The Chekhov court is hearing a case that was initiated in 2019 not for the purpose of criminal prosecution, but for the purpose of extorting 20 million rubles. For a 100% result, the security forces classified the crime as a particularly serious crime: armed group robbery by prior conspiracy. And they gave us a month to collect and transfer the money.

Law enforcement officers were unable to make money quickly - the objects of extortion were refused - this is what explains the detention of the participants in the case only after a month and a half. The case was cobbled together from what was there; even the judges of some godforsaken African republic would find fault with the quality of the materials, which is why it has been circulating between investigative authorities at the district and regional levels for three years now. By the way, the investigation period for the explosion in the St. Petersburg metro with 15 dead was 2 years. The security forces are playing interdepartmental football with them: no one wants to take responsibility.

For the same reason, the defendants Gulyaev and Zavodny were re-charged 7 times with a change in the place, time, motive, method (!!!) of committing the crime and with the reclassification of the act: two for robbery, two for theft and three for arbitrariness... And therefore it is not included in the materials appropriate extension of the investigation period beyond 6 months.

The investigation did not find indisputable evidence of Oleg Gulyaev’s involvement in the event under investigation. The evidence of pre-trial investigator Maxim Efimov contradicted ordinary human logic. In this regard, they were separated from the main case and brought to sentence in a special manner.

Since March 2022, the fabricated central case began to wander between the judges of the Chekhov City Court. Larisa Pochukaeva and Sergei Gurov withdrew from participation, using the right to recuse themselves. Judge Olga Myadyuta, knowing that she cannot consider the case, because sentenced Efimov, accepted the case for proceedings, but was forced to recuse herself in connection with the stated defense and the recusal supported by the prosecutor. Judge Irina Pantela also knew that she could not consider this case because of her statements about the guilt of the defendants. But contrary to the law, she accepted it for proceedings and did not satisfy the challenges submitted to her by the defense. Only the challenge of the Moscow Regional Court at the request of the defense to change territorial jurisdiction had an effect. Judge Elena Malakhova studied the case, the indictment, the sentence of pre-trial defendant Efimov, which at that time was being reviewed on appeal, and returned it to the prosecutor. She reasonably came to the conclusion that one theft cannot be committed by three persons in different places, at different times, for different purposes and in different ways, which in turn is an obstacle to making a final decision in the case.

Ирина Пантела

The panel of judges of the Moscow Regional Court, controlled by the chairman of the judicial panel for criminal cases, Natalya Urbanovich, who protects her ex-subordinate from the Serpukhov court, Irina Pantela, overturned Malakhova’s decision on a ridiculous basis: the verdict has not yet entered into force and is being appealed, so the case was returned to the prosecutor prematurely.

The criminal case from the Moscow Regional Court has already been processed by the sixth judge. Lyubov Shanina took over the production. Irina Pantela promised her a transfer to a higher court, and Shanina began to create outright arbitrariness, far from justice, the norms and principles of the criminal process. For example, witnesses, doctors, and specialists began to be interrogated in the absence of the defendant Gulyaev before the announcement of the charges and before the start of the judicial investigation. Also, without his participation, examinations and lawyers were appointed for the purpose of two, carrying out the defense of Gulyaev by agreement.


An interesting fact is that Chekhov judges administer justice in strict accordance with the instructions of Chekhov prosecutor Vitaly Khripunov, which have nothing to do with the rule of law and respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens.


The sentence passed by Judge Myadyuta in February 2022 against Efimov, who entered into a pre-trial agreement, was decided in a special manner. The verdict (sentence dated 02/09/22) contained conclusions about the involvement and guilt of two more persons: Gulyaev and Zavodnov, who were not participants in the proceedings against Efimov.


The sentence was decided not in accordance with the charges announced by prosecutor Yuri Rabaev (charge dated January 19, 2022), but due to other circumstances. The said verdict, six months later, was appealed by Gulyaev with a petition to restore the period for appealing it. Judge Myadyuta refused to restore the deadline for appeal, since Gulyaev is not a participant in the criminal case considered, and also, in the absence of the participants and without notifying them, by a resolution of September 2022, she eliminated a bunch of clerical errors and typos (resolution dated September 19, 2022) made in the verdict, t .e. considered Gulyaev's appeal on the merits by eliminating clerical errors. Gulyaev’s complaint against Judge Myadyut’s refusal to restore the term by the Moscow Regional Court satisfied, the appeal against the verdict and the elimination of the clerical error was partially satisfied by the ruling of the Moscow Regional Court; by the same ruling, Gulyaev was granted and clarified the right to appeal the verdict and the appeal ruling in cassation (appeal ruling dated 03/23/23).

However, contrary to the ruling of the judicial panel of the Moscow Regional Court, Judge Myadyuta returned the cassation appeal to Gulyaev’s defense on the grounds that he is not a party to the case and does not have the right to a cassation appeal (resolution dated 07/03/23), after receiving written instructions from the Chekhov city prosecutor on the return of the cassation appeal to Gulyaev’s defense (Response of the Chekhov City Prosecutor’s Office dated June 30, 2023).

Here the question arises: what happened to the independence of judges? Judge Myadyuta, not caring about the limits of her powers, did not limit herself to the law, replaced the 3rd court instance, and instead of the cassation judges, she made a decision on the cassation appeal. The fate of two more cassation appeals: the defenders of Bayramyan and Chernyakov against the verdict and the appeal ruling is currently unknown; they are absent from the case materials. There is also no information on their arrival, registration and movement on the court’s website.


No one has a question: why is the court creating such obstacles for Gulyaev and Zavodnov in their exercise of the right to appeal court decisions? Why? Because the answer is obvious to all law enforcers: Efimov at the court hearing agreed, as a pre-trial officer, with the announced charges, but here he was sentenced for committing another crime, under other circumstances, for other reasons. In this case, the prosecutor participating in the case, the defendant, the defense, quite naturally should have appealed the verdict, but they did not.


They did not appeal in order to avoid the overturning of the verdict in order to complete the criminal case against Gulyaev and Zavodnov and avoid responsibility for illegal criminal prosecution and illegal detention.


Here a question arises for the Chairman of the Supreme Court, Dear Vyacheslav Mikhailovich, how did your judges in the Chekhov court get to the point where district prosecutor Vitaly Khripunov, ignoring the decisions of the higher court, gives instructions to your judges on how and what to do in the case (Response of the Chekhov City Prosecutor's Office dated June 30 .2023), what departmental act did you oblige them to follow the instructions of the prosecutor?



In April of this year, Oleg Gulyaev, during the next court hearing, told Judge Shanina orally about the crime committed by federal judge Myadyuta and prosecutor Rabaev when sentencing Efimov, since this crime is directly related to the criminal case against Gulyaev and Zavodnov. Contrary to the law, the judge did not transfer this message to the Investigative Committee of Russia, but took specific actions to cover up the crime.


The convicted Efimov is the main witness in the criminal case being considered by Shanina and will testify how he committed the crime together with Gulyaev and Zavodnov, indicating a specific place, specific time, specific intent, motive, method, and more. I wonder what circumstances of the crime Efimov will support: those established by Judge Myadyuta in the verdict, or those announced in the indictment by state prosecutor Rabaev, or those established by the investigation in the case materials.


The fact that Shanina subsequently concealed reports of the murder of citizen Zubchenko, who could explain a lot about the events of December 2019, reports of the concealment of this murder by the head of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee for Chekhov, Kharayeva; Lawyer Grafova’s reports about official forgery - the substitution of decisions to implicate Efimov as an accused is explained by one of two reasons: ignorance of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which is unlikely, and the desire to hide them.


Deputy Prosecutor Rabaev announced and supported Efimov’s accusation, gave a deliberately false conclusion about the legality of the verdict reached with his participation, and then concealed the crime committed by Judge Shanina during the consideration of civil case 2-1924/2023 on the claim for the eviction of Trubacheva. So Judge Shanina, without going to the court hearing, made a decision in absentia, which in form and content is in-person (absentee decision dated July 26, 2023), satisfying the demand for eviction. To the extent that court hearings were not held, audio recording was not carried out, and the minutes of the hearings contain information that has nothing to do with reality. Thus, prosecutor Tatyana Zhdanovich, indicated in the decision and minutes of the meeting, was in fact at other meetings at the time indicated in the minutes, and accordingly, the prosecutor’s conclusion set out in the minutes and decision is an invention of the judge. Judge Shanina was not in the courthouse at the time indicated in the protocol because she was away on personal business. After familiarization with the case materials of Trubacheva’s representative and before Trubacheva familiarized herself with them, the following appeared in the case materials: axis is the conclusion of prosecutor Zhdanovich and the appeal submission signed by deputy prosecutor Yuri Rabaev. In response to Trubacheva’s application for the issuance of audio protocols, the court, represented by the Chairman of the court, Artur Troshchilo, made a frantic attempt to explain their absence (Response of the Chekhov Court dated 08/29/23).

The above contains obvious signs of malfeasance committed by Judge Shanina, Judge Myadyuta, Assistant Prosecutor Zhdanovich, Deputy Prosecutor Rabaev, Prosecutor Khripunov, who caused harm to specific citizens in particular, as well as to society and the state in general.

Dear Lyubov Yuryevna, promising does not mean keeping a promise. In a private conversation, absolutely confident in his permissiveness, prosecutor Khripunov said, Shanina will do the job and we don’t need her anymore, we’ll get rid of her. State prosecutor Daniil Andyamov, like you, was promised a promotion for a speedy decision in the case of Gulyaev and Zavodnov. He even managed to go to the regional prosecutor’s office for one day, but you didn’t keep your promise and brought him back.


Arseny Dronov