The Moscow prosecutor's office approved the indictment in the case of former ASGM judge Elena Kondrat. The case will be sent for consideration to the Nikulinsky District Court. Kondrat is accused of mediating the transfer of a bribe to his former student, who also became a judge of ASGM Makhalkina. Kondrat herself speaks of a provocation. continues to publish Kondrat's appeals from the pre-trial detention center to the leaders of the law enforcement unit, in which she reveals many secrets.

“I am Kondrat Elena Nikolaevna, a federal judge since 2008. until 2022, was forced to retire early. The reason for my forced resignation was my refusal to comply with the criminal order of the Chairman of the Arbitration Court of the mountains. Moscow Novikova N.A. about the illegal withdrawal from Russia of more than 26 billion budget funds. In response to this, Novikov N.A. demanded my dismissal. In the event of my refusal to resign of my own free will, I received threats to create serious problems for my son. Two months later, unprecedented illegal persecution of me and my son by the law enforcement agencies of the mountains began. Moscow and the Moscow Region .... The arguments of the statements were based on the fact that on October 18, 2020, an ORM was carried out against me, a federal judge, a provocation of an “operational experiment” without the permission of the Judicial Collegium of the RF Armed Forces.

The threshold of judicial immunity, in violation of the constitutional guarantee of the independence of judges, was overcome by a resolution of the head of the FSB for the mountains. Moscow and MO Dorofeeva A.N. on the decision to conduct an ORM “operational experiment” dated 10/13/2020, drawn up by o/u Ushakov A.A.

In the said Resolution, in substantiating the legality of the ORM in relation to the federal judge Kondrat E.N. contains a reference to the Definitions of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation No. 137, 138-rs dated 07/02/2020. At the same time, the reason for conducting an ORM, in accordance with the decree of 10/13/2020. is the statement of Judge Makhalkina E.A. from 13.10.2020 to law enforcement agencies ... ORM "operational experiment" dated 10/13/2020. carried out against me illegally, in excess of authority and is a provocation committed with the aim of removing me from office due to my failure to comply with the illegal instructions of the Chairman of the ASGM Novikov N.A. on the withdrawal of more than 26 billion budget funds from the Russian Federation.

ORM "operational experiment" - a provocation from 10/18/2020. carried out against federal judge Kondrat E.N. without the permission of the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. .. From June 2020 Judge ASGM Makhalkina E.A. is in the field of view of law enforcement agencies, in connection with her involvement in the commission of a crime against Goloshumova A.The. in the bankruptcy case of Unipol LLC.

In connection with the illegal activities of Judge E.A. criminal case No. 12002450048000108 was initiated, in which she was a defendant. However, Makhalkina E.A. escaped criminal liability by concluding, in violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation”, the Federal Law “On Operative-Investigative Activities”, a contract with the operational service on confidential cooperation for a period of 10 years. The above is confirmed by an expert study of the audio recording of the conversation with Makhalkina E.A. from 27.04.2021

From June 2020 Judge Makhalkina E.A. is under pressure from evidence in criminal case No. 12002450048000108 and has been systematically participating in provocations and ORM since the specified period at the direction of the operational service during working hours to the detriment of the main activities for the administration of justice. This is confirmed by the above criminal case, an expert study of an audio conversation with Makhalkina E.A. dated April 27, 2021, protocol of interrogation about / at the FSB in the mountains. Moscow and MO Ushakova A.A. from 19.10.2022

  During the ORM - provocations against me on 10/18/2020. Judge Makhalkina E.A. explained that she was receiving money from me as a loan for the purchase of an apartment, which she acquired a few months after the provocation.

Being under the pressure of evidence in criminal case No. 12002450048000108, Judge E.A. Makhalkina, 6 (six) months after the provocation against me, took part in the falsification of evidence in the criminal case.

She agreed to P.A. Kondratiev, invented by the investigator. version about the "legendary" story with the apartment, although the apartment was purchased by her.

The "legend" with the purchase of the apartment was not recorded in operational documents. Makhalkina E.A. was not instructed to prevent provocation, as evidenced by the absence in the case of the Instruction Act on the inadmissibility of provocation.

Moreover, during the confrontation of 23.08.2022. between me and Makhalkina E.A., the latter reported that the version about the legend of the story with the apartment was formulated by law enforcement officers after conducting an ORM and receiving E.A. Makhalkina from me. money in debt (pp. 19, 20 of the Minutes of the confrontation). During the ORM "operational experiment" Makhalkina E.A. did not expose me in any illegal actions, reporting borrowing money to buy an apartment. The above indicates a provocation against me and falsification of evidence in a criminal case ...

During this period, money was extorted from me for not persecuting me and my family members, which I reported to the prosecutor's office of the mountains. Moscow.

I also reported to the prosecutor's office of the mountains. Moscow that I have audio recordings of conversations that confirm my arguments and other material objects.

The funds were assigned to the leadership of the FSB in the mountains. Moscow and MO.

If I did not have the required amount of money, I was offered to transfer the property.

I ask the prosecutor's office of the mountains to check the indicated facts within a year. Moscow. During the year, I asked to take measures of the prosecutor's response.

The prosecutor's office of the city of Moscow in their answers, which do not have a procedural title, concluded that there was sufficient evidence confirming my guilt and involvement in a falsified criminal case.

The above indicates the absence of prosecutorial supervision over the investigation of criminal case No.

To be continued

Timofey Grishin