is accused Makhlai SV does not apply to crimes committed in the sphere of entrepreneurial activity, since it does not contain elements of a business activity referred to in Article II of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in connection with which the Court concludes that the provisions of Part. Article 1.1. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure, in this case can not be applied.

In deciding on the election in respect of the accused SV Makhlai a preventive measure in the form of detention the court shall take into account the defendant's age, marital status, and health. Objective evidence that a defendant for health Makhlai SV can not be contained in a detention center, the court provided.

Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure, the court

DECIDED:

Elect accused Makhlai Sergey preventive measure in the form of detention.

The present decision may be appealed to the Moscow City Court within 3 days from the date of its issuance. In the case of an appeal the defendant is entitled to apply for their participation in the consideration of the appeal court of appeal. Application for participation in the court of appeal the accused has the right to claim for 3 days from the date of delivery of the copy of the order and in the same period from the date of delivery of the copies of the appeal or the appeal submission, affecting its interests.

Judge (signature and seal)

Source: Rucriminal