Shortly before his arrest, the "gray cardinal" of the TFR Mikhail Maksimenko met and talked about something for a very long time with the current prime minister, and then the head of the Federal Tax Service, Mikhail Mishustin. Below, his colleagues and resolver Dmitry Smychkovsky were waiting for him, who had previously handed over a bribe of $ 1 million to employees of the Investigative Committee. During the investigation it was established that Smychkovsky was familiar with Mishustin and talked with him. The conversation between Maksimenko and Mishustin was so intense that instead of the planned 10 minutes, it dragged on for several hours. Because of this, Maksimenko and his colleagues did not go to the birthday of General Alexander Drymanov. All this became known to the investigation from the testimony of the deputy chief of the GSU SK in Moscow Denis Nikandrov, which continues to be published by Rucriminal.info.
“Next week at the next meeting with the department of Denisov A.A. the latter himself voiced a proposal to divide the affairs of Budantsev, on the one hand, and Kochuykov and Romanov, on the other. Pakhomov A.V., attending these meetings, opinion of Denisov M.E. supported. Denisov M.E. I wanted a case against Budantseva A.The. leave in his department, and the second thing somewhere to "dump." Given the requests of Maksimenko M.I. and Drymanova A.A., the witness decided to take advantage of the situation and brought this matter to the next meeting next Tuesday, but with the participation of the investigator.
Nikandrov D.V. immediately reported this to A. Drymanov. and Maksimenko M.I. The team from both was unequivocal: to support Denisov M.E. and transfer the criminal case against Kochuykov and Romanov according to territoriality to the SU in the Central Administrative District. The witness decided to support this position, because, firstly, it did not contradict the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, and secondly, it was an indication from the persons on whom he was in official dependence. Thirdly, he believed that in this way he would get rid of the problematic case, on which his leaders put pressure on him.
Thus, he supported Denisov M.E., agreed on the separation of cases, and on April 21, 2016 signed a resolution on the seizure and transfer of the criminal case against Kochuykov and Romanov to the SU in the Central Administrative District. The case against Budantsev remained in the department of Denisov.
At the end of April 2016 Kramarenko A.N. came into the witness’s office and brought a memorandum on the case in relation to Kochuykov and Romanov, which suggested re-qualifying their actions to article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and changing the preventive measure to recognizance not to leave, provided they pleaded guilty. The latter also assured the witness that he had agreed with the defense attorneys on the recognition of guilt and the speedy signing of the protocol for acquaintance with the materials of the criminal case.
Witness suggested Kramarenko A.AND. go to A. Drymanov yourself and report a position on the case, but he asked him to do it (Nikandrova D.V.), as in the waiting room at A. Drymanov. a large line of visitors, and Nikandrov D.V. could go bypass the line. The witness went with a memorandum A. Kramarenko to A. Drymanov, believing that he would write it off for execution and control to his other deputy, A. A. Strizhov, who oversaw the investigation of ordinary crimes in the production of territorial divisions.
Drymanov A.A. after studying the memorandum in categorical form, instructed the witness to hold a meeting on the case. On his attempts to object and propose for this candidacy Strizhova, who should oversee this category of cases, Drymanov A.A. stated that Strizhov was only appointed, he didn’t know anything. Drymanov A.A. He also instructed the witness to entrust the organization of the meeting to Pakhomov, who is a supporter of the retraining, and he himself (that is, Nikandrov D.V.) should not interfere with Kramarenko A.I., since, according to Drymanov A.A., due to the fact that this decision will come from Kramarenko A.I., all responsibility will rest with him.
Drymanov A.A. Initially, he wanted to paint a memo to the witness, took a pen, and then asked him: "Maybe you can write it yourself?" According to the instructions on the workflow of the GSU SK of Russia in Moscow, documents addressed to the name of A. Drymanov, with the exception of those signed by the heads of state bodies and heads of departments of the central apparatus of the SK of Russia, could also be painted by deputy heads of the GSU. The witness returned to his office, at this time in the reception room of his office, Kramarenko and Pakhomov discussed the possibility of retraining, Kramarenko argued that he had coordinated this issue with the prosecutor’s office of the Central Administrative District, the lawyers of Kochuykov and Romanov, who promised to arrange a guilty plea by their clients, a quick signing of the acquaintance protocol with the case. Nikandrov D.V. instructed Pakhomov to prepare a meeting on this issue, asking him to personally look at judicial practice on the issue of differentiating qualifications under the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on hooliganism from arbitrariness with violence.
At the end of April 2016, the witness’s office, accompanied by S. Gusev came Lamonov A.N. At the time of their arrival, the head of the CSSD of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Moscow by the name of Kuznetsov was in the office, ”reads the testimony of Denis Nikandrov, the protocol of which is at the disposal of Rucriminal.info.
“Lamonov A.N. inquired from the witness about the situation in the case in relation to A. Kochuykov and Romanova E.A., to which he replied that the case was referred for further investigation to the Administrative Department of the Central Administrative District of the Central Administrative Institution of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow and, according to the leadership of this unit, the actions of the accused must be re-qualified to Art. 330 of the Criminal Code (arbitrariness). He also added that he had appointed an appropriate meeting, and the head of the SU for the Central Administrative District of the Main Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the IC of Russia in Moscow asked for support for this initiative. Interest Lamonova A.N. the witness perceived the case as the fulfillment of instructions by Maksimenko MI in the framework of the agreement of the latter with D. Smychkovsky About other persons interested in re-qualification of the charge A. Kochuykov and Romanov E.A., in addition to D. Smychkovsky, the witness was not aware.
A meeting to consider the above memorandum was held in the office of D. Nikandrov May 04, 2016. Before it began, the witness reminded Drymanov A.A. that this meeting was planned, to which he replied: "That's all right. Act, as I said earlier."
In this meeting, in addition to D. Nikandrov, A. Kramarenko and Pakhomova A.V. A. Bychkov, investigator of the Central Administrative Department of the Central Administrative Department of the Investigative Committee of the IC of Russia, A. Khurtsilav A. and inspector of the process control department Ter-Astvatsaturov I.S. At the meeting, either Kramarenko A.I. or Khurtsilava A.A. voiced the contents of the memo by A. Kramarenko, namely, that in the actions of A. Kochuykov and Romanova E.A. signs of a crime under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in connection with which the charges brought against them must be re-qualified. In addition, Kramarenko A.I. He stated that the defendants intend to plead guilty in the event of a re-qualification, after which it will be possible to consider changing his preventive measure to non-custodial one. All participants in the meeting spoke about the legality of the re-qualification of the actions of Kochuykov and Romanov at Art. 330 of the Criminal Code. Pakhomov brought a similar practice of the Moscow City Court. Regarding the change in the preventive measure to Kochuikov and Romanov, the witness spoke as a premature decision, but noted that it would be possible to return to this issue based on the results of presenting A. Kochuikov. and Romanov E.A. new charges. Kramarenko claimed that by June 14, 2016, the investigation of the case would be completed and sent to the prosecutor’s office with an indictment. This is noted in the minutes of the meeting.
The witness immediately reported on the results of the meeting to A. Drymanova. in his office. Gusev S.N. also took an interest in the results of this meeting, referring to the instruction of A.N. Lamonov received by him. and Maksimenko M.I. Gusev S.N. witness said that the meeting with Kramarenko A.AND. the re-qualification of the accusation against Kochuykov and Romanov to arbitrariness was agreed.
May 4, 2016 at Gusev S.N. it was a birthday. He celebrated it either on the same day, or on May 10, 2016 (the witness did not remember the exact date) in the Tiflis restaurant on ul. Ostozhenka in Moscow. Among the invitees were Drymanov A.A. and Lamonov A.N. As the witness understood from the words of Gusev S.N., he reported to A.N. Lamonova on the results of the meeting on the issue of the re-qualification of the accusation to Kochuykov and Romanov. directly during the feast.
May 5 and 6, 2016 Drymanov A.A. did not appear at work, Maksimenko M.I. also located outside of Moscow. For this reason, the witness with none of them regarding the criminal case Kochuykova A.N. and Romanova E.A. did not communicate.
Further circumstances, which the witness reported to the investigation, occurred either during the week after the May holidays, that is, from May 10 to 13, 2016, or from May 16 to 20, 2016 (he does not remember the time more precisely).
At the beginning of the week, when he was in the office of A. Drymanov, he left the table, went to the witness and whispered that he had met with D. Smychkovsky, who, as he put it, was “tormented” by A. Kramarenko I., demanding money. He (Drymanov A.A.) agreed to D. Smychkovsky. direct transfer Kramarenko A.I. 200 thousand US dollars from 1 million dollars allocated D. Smychkovsky to the decision on the re-qualification of the charges A. Kochuykov and Romanov E.A. on arbitrariness and changing its preventive measure. Next Drymanov A.A. asked if everything was going according to plan. He replied that now everything depends on Kramarenko A.I. After that Drymanov A.A. said that "we will take the remaining money a little later."
The next day, or every other day, Drymanov A.A. again called a witness to him. When he appeared, he said that he had again met with D. Smychkovsky. and he brought to his attention that he transferred 200 thousand US dollars to A.I. Kramarenko, but after he (D. Smychkovsky) went to collect the rest of the money from the place where he was stored (without specifying exactly where) , it turned out that there was only 400 thousand US dollars left. According to Smychkovsky D.E. the other 400 thousand US dollars could be taken only by one of the "security". In this case, as the witness understood, he was referring to someone from the department headed by Maksimenko M.I. After that, according to Drymanov A.A., Smychkovsky D.E. I went to Maksimenko MI to find out the fate of these 400 thousand US dollars.
On the same day (or the next), when he (Nikandrov D.V.) was in the office of A. Drymanov from 15 a.m. to 5 p.m., the last was called by Maksimenko M.I. The witness understood this, since A. Drymanov addressed the interlocutor "Misha", and after the conversation he said that he spoke with Maksimenko M.I. Based on the conversation we heard, it was clear that they agreed to meet urgently somewhere in the vicinity of the Moskva River embankment. Then Drymanov A.A. said he went to meet with Maksimenko M.I. and asked to wait for his return.
Returning after about an hour, Drymanov A.A. called him (D. Nikandrova) and also in a whisper reported that everything had turned out: the missing 400 thousand US dollars were taken by M. Maksimenko. He met with him and "took our share." He again asked the witness not to go anywhere and promised later in the evening to give back the share due to him.
At the end of the working day, after about 19 hours, going home, he went into the office of A. Drymanov, who invited him to go to the rest room. On the couch in the lounge there was a dark plastic bag filled to the top with bundles of US dollars. Drymanov A.A. he picked up a bag with a tightened top with the Bosco logo and began to transfer packs of dollars into it. Starting this process, Drymanov A.A. asked him to go into the office in order to prevent the passage of “uninvited guests” into the rest room, which could interfere. After a few minutes, A. Drymanov left the restroom and handed him a Bosco bag filled with banknotes, and whispered: "There are 200 thousand." Based on the fact that the witness saw US dollars in the rest room, he realized that there were 200 thousand US dollars in the bag. He inquired from Drymanov A.A., who else is in the stake. He replied that Kramarenko A.I. already received, and the remaining money is divided between the witness, Maksimenko M.I., Smychkovsky D.E. and him (Drymanov A.A.). The witness asked about Lamonov A.N., since, in his opinion (Nikandrova D.V.), based on the interest of Lamonov A.N. to the investigation of the case against Kochuykova A.N. and Romanov E.A., he also counted on material rewards. To this Drymanov A.A. replied that Maksimenko M.I. about Lamonova A.N. He didn’t say anything, and if the question is interesting for the witness, then Maksimenko M.I.
Arriving home, he counted the number of packs of US dollars and made sure that they were exactly 20 pieces. Each pack was pulled in the middle by elastic bands of yellow, red and green.
A week after the transfer Drymanov A.A. 200 thousand US dollars, the witness went to Maksimenko M.I. to work and in the course of the conversation asked why he and A. Drymanov did not provide for the participation of A. Lamonov in the distribution of funds, as the prevailing impression is A. Lamonov He counted on receiving any payment, took part in the transfer of information on the case. Maksimenko M.I. He recommended not to worry about AN Lamonov, since, literally, “he and his guys got five hundred pieces.” Then the witness understood that apart from Smychkovsky D.E. there was another bribe-giver, with whom A.N. Lamonov contacted and the existence of which he had not previously envisioned.
The next day, he spoke about what had taken place between him and Maksimenko M.I. conversation A. Drymanov, who sharply reacted to the existence of the second bribe giver: he was indignant and called A. Lamonov. a scammer.
May 16, 2016 after presentation to A. Kochuykov and Romanov E.A. charges under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code Kramarenko A.AND. called the witness and said they did not recognize their guilt. To the question, what about his promises and assurances, Kramarenko A.N. replied that he was deceived by lawyers. At the same time, the witness ordered Kramarenko A.N. complete the investigation of the criminal case before June 14, 2016 and do not change the preventive measure against the accused. To this Kramarenko A.N. noted that upon reaching the deadline for the accused in custody, he would still release them.
Heard from A. Kramarenko almost immediately he reported to A. Drymanov, who noticed that these were problems of A. Kramarenko, but nevertheless instructed M. Maksimenko to report this news.
The next day, May 17, 2016, in the evening, near a restaurant in the area of Pokrovsky Boulevard D. Nikandrov met with Maksimenko M.I. and in the course of the conversation informed him that A. Kochuykov with Romanov E.A. they do not admit guilt, therefore no one will currently change the measure of restraint. A Kramarenko A.I. wants to release the accused after the deadline for their detention. To this Maksimenko M.I. replied that he would speak with D. Smychkovsky and make Kochuykov and Romanov plead guilty, and if A. Kramarenko "messed up", then let him be responsible, especially since he (Kramarenko A.I.) has already received his money. According to Maksimenko M.I., neither to Nikandrov D.V., nor to Drymanov A.A., nor even more so against him himself can there be any complaints. Words by Maksimenko M.I. reassured the witness, he considered that his control functions in this criminal case were completed.
June 7, 2016 at A. Drymanov it was a birthday. He was on vacation at that time, and the witness, as the first deputy head of the Main Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow, performed his duties. Drymanov A.A. was at his dacha in the Tula region. On that day the witness, Gusev S.N., Strizhov A.A. and Maksimenko M.I. planned to go to him (Drymanova AA) to congratulate. However, at 4 pm he (D. Nikandrova) was called to the Chairman of the IC of Russia to participate in events regarding the conclusion of a cooperation agreement between the IC of Russia and the Maly Theater.
Gusev S.N. and Strizhov A.A. they left on their own, and the witness phoned M.I. Maksimenko, who was also unable to go to A. Drymanov, and he proposed to go with him in the evening. To do this, he (D. Nikandrov) had to come to his work after completing the appointment. At about 19-20 hours, having freed himself, he came to Maksimenko in his office, where D.E. Smychkovsky was already there, who also expressed his intention to go with them. The three of them drove in the same car.
On the way, Maksimenko M.I. called the head of the Federal Tax Service of Russia Mishustin M.V., after a conversation with which Maksimenko M.I. said they need to meet. The meeting, according to M. Maksimenko, will take no more than 5 minutes, after which they will go to A. Drymanov. They drove to the building of the Federal Tax Service of Russia in the area of ul. Neglinnaya. However, Maksimenko M.I. stayed with Mishustin M.V. about two hours. All this time, they with D. Smychkovsky were waiting for Maksimenko M.I. first on the street, then in one of the cafes located in the Central Department Store building. This was the first personal communication of the witness with D. Smychkovsky. In the process of communication, they touched only on general topics. Upon the return of Maksimenko M.I., they decided in connection with the late time that they should go to A. Drymanov. no longer makes sense. "
To be continued