Much remained unsaid in the story of a $ 1 million bribe for ICR employees - Mikhail Maksimenko, Alexander Drymanov, Denis Nikandrov and Alexei Kramarenko. This money was paid to them for the release of "authority" Andrey Kochuikov (Italian) - the "right hand" of the "thief in law" Zakhar Kalashov (Shakro). The money was transferred by the “fixer” Dmitry Smychkovsky, but he was only an intermediary. And who allocated this round sum? According to the telegram channel VChK-OGPU, the case file testified that it was done by David Mirzoev, who is David Yakobashvili's junior business partner. Mirzoev is a distant relative of Shakro, they constantly talked, they had common affairs. Most often criminal. When Kalashov announced a cry among close businessmen about the need for a large sum for the ransom of the Italian, many people responded, including Mirshchoev and Yakobashvili, who was also familiar with Kalashov. Therefore, Mirzoyev paid $ 1 million not only for himself, but also for Yakobashvili. However, it was not possible to collect evidence of this during the investigation. In the case file, those who allocated $ 1 million remained unidentified persons.
According to Rucriminal.info, the discussion and transfer of 1 million to Smychkovsky took place in one of the Moscow restaurants. Smychkovsky gave the money to the ICR staff. Denis Nikandrov told how the employees of the TFR divided this amount during the interrogation. We publish parts of these readings.
“Within a week after this conversation with Maksimenko M.I. Drymanov A.A. D.E. Smychkovsky appeared again. The witness learned about this from A.A. Drymanov's secretary when he tried to get an appointment with him again. He did not bother them and returned to his office. Drymanov A.A. unexpectedly came to the witness, which in itself was extremely rare. Drymanov A.A. said that he had Smychkovsky, a friend of Maksimenko M.I., who was interested in whether it was possible to transfer the case against Kochuikov and Romanov in the Central Administrative District to Kramarenko. Drymanov A.A. assured that, as he learned from D.E. Smychkovsky, Kramarenko himself reclassifies the actions of A.N. Kochuykov. and Romanova E.A. to arbitrariness, they admit guilt, they will change the preventive measure to not related to detention, and quickly, quietly, send their criminal case to the court in a special order. Drymanov A.A. reported that Smychkovsky D.E. is willing to pay 1 million US dollars for this. The witness replied that it was difficult to transfer the case, but A.A. Drymanov. asked to think of something….
Further circumstances, which the witness reported to the investigation, occurred either within a 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 exact time).
At the beginning of the week, when he was in A.A. Drymanov's office, he left the table, went up to the witness and whispered that he had met with D.E. Smychkovsky, who, as he put it, was "tormented" by A. Kramarenko. I., demanding money. He (Drymanov A.A.) agreed to D.E. Smychkovsky. transfer directly Kramarenko A.AND. 200 thousand US dollars out of 1 million dollars allocated by D.E.Smychkovsky to resolve the issue of retraining the charges to A.N. Kochuykov. and Romanov E.A. on arbitrariness and changing the measure of restraint. Further Drymanov A.A. asked if everything was going according to plan. He replied that now everything depends on A.I. Kramarenko. 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 summoned the witness to him. When he appeared, he said that he once again met with D.E. Smychkovsky. and the latter informed him that he had transferred 200 thousand US dollars to A.I.Kramarenko, but after he (D.E. Smychkovsky) went to pick up the rest of the money from the place where he kept it (without specifying where exactly) , it turned out that only 400 thousand US dollars remained there. According to Smychkovsky D.E. the other 400 thousand US dollars could be taken only by one of the "security guards". In this case, as the witness understood, he meant someone from the department headed by M.I. After that, according to A.A. Drymanov, D.E. Smychkovsky I went to Maksimenko M.I. to find out the fate of these 400 thousand US dollars.
On the same day (or the next), when from 15 to 17 o'clock he (D.V. Nikandrov) was in the office of A.A. Drymanov, M.I. Maksimenko called the latter. The witness understood this, since A.A. Drymanov. turned to the interlocutor "Misha", and after the end of the conversation he said that he had spoken with M.I. Based on the conversation they heard, it was clear that they agreed to meet urgently somewhere in the area of the Moskva River embankment. Then Drymanov A.A. said that he had gone to meet with Maksimenko M.I. and asked to wait for his return.
Returning about an hour later, Drymanov A.A. called him (Nikandrova D.V.) and also said in a whisper that everything had been clarified: the missing 400 thousand US dollars was taken by Maksimenko M.I. He met with him and "took our share." He again asked the witness not to go anywhere and promised to give the share due to him later in the evening.
At the end of the working day, after about 19 o'clock, going home, he went to the office of Drymanov A.A., who invited him to go to the rest room. On the couch in the break room was a dark plastic bag filled to the brim with bundles of US dollars. Drymanov A.A. picked up a drawstring bag with the Bosco logo and began to shift the bundles of dollars into it. Having started this process, Drymanov A.A. asked him to go into the office in order to prevent "uninvited guests" who could interfere with the passage into the recreation room. After a few minutes A.A. Drymanov. went out of the rest room and handed him a Bosco bag filled with banknotes and whispered: "There are 200 thousand here." Based on the fact that the witness saw US dollars in the recreation room, he understood that there were 200 thousand US dollars in the bag. He asked A. A. Drymanov who else was in the stake. He replied that Kramarenko A.AND. already received, and the remaining money was divided between the witness, Maksimenko M.I., Smychkovsky D.E. and him (Drymanov A.A.). The witness inquired about A.N. Lamonov, since, in his (D.V. Nikandrov) opinion, based on A.N. to the investigation of the case against Kochuykov A.N. and Romanov E.A., he also counted on material rewards. To this Drymanov A.A. replied that Maksimenko M.AND. about A.N. Lamonov did not say anything and if the witness is interested in this question, then Maksimenko can ask it directly.
Arriving home, he counted the number of packs of US dollars and made sure that there were exactly 20 of them. Each pack was tied in the middle with yellow, red and green elastic bands.
A week after the transfer by A.A. Drymanov 200 thousand US dollars, the witness went to Maksimenko M.I. to work and during the conversation I asked why he and Drymanov A.A. did not foresee the participation of A.N. Lamonov. in the distribution of funds, since according to the prevailing impression A.N. 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, because, literally, "he and his guys received five hundred pieces." Then the witness understood that in addition to D.E. Smychkovsky. there was another bribe giver with whom A.N. Lamonov contacted. and about the existence of which he had not previously assumed.
The next day, he spoke about what had happened between him and Maksimenko M.I. conversation Drymanov A.A., who reacted sharply to the existence of the second bribe-giver: he was indignant and called A.N. Lamonov. a fraudster.
On May 16, 2016, after the presentation of A.N. Kochuikov and Romanov E.A. charges under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation A.I. Kramarenko called the witness and informed them that they did not admit their guilt. To the question, what about his promises and assurances, A.N. Kramarenko. replied that he was deceived by lawyers. At the same time, the witness gave instructions to A.N. Kramarenko. to complete the investigation of the criminal case by June 14, 2016 and not change the measure of restraint for the accused. To this Kramarenko A.N. noted that upon reaching the deadline for keeping the accused in custody, he would still release them.
Heard from A.I. Kramarenko he almost immediately reported to A.A. Drymanov, who noticed that these were A.A. Kramarenko's problems, but nevertheless instructed M.I.Maksimenko to report this news.
The next day, May 17, 2016, in the evening, near a restaurant in the area of Pokrovsky Boulevard, D.V. Nikandrov. met with Maksimenko M.I. and in the course of the conversation informed him that Kochuykov A.N. with Romanov E.A. They do not admit their guilt, therefore no one will change the measure of restraint at the present time. A.I. Kramarenko wants to release the accused after the deadline for their detention. To this Maksimenko M.I. replied that he would talk to D.E. Smychkovsky. and will force Kochuykov and Romanov to admit guilt, and if Kramarenko A.AND. "screwed up", then let him be responsible, especially since he (AI Kramarenko) has already received his money. According to Maksimenko M.I., neither to Nikandrov D.V., nor to Drymanov A.A., much less to himself, there can be no claims. Words by Maksimenko M.I. the witness was reassured, he considered that his control functions in this criminal case were completed.
June 07, 2016 at Drymanov A.A. it was a birthday. He was on vacation at that time, and the witness, as the first deputy head of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow, acted as his duties. Drymanov A.A. was at his dacha in the Tula region. On the indicated day, the witness, S.N. Gusev, A.A. Strizhov. and Maksimenko M.I. planned to go to him (Drymanov A.A.) to congratulate.
However, by 16 o'clock he (Nikandrov D.V.) was summoned to the Chairman of the IC of Russia to participate in events regarding the conclusion of an agreement on cooperation between the IC of Russia and the Maly Theater.
Gusev S.N. and Strizhov A.A. left on their own, and the witness phoned Maksimenko M.I., who also could not go to A.A. Drymanov, and he offered to go with him in the evening. For this he (Nikandrov D.V.) had to come to his work after the completion of the reception. At about 19-20 o'clock, having freed himself, he came to Maksimenko's office, where D.E.Smychkovsky was already there, who also expressed his intention to go with them. The three of them went in the same car.
On the way Maksimenko M.I. the head of the Federal Tax Service of Russia M.V. Mishustin called, after a conversation with whom M.I. said they needed to meet. The meeting, according to Maksimenko M.I., will take no more than 5 minutes, after which they will go to A.A. Drymanov. They drove to the building of the Federal Tax Service of Russia in the area of ul. Neglinnaya. However Maksimenko M.AND. stayed with M.V. Mishustin about two hours. All this time he and D.E Smychkovsky were waiting for M.I. Maksimenko. first on the street, then in one of the cafes located in the TsUM building. This was the first personal communication of the witness with D.E. Smychkovsky. In the process of communication, they only touched on general topics. On the return of Maksimenko M.I., due to the late time, they decided to go to A.A. Drymanov. no longer makes sense.
On June 14, 2016, a scandal erupted in connection with the possible release of Kochuikov and Romanov after the expiry of the deadline for their detention. The witness was first informed about this by telephone by the Deputy Prosecutor of Moscow, Y. Katasonov. He (Nikandrov D.V.) summoned Pakhomov A.V. and Semenov D.V. (one more deputy of A.I.Kramarenko besides A.A. Khurtsilava). A.I. Kramarenko, as it turned out, was on vacation and was outside of Russia. His phone didn't answer. He wanted to cancel the decision to bring Kochuikov and Romanov as defendants under Art. 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as he was advised to do Katasonov Yu.A. and the prosecutor of the Central Administrative District of Moscow Ustinovskiy M.Yu. However Pakhomov A.The. and Semenov D.V. insisted on the legality of the decisions on retraining.
Remembering A.A. Drymanov's position. on this case, he called him and explained the situation that had arisen, since it was very conflicting. Drymanov A.A. asked the opinion of A.The. Pakhomov. and Semenova D.The. and said not to cancel anything. The witness, guided by A.A. Drymanov's instructions, called Yu.A. Katasonov. and said that the Main Investigative Directorate of the Moscow Investigative Committee considers its position on qualifications correct and will not cancel anything. It also turned out that the terms of the investigation in the case were about to expire, and the CAO SU did not initiate a petition to extend the terms of the investigation before the head. Semenov D.V. I could not explain anything intelligible on this issue and referred to A.I. Kramarenko, allegedly, according to the latter, he coordinated the issue of retraining with the prosecutor's office. On his (Nikandrov D.V.) instructions, Pakhomov A.V. found out that according to the register of outgoing correspondence of the SU in the Central Administrative District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the city of Moscow copies of the decisions on bringing Kochuikov A.N. and Romanova E.A. were not sent to the prosecutor's office. Semyonov D.V., and subsequently Kramarenko A.I., insisted that copies of the above decisions of Kramarenko A.I. I handed it over to the prosecutor personally, without a cover letter registered in accordance with the established procedure. "
To be continued