"In the modern world, it is extremely difficult to see things as they are, to build an individual worldview," reads the thoughtful post of Evgenia Vasilyeva, who returned to the social network after a long silence. This is the same Evgenia Vasilieva, who headed the Department of Property Relations (DIO) of the Ministry of Defense and was accused of embezzlement of billions.
The first paintings are exhibited only on Instagram, where even portraits are available. The most prominent of them, Anatoly Serdyukov, is now the legal spouse of Evgenia Vasilyeva. He is doing well too. Serdyukov is now the chairman of the board of directors of United Aircraft Corporation PJSC and claims to be the head of Rostec if Sergei Chemezov leaves him.
Sources of Rucriminal.info say that the most gorgeous gift for the wedding of Serdyukov and Vasilyeva was made by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. The gift was actually the release of Vasilyeva from a new long term. After all, she was convicted only for a small part of the criminal episodes.
According to the telegram channel of the VChK-OGPU, in the case of the former head of the DIO of the Ministry of Defense Evgenia Vasilyeva the Ministry of Defense there were more than 30 episodes of criminal activity and damage to the state over 3.5 billion rubles. In May 2015, the Presnensky court sentenced Vasilyeva to only 12 episodes of theft in the Ministry of Defense. She spent 34 days in the colony and went out on parole. Materials on the remaining 18 episodes of theft, where the main amount of damage, then allocated in a separate production. They promised that they would soon convict Vasiliev. So to speak, in all severity of the law. Back in 2017, an investigation into 18 episodes was completed. Vasilieva even got acquainted with the case materials. It remained only to send an indictment for approval to the prosecutor's office. Well, then there should have been a new court and a new term. And then the head of the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces of the IC of the Russian Federation Alexander Sorochkin was invited to Alexander Bastrykin. And he allegedly told him the story of a private conversation with Dmitry Medvedev. Medvedev, referring to the interests of the state, asked not to start a new trial of Vasilyeva. Like, this high-profile process before the elections and the World Cup is not needed. At the same time, Bastrykin doubted, of course, in the interests of the state. The media has long walked information about the relationship of Svetlana Medvedeva and Evgenia Vasilyeva. Bastrykin said he thought a lot about what to do and decided not to spoil relations with Medvedev. The poor investigators, who have been investigating the case for 4 years, began to look for how to get out. The prosecutor’s office said that if they get an indictment, she will send the case to court. Will not wrap. I had to come up with a reason to resume the investigation of the case, where the accused had already studied all the materials. And since then it has been the case with 18 episodes without movement. And we are ready to argue that it will never be in court :-)
And Anatoly Serdyukov was completely removed from the theft cases even earlier, in 2014. He was only one episode, and he quickly covered up. As for the theft of 3.5 billion, they considered that Vasilyeva misled her boss Serdyukov. The bride cheated on her future husband.
Rucriminal.info begins on weekends to publish materials of the "case of the Ministry of Defense." Let's start with the most "delicious" - a copy of the interrogation protocol of Anatoly Serdyukov.
On the merits of the criminal case, I can show the following: My rights and obligations are explained and understood to me, including the provisions of Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. I give evidence voluntarily.
Question from the investigator: When were you appointed to the post of Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation and for how long did you execute it?
Answer by witness A. Serdyukov: From February 15, 2007 to November 6, 2012, I served as Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation.
Question from the investigator: Do you know the former general director of JSC 439 Central Experimental Military Cartographic Factory Natalya Dynkova, her son Nikolai Nikolayevich Dynkov, if so, since when, what kind of relationship do you have, how can you describe them, do you have any reason for their stipulation?
Answer of witness Serdyukov A.E .: No, I didn’t. I have no reason to stipulate them.
Question from the investigator: Was the property relations subject to mandatory agreement with the Department of Property Relations of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and whether Oboronservis required the lease of premises of 439 Central Experimental Military Cartographic Factory OJSC, which is part of Krasnaya Zvezda OJSC, with taking into account the requirements of the instructions of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation 205/2/746 of November 5, 2009 and the annex to them (which is presented to witness A. Serdyukov in a copy)?
Answer of the witness A. Serdyukov: I got acquainted with the document presented to me, I understand its essence and content. Yes subject.
Question from the investigator: Who exactly submitted the documents for the lease of real estate of JSC 439 CEVKF to you, as chairman of the board of directors of JSC Krasnaya Zvezda, for signature on March 20, 2011?
Answer of witness Serdyukov A.E. No, I can’t explain, I don’t remember.
Question of the investigator: Could such documents have been submitted on the lease of real estate of OJSC “439 CEVKF” to you, how. to the chairman of the board of directors of Krasnaya Zvezda OJSC, signed on March 20, 2011, and the meeting of the board of directors of Krasnaya Zvezda OJSC is held, taking into account the fact that the day was a day off?
Response of witness Serdyukov A.E .: Not excluded.
Question from the investigator: Does your signature appear under the directives of March 20, 2011 141/69; L 141/61/1, (which are presented to witness Serdyukov A.E. in copies)? What is prescribed by these directives, what is the reason for such an indication?
Answer of witness Serdyukov A.E .: I got acquainted with the Documents presented to me, I understand their essence and content. The signature at the end of these two documents is similar to mine. Moreover, these documents were registered.
To be continued