The British court does not have the right to recover from Russia 830 thousand pounds (76.2 million rubles at the Central Bank rate) as compensation to the solicitor Dmitry Smychkovsky, who is accused of bribing employees of the Investigative Committee. This opinion was expressed by the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation regarding the decision of the English court, which refused to extradite Smychkovsky of the Russian Federation, and also obliged Russia to compensate him for legal expenses. The refusal to extradite is largely associated with “gaps” in the case. The main one is this. Smychkovsky handed over $ 1 million bribe to SKR employees for the release of “authority” Andrei Kochuykov (Italian) - the “right hand” of “thief in law” Zakhari Kalashov (Shakro Molodoy). However, this was not Smychkovsky’s money; he was only an intermediary. The owner of the money, and accordingly the bribe giver, is established. About the real bribe giver, according to Smychkovsky, he testified Denis Nikandrov, deputy head of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee for Moscow. He said that this is a certain person with an Armenian surname who wanted to help Shakro. In fact, there are a lot of wiretaps ”of heroes, including Smychkovsky. The latter in his conversations mentions only one person who completely matches the gender description of Nikandrov. This is the owner of the Tashir group of companies Samvel Karapetyan. continues to publish the testimony of Denis Nikandrov.

“On June 14, 2016, a scandal erupted over the possible release of Kochuykov and Romanov after the deadline for their detention. First, the deputy prosecutor of Moscow, Yu.A. Katasonov, informed the witness about this by telephone. He (Nikandrov D.V.) summoned Pakhomov A.V and Semenov D.V. (another deputy Kramarenko A.I. in addition to Khurtsilava A.A.). Kramarenko A.I., as it turned out, was on vacation and was outside of Russia. His phone did not answer. He wanted to cancel the decision to bring Kochuykov and Romanov as accused under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code, as advised to do by Katasonov Yu.A. and the prosecutor of the Central Administrative District of Moscow Ustinovsky M.Yu. However, Pakhomov A.V. and Semenov D.V. insisted on the legality of the decisions on retraining.

Remembering the position of A. Drymanov In this case, he called him and explained the situation, as it was very conflicting. Drymanov A.A. inquired about the opinion of Pakhomov A.V. and Semenova D.V. and said do not cancel anything. The witness, guided by the instructions of Drymanov A.A., called Katasonov Yu.A. and said that the GSU SK of Moscow considers its qualification position to be correct and will not cancel anything. It also turned out that the investigation deadlines were expiring, and the SU in the Central Administrative District did not file a petition to extend the investigation deadlines. Semenov D.V. I could not explain anything intelligible on this issue and referred to Kramarenko A.I., allegedly, from the words of the latter, he coordinated the issue of re-qualification with the prosecutor's office. On his behalf (Nikandrova D.V.) on behalf of Pakhomov A.V. I found out that according to the outgoing correspondence registration journal of the SU in the Central Administrative District of the Central Administrative Institution of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow, copies of decisions to bring A. Kochuykov as accused and Romanova E.A. they didn’t go to the prosecutor’s office. Semenov D.V., and subsequently A. Kramarenko, insisted that copies of the said decisions A. A. Kramarenko handed over to the prosecutor in person, without a cover letter registered in the established manner.

In the evening, at the request of Ustinovsky M.Yu. witness personally agreed Semenova D.The. the transfer of the case in relation to Kochuykov and Romanov to the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of the Central Administrative District, which was reported to A. Drymanova the next morning. by phone.

On June 15 or 16, 2016, Sinyagovsky S.V. approached the witness. and asked to tell what happened to the case of Kochuykov and Romanov, why he was transferred. He motivated his question by interest in this situation D. Smychkovsky Apparently, D. Smychkovsky there was simply no one to turn to with this question, since all his contacts in the person of Maksimenko M.I., Drymanova A.A. and Kramarenko A.I. were outside of Moscow. Nikandrov D.V. Sinyagovskiy answered S.V. that the matter was in the Department of Internal Affairs of the Central Administrative District, and the Main Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Moscow no longer has anything to do with him.

On June 18 or 19, 2016 the witness went to visit his son, who was with his grandmother in a summer house in the Istra region of the Moscow Region, and M. Maksimenko called him on the VotsAp. and asked to meet Smychkovsky D.E. “,” The testimony quoted by says.

“Maksimenko M.I. handed over his phone number to D. Smychkovsky After a while, he called VotsApu. They agreed to meet on Novorizhskoye Shosse when the witness will go from the dacha (intersection with Ilyinsky Shosse in the Krasnogorsk area, at the gas station). During the meeting, he spoke in detail to D. Smychkovsky. the events of June 14, 2016, while D. Smychkovsky very nervous.

The witness asked D. Smychkovsky the question of the fate of the funds transferred to them Drymanov A.A. and Maksimenko M.I., is there a need for their return. Smychkovsky D.E. He named the name of the person who acted as a bribe giver, but the witness did not remember her, except that this surname is Armenian. Smychkovsky D.E. remarked that this person wanted to help Shakro (that is, Kalashov Z.K.), and then, literally verbatim, said: "This person understands that Drymanov A.A. and Maksimenko M.I. did everything they could. He he doesn’t want to quarrel with them, so he doesn’t need to return anything to him. " At the same time D. Smychkovsky expressed his negative attitude towards Kramarenko A.I., who, in his opinion, “messed up” everything and left at the most crucial moment. Also Smychkovsky D.E. said that he would have taken the money from Kramarenko A.I., but this is impossible. In other words, Kramarenko A.I. nothing will give.

After that, during June - July 2016, Smychkovsky D.E. repeatedly visited Drymanova A.A. in his office. Due to the fact that he (Nikandrov D.V.) had already talked with D. Smychkovsky, he considered it possible to be present at their communication. Thus, he found out the latest news in the case of A. Kochuykov. and Romanova E.A. In particular, from the words of D. Smychkovsky He found out about the detention of E.I. Surzhikov, whom they are trying to bring to testimony about his participation in the transfer of money for the re-charge of the charge to A.N. and Romanov E.A.

In the same period of time, almost every day, when he went into the office of A. Drymanov, the latter complained that they had got into this business, but he also saw a positive moment in the situation, which consisted in the fact that no one He did not make claims.

July 12, 2016 Maksimenko had a birthday and he (D. Nikandrov) came to him to work with A. Strizhov. There were already Sinyagovsky S.V. and Smychkovsky D.E.

Witness with Maksimenko M.AND. went out to smoke on the balcony, with them went Smychkovsky D.E. He (D. Nikandrov) asked how the situation associated with A. Kochuykov is developing. and Romanov E.A. Smychkovsky D.E. assured that everything will be fine and, as he put it, "our ears will not come out." In addition, D. Smychkovsky said that some law enforcement officers, whose alleged support he allegedly received, were dishonest. However, he was deceived and did not provide support.

On July 15, 2016, the witness went to Venice, to Italy. In the morning Drymanov A.A. gave him the command Maksimenko M.I. prepare a report addressed to the Chairman of the IC of Russia, in which it was proposed to justify the legality of the re-qualification of the charges against A. Kochuykov and Romanov E.A. Since he needed to leave early, he said he would do it after returning on Monday. Drymanov A.A. He insisted on the urgency of the execution of the order, after which he said that he would do it himself, and D. Nikandrov. will have to send Pakhomov A.V. to him.

Before leaving, between 16 and 17 hours, the witness went to A. Drymanov. He said that a bad article appeared on the Internet about this case, that the FSB Office of the Russian Federation “M” was checking that the officers of the Central Investigative Directorate of the Russian Federation in Moscow were involved in corruption, that he had seen D. Smychkovsky. and gave him the command to leave Moscow for a while, since D. Smychkovsky talked several times with Shakro (Z. Kalashov). According to A. Drymanov, this circumstance allowed him to be connected with Z.K. Kalashov, since they both communicated with D.E. Smychkovsky, whom he (A. A. Drymanov) constantly received as a dear guest. During the conversation Drymanov A.A. looked depressed.

Indicated evidence Nikandrov D.The. fully confirmed during a confrontation with Maksimenko M.I. volume 6, l.d. 219-235. "

To be continued

Timofey Grishin