Sources of Rucriminal.info said that work has been stepped up in Russia in relation to the solver Dmitry Smychkovsky. It was he who transferred as a mediator a bribe of $ 1 million for employees of the Investigative Committee of Nikandrov, Maksimenko, Drymanov and Kramarenko. For this money, they had to free the "authority" Andrei Kochuykov (Italian). Then Smychkovsky disappeared into England, which so far refused to extradite him to the Russian Federation, but it is too early to put an end to this matter. The case of the transfer of a bribe by TFR is far from single. Now many other cases of bribery by Smychkovsky judges, investigators of prosecutors are being worked out. Moreover, he gave reasons for this. Being a boastful person, Smychkovsky often called his famous clients. And his conversations were recorded by the FSB of the Russian Federation. To understand how the story of a bribe developed for employees of the Investigative Committee, we begin to fully publish the testimony of Denis Nikandrov, which he gave as part of a deal with the investigation.
"The testimony of the accused D. Nikandrov about the fact that since May 2015 goals he served as deputy head of the GSU SK Russia in Moscow. Since February 17, 2016 he has been acting, and on April 30, 2016 he was appointed to the post of first deputy head of the General Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow. In connection with the shootout on December 14, 2015 on Rochdelskaya Street in Moscow, the Main Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow, two criminal cases were opened: one against E. Budantseva on the grounds of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code (Murder) and A. Kochuykova and Romanova E.A. Under Article 213 of the Criminal Code (Hooliganism), the second case in respect of A. Kochuykov and other unidentified persons under Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Extortion).
At the same time, the witness saw the interest of the leadership of the GU MViSB SK of Russia in the person of Maksimenko M.I. and his deputy A. Lamonov to information on these criminal cases. In the presence of Nikandrov D.V. Gusev S.N. repeatedly during the period from December 15 to December 31, 2015 M. Maksimenko called by telephone, reporting on the situation, forwarding a video shootout of the shootout.
In the first decade of February 2016, the head of the GSU SK of Russia in Moscow A. Drymanov in his office he told the witness that the criminal case of the shootout on Rochdelskaya Street would need to be removed from production of the department for the investigation of especially important cases (UROVD), whose activities were supervised by Sinyagovsky SV, and transferred to the department headed by M. Denisov ., under his (Nikandrova D.V.) control. In the department of Denisov M.E. By that time, a criminal case was already being investigated, initiated on the basis of negligence against police officers who were present on December 14, 2015 at the site of the shootout on Rochdelskaya Street and did not take measures to prevent it. When asked about the reasons for the decision to transfer the case to the department of Denisov M.E., Drymanov A.A. He answered that the investigators investigating this criminal case could not figure out the situation, and M. Denisov, whose department, according to A. Drymanov, considered the best in the State Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow, it will be able to better investigate this resonant criminal case. At the same time, Drymanov A.A. added the following: “After a few months, you’ll throw off the case in the SU in the Central Administrative District, when the hype subsides.” From the answer to the question about the reason for the subsequent transfer of the case to the Central Administrative District A. Drymanov declined, promising to explain everything later.
After these criminal cases entered the department of Denisov M.E. he (D. Nikandrov) instructed the latter to study them and report his opinion. The corresponding report was at the next hearing of M. Denisov. next Tuesday. On Tuesdays Denisov M.E. He came to the witness and reported on the criminal cases in the proceedings of his department. Initially, the witness understood the directive received from A. Drymanov as a need to deal with the role of E. Budantsev. in the incident, since the presence of other defendants in the case until the time of the report of M. Denisov according to the results of the study of the above criminal cases did not know. Denisov M.E. in his report, he reported on the presence in the case of other persons held criminally responsible, namely, participants in the conflict, on the other hand, A. Kochuykova and Romanova E.A. Also Denisov M.E. reported his vision on the qualifications of the act Budantseva E.V. So, according to Denisov M.E., the actions of Budantsev E.V. upon causing death, one of the participants in the conflict should be considered as necessary defense or its excess. According to the circumstances of the death of the second participant in the conflict, the actions of EV Budantsev, according to M. Denisov, are more like murder, but there was still an opportunity to consider them as exceeding the limits of the necessary defense, ”says the protocol of interrogation of Nikandrov, published by Rucriminal .info.
“After the report of Denisov M.E. witness went with a similar report to A. Drymanov
Having come to his office, he saw there Maksimenko M.I. Thus, the witness was forced to report everything he heard from Denisov M.E. both of them. Having stated the considerations of Denisov M.E. according to the qualification of the actions Budantseva E.V., the witness met with sharp objections on the part of Maksimenko M.I. He was categorically against the actions of Budantsev E.V. to consider as necessary defense or its excess. He believed that Budantsev E.V. committed a murder. In support of his opinion Maksimenko M.I. demonstrated to the witness and Drymanov A.A. the video available on his mobile phone. Budantsev E.V. was captured on this video. at the time of the shootout. It was clearly visible there that Budantsev E.V. shot at people dragging a corpse, then reloaded the gun and continued shooting. It is obvious that at the time of the shooting there is no threat to his life. After watching this video, the witness agreed with the opinion of Maksimenko M.I. about the possibility to qualify the actions of Budantseva E.V. like a murder. After that, the witness asked Maksimenko M.I. forward this video via the VotsAp messenger, because I didn’t know if this video was in the criminal case file.
After that, a conversation took place between them, from which the witness concluded that Maksimenko M.I. in fact, they are not interested in the prospects of the investigation committed by E. Budantsev. crime, and the fate of other persons brought to justice, namely Kochuykova A.N. and Romanova E.A. In particular, Maksimenko M.I. were interested in the reasons why, in relation to A. Kochuykov and Romanova E.A. a preventive measure in the form of detention was chosen. He did not understand why they were arrested, and Budantsev E.V. is under house arrest. Maksimenko M.I. He believed that this decision was unfair, since Budantsev E.V., in his opinion, is a figure whose interests are defended by officers of the Directorate "M" of the FSB of Russia, therefore he (Budantseva E.V.) is "smeared out" and the other side face Kochuykova A.N. and Romanova E.A. - "pressed." Drymanov A.A. during this conversation, he was mostly silent, but periodically showed agreement with the position of Maksimenko M.I. The conversation on that day ended with a witness promise to deal with the situation in these cases in detail.
Video shootout Maksimenko M.I. sent during the conversation. On the same day, the witness, also using the VotsAp messenger, sent it to Denisov M.E. At the same time he put Denisov M.E. and the head of the process control department of the GSU SK of Russia in Moscow Pakhomov A.V. the task of reporting on their perspectives on the investigation of all persons involved in the cases, both of murder and hooliganism, and of extortion, that is, according to Budantsev E.V., Kochuykov A.N. and Romanov E.A.
March 4, 2016 (Friday before the weekend) Maksimenko M.I. called the witness and asked him to come to his house, located on the street. Mironovskaya, Moscow. At the time of the arrival of Nikandrov D.V. to Maksimenko M.I. in the apartment of the latter was his deputy A. Lamonov They drank alcohol, the witness joined. Lamonov A.N. in the presence of Maksimenko M.I. asked Nikandrova D.V. change the investigator in the case. The reason why this should have been done, A. Lamonov He didn’t explain, but he didn’t take an interest. The fact that this request was made by A.N. Lamonov in the presence of Maksimenko M.I., the witness perceived as their consolidated position on this issue. They were employees of the GUMViSB and, of course, possessed more information. The witness was alerted by the instructions of A.N. Lamonov that he (Nikandrov D.V.) should inform him of the replacement of the investigator no later than a week before the adoption of this decision, but did not specify anything, since he believed that Maksimenko M.I. and Lamonov A.N. are employees of their own security unit, and therefore they could have their own combinations and tasks. Lamonov A.N. said that after the holidays he intends to drive up to the Main Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow and once again discuss the details of the replacement of the investigator.
At the same time, the witness noted that with M. Maksimenko He maintained informal communication, sometimes even drank alcohol together, which he could not say about his relationship with A. Lamonov. He and Lamonov A.N. practically did not communicate with each other, especially in an informal setting. During the period of work in the IC of Russia, the witness saw him several times and only in the office of M. Maksimenko Their communication was limited only by mutual greetings.
March 09, 2016 Lamonov A.N. He came into the witness’s office at the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow, accompanied by S. Gusev, with whom he maintained friendly relations. The conversation of the witness with Lamonov A.N. held in the presence of Gusev S.N. and during it Lamonov A.N. recalled his request to replace the investigator investigating the criminal case against A. Kochuykov and Romanova E.A. (at that time, the criminal cases in which these persons were held were already connected in one proceeding). On the morning of the same day, the witness had already discussed with Denisov M.E. this opportunity, while the latter said that he was not satisfied with the work of investigator Klintsov A.V., since he could not cope with the investigation. Also, before the visit of A. Lamonov. the witness discussed the latter’s request with A. Drymanov, to which he gave his consent. Having thus enlisted in advance the views of Denisov M.E. and Drymanova A.N. on this issue, the witness told Lamonov A.N. about his consent to fulfill his request.
In accordance with the request of Lamonov A.N. witness discussed with Denisov M.E. the candidacy of the investigator, who should be entrusted with the further investigation of the criminal case, having proposed in this capacity Fedutinova I.N., who was recommended as an intelligent and competent investigator. Denisov M.E. agreed.
About the planned replacement of the investigator, the witness informed A. Lamonov A.N. through Gusev S.N. On March 15, 2016 the criminal case was transferred to investigator Fedutinov AND.N. Before him, the witness set the task to study the case file and report on his vision of the prospects for his investigation.
Around the end of March 2016, at the next meeting, which the witness held with the participation of Denisov M.E., his report was heard, as well as the reports of A.V. Pakhomov and Fedutinova I.N. on business. In general terms, the essence of their report was as follows: the actions of Budantsev on the first corpse constitute an excess of the limits of necessary defense, on the second corpse - murder. Regarding the actions of Kochuykova A.N. and Romanova E.A. there was also a general consensus that there was no evidence of extortion in their actions during the investigation. This conclusion was based on the fact that Kochuykova A.N. and Romanova E.A. with the victim in the case of Zhanna Kim and her counterpart Fatima Misikova, who preceded the shootout, no threats against the victim were recorded.
In addition to the mentioned persons, Ter-Astvatsaturov I.S., an employee of the process control department was present at the meeting. He did not raise objections to the substance of the position expressed by other participants in the meeting. At the same meeting Pakhomov A.V. expressed his position regarding the qualification of actions Kochuykova A.N. and Romanova E.A., the essence of which was that their actions should be qualified according to article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (arbitrariness), and not according to article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hooliganism). At that time, the witness instructed to continue the investigation of the case without changing the charges against the defendants.
On the results of this meeting, as well as the opinion of Pakhomov A.V. about the possibility of re-qualification of the charge A. Kochuykov and Romanov E.A. at art. 330 of the Criminal Code (arbitrariness), he reported to Drymanova A.A.
At the end of March 2016 during one of the meetings with Maksimenko M.I., held in the cafe "Coffeemania" at the address Moscow, st. Pokrovka, d.18 / 18 p. 3, the latter asked the witness in detail about the investigation of the case against A. Kochuykov and Romanova EA, particularly interested in the prospects for qualifying their actions under the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on arbitrariness. Maksimenko M.I. referred to the fact that his friend D. Smychkovsky insists on the positive resolution of this prospect, as well as on the release of A. Kochuykov and Romanova E.A. out of custody.
At the time of this conversation, he (D. Nikandrov) was already familiar with D. Smychkovsky. The witness found out about his existence under the following circumstances. At the end of 2015, Nikandrov D.E. repeatedly came to A. Drymanov for the report, however, the secretary said that he was busy, since he had a certain Smychkovsky. The latter was at Drymanov A.A. a very long time, usually at least an hour, because after a while, the witness again tried to get to Drymanov, and the secretary again said that Smychkovsky was still there. In the future, the witness asked Drymanov who Smychkovsky was, to which he replied that this was a friend of Maksimenko M.
Acquaintance of the witness with D. Smychkovsky took place on January 15, 2016 in the office of S. Sinyagovsky, when they celebrated the day of formation of the IC of Russia. In addition to D. Smychkovsky in the office of Sinyagovsky S.V. also attended Yarosh S.M., Gusev S.N. and representatives of other law enforcement agencies. Periodically, in the office of Sinyagovsky S.V. Gataulin R.A.
Returning to the meeting with Maksimenko M.I. in the cafe "Coffeemania", the witness testified that Maksimenko M.I. among other things, said that D. Smychkovsky in addition to him (Maksimenko MI) requested assistance in the release of A. Kochuykov from custody and Romanova E.A. to Drymanov A.A.
To this the witness told Maksimenko M.I. the opinion of his subordinates regarding the possibility of re-qualifying the charges brought in the case by A. Kochuykov and Romanov E.A., at art. 330 of the Criminal Code. At the same time, he spoke out that raising this issue at the present stage of the investigation is premature and he would not want to do it, even if their actions really only include the composition of arbitrariness, and not hooliganism, as it follows from the staff report. In addition, such a decision may well be taken during a criminal case in court. Maksimenko M.I., feeling his unwillingness to retrain the actions of A. Kochuykov and Romanova E.A., proposed to consider transferring the case to the SU in the Central Administrative District. Literally, it sounded something like this: "It would be nice to throw off Kramara." As the witness understood, he had in mind Kramarenko A.AND. - Head of the SU for the Central Administrative District of the Main Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Moscow According to Maksimenko, Smychkovsky has long known Kramarenko, communicates closely with him. Maksimenko immediately reported that Kramarenko complained to Smychkovsky that the GSU apparatus, which oversees the investigation of criminal cases of economic crimes, had “tightened the screws” so that Kramar (Kramarenko) could not earn anything, and he had a lot of real estate and no money to pay taxes.
As a result of the conversation, Maksimenko M.I. asked to transfer the case to the SU in the Central Administrative District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow, which at that time was headed by A.I. Kramarenko, noting that Smychkovsky and Kramarenko would agree on everything, and Kramarenko would sign any document for which a need arose. The witness replied that at the moment the possibility of transferring a criminal case to the SU in the Central Administrative District was problematic.
Further, during the conversation, Maksimenko M.I. spoke in more detail about D. Smychkovsky, who was his (Maksimenko M.I.) colleague and classmate Sinyagovsky S.V. According to Maksimenko M.I., Smychkovsky D.E. I asked him to leave Sinyagovsky S.The. in the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow after a comprehensive check by the Main Organizational and Inspection Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia in February 2015, as a result of which a decision was made on the non-compliance of Sinyagovsky S.V. position held. In the execution of this request Maksimenko M.I. not only saved Sinyagovsky from dismissal, but even from foreclosure, and later recommended him to the federal personnel reserve.
Within a week after this conversation with Maksimenko M.I. at Drymanov A.A. Smychkovsky D.E. The witness learned about this from the secretary A. Drymanov, when he once again tried to get to his appointment. He did not bother them and returned to his office. Suddenly, Drymanov A.A. went to the witness, which in itself was extremely rare. Drymanov A.A. said that he had Smychkovsky - a friend of Maksimenko MI, who wondered whether it was possible to refer the case against Kochuykov and Romanov to the Central Administrative District, to Kramarenko. Drymanov A.A. assured that, as he had learned from D. E. Smychkovsky, Kramarenko himself would re-qualify the actions of A. Kochuykov and Romanova E.A. to arbitrariness, they plead guilty, they will be replaced with a preventive measure not related to detention, and quickly, without undue noise, they will send their criminal case to the court in a special manner. Drymanov A.A. reported that Smychkovsky D.E. willing to pay for this 1 million US dollars. The witness replied that it was difficult to transfer the case, but A. Drymanov. asked me to come up with something. ”
To be continued