CORRUPTED COURTS AND FABRICATION OF CASES
In the first part we considered the ways of the withdrawal of property in favor of the group of fraudsters under cover of the commercial courts with the falsification of documents by forgery and fraud schemes in detail
If it is known for certain that there are honest employees in the police, why not give them out a form of another color in order to distinguish them somehow. from the Internet From the A. Shmidt’s application to the law-enforcement bodies: “It became known to me, Shmidt Aleksey, that the basis of my illegal abduction by the police officers at the railway station during the arrival of the train of Nizhnevartovsk to Tyumen on 6 June 2012 at 5:00 a.m. of the local time was the falsified (false) investigation case No 34204. Date of the investigation case – 19.12.2011. Circular letter – 2012/12.
The reason for the institution of the investigation case was allegedly «my disappearance of 13.12.2011 under a recognizance not to leave». The department that put on the wanted list – Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) of Russia in the Tyumen region OP-4 of MIA of the Russian Federation in Tyumen. Reception date – 21.03.2012. Reception time – 15:07:46. I testify that I wasn’t under any recognizance not to leave till June 06, 2012. I consider that the actions on falsification of the investigation case concerning me and the illegal detention on 6 June 2012 at 5:00 a.m. and keeping me more than 10 hours (forcing me to testify against myself), are the revenge for the Prosecutor’s office of the Central district of Tyumen in a hall of the Central district court of Tyumen assisted by the judge Belousova M.Y. on 28 October 2011 on the grounds of my application was compelled to apologize to me for the illegal criminal prosecution No200403835/14 initiated by the employee of the police department, being in the same building with OP-4 (police department). The apologies were brought in seven years after the termination of the criminal prosecution (the resolution of the senior investigator of Investigative Office of the Department of Internal Affairs of the Central Administrative Circuit of Tyumen Kolmakova of 10.09.2004) and the recognition it as illegal (the resolution of the judge of the Central district court of Tyumen Belousova M.Y. of 27.09.2004). Within 7 years the illegal prosecution of the obviously innocent person was proceeding and is continuing to proceed up to now. Then the public prosecutor’s office supported the illegal institution of the criminal case concerning me No200403835/14 on false denunciation of a lawyer Baskova S.V. (the head of the legal department of the Tyumen branch of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”), having slandered me as the director of JSC “EFI DastinMarket”… The A. Shmidt’s appeal is addressed to me as well.
How are the criminal cases fabricated in the interests of a customer?
Let’s consider a concrete example. To prevent A. Shmidt from contesting the illegal expropriation of property of JSC “DastinMarket” in the commercial courts as you remember, dear Reader, the lawyer of “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” S.Baskova had filed the application with the law enforcement bodies that became the reason of the institution of the criminal case No200403835/14 concerning A. Shmidt «for the deliberate bankruptcy» by the detective of Department of Fighting Economic Crimes (DFEC) of DIA of the Central district of Tyumen. The deputy prosecutor of the Central Administrative Circuit of Tyumen Shulga S.V. gave the consent to the institution of the criminal case.
Here is all refinement of this rotten system – they organized the fictitious bankruptcy of the operating enterprise, plundered it by the means of the arbitration trustee Jury Shabalin from the SGCM guild, stole the property, didn’t even pay the tax to the state, by the means of the arbitration judge Loskutov suspended the director of the enterprise and lawful shareholders from the process of bankruptcy and … accused A. Shmidt of «the deliberate bankruptcy». A. Shmidt had to appeal to the court again and ask to recognize as illegal the resolution on institution of the criminal case. That court was added to the list of numerous commercial courts. It was very important to glance in the case, as an example of the impartial and qualified consideration.
From the Resolution of the judge of the Central district court of Tyumen Belousova M.Y.:
«Having heard the representative of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” Baskova S.V., the Deputy prosecutor Mokhov A.S. in a court session, who stated that the criminal case concerning Shmidt A.I. was instituted legally and reasonably, having investigated the presented materials of the criminal case, the judge considered that the resolution on institution of the criminal case of 31.05.2004 by the detective of DFEC of DIA of the Central Administrative Circuit (AC) of Tyumen Reshetnikova S. A. is illegal on the following grounds: The subject of the appeal is the resolution on institution of the criminal case. According to its contents the stage of the institution of the criminal case isn’t reduced only to the passing of the resolution. It includes a system of actions and decisions directed on the clarification of the valid event, the determination of corpus delicti and fixing of the received data: reception of applications and communications about the crime, its procedural execution and consideration, carrying out the checking actions if necessary, systematization and analysis of gathered materials, making and drawing up of a decision on institution of the criminal case, the notification of the applicant, other interested persons about the made decision. (Author with malice: And the prosecutor and detective Reshetnikova didn’t knowit …) The applications and letters of citizens become an occasion to the institution of the criminal case only when they contain information indicating the commission (preparation) of acts, coming within the signs of any crime. The reason of the present criminal case was an appeal of a citizen Baskova S.V. to the chief of the operational investigation division of DFEC at the Municipal DIA, besides the date of this appeal wasn’t specified, but it was registered on 9 April 2004. That appeal, certainly, was the application for crime, however, infringing Article 141 (6) of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the applicant Baskova S.V. wasn’t warned about the criminal liability for the obviously false denunciation according to Article 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Pursuant to Article 144 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation the person authorized by the law is obliged to accept, check the conversation about any committed or preparing to commission crime and within his/her competence to make the decision no later than 3 days from the date of receipt of the specified conversation. (Author: According to A. Shmidt’s applications to all bodies on money laundering facts in “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk ” and fraud in the course of the bank ruptcy of “DastinMarket” nobody has made decisions on institution of the criminal case for 8 years!). In accordance with Article 144 (3) of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation the public prosecutor, the head of the investigation department and the head of the body of inquiry shall have the right upon the motion of the investigator and the inquirer respectively to extend the term up to ten days, stipulated by the first part of the present Article, and if it is necessary to carry out documentary or audit inspections, the prosecutor shall have the right to extend this term up to thirty days upon the motion of the investigator or inquirer. Having infringed those requirements of the criminal and procedural law according to the appeal of Baskova S.V. the checking was carried out more than 30 days by the police officers, at the same time nobody made the decisions on extension of checking periods. The reasons for the institution of the criminal case are actual data, sufficient for the supposition of the commission of the act coming within the signs of the crime. The data sufficiency means such aggregate and quality of data that allow making the reasonable supposition of the commission or preparation of a crime.
These requirements of the law for institution of the present criminal case weren’t observed.
The criminal case was instituted according to corpus delicti provided by Articles 30 (3), 159 (4), 196 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the RF provides the criminal liability for fraud i.e. theft of other people’s property or the acquisition of the right to other people’s property by fraud or breach of trust. (Author: the officials of “The bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” and bankruptcy trustee Y.Shabalin, as well as all group of persons in conspiracy had good chances to be punished under that Article). Pursuant to the note to Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the RF, theft means the unlawful, uncompensated seizure and/or the appropriation of other people’s property, committed with a mercenary purpose by a guilty person or by other persons, which has caused damage to the owner or any other proprietor of this property. The plot of the resolution on institution of the criminal case and checking materials available for adoption of this procedural decision don’t contain data how and what Shmidt A.I. tried to steal. The reference in the resolution on institution of the criminal case about the existence of accounts payable of the enterprise headed by Shmidt A.I. to OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” doesn’t contain data about the attempt of Shmidt A.I. to steal the property of the bank as the accounts payable isn’t a theft subject. According to the criminal law in order to withdraw another’s property this property should be in funds of the owner: to be registered on balance of the legal person or to be considered come to the enterprise funds. It wasn’t established what property Shmidt A.I. had attempted to steal either during the verification of the appeal of Baskova S.V., or during the investigation concerning Shmidt A.I. so the criminal case in respect of the applicant was instituted illegally.
Having examined the materials of the criminal case, the court came to the conclusion about the illegality of the institution of the criminal case concerning the applicant according to Article 196 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The body of a crime was material, it has been considered complete since the moment of causing a large damage by a guilty person. In the opinion of the author of the resolution on institution of the criminal case, Shmidt A.I. issued unsecured bills in the amount of 220 000 000 rubles
During the numerous judicial proceedings according to the court’s rules of procedure the analysis of a position of Shmidt A.I. visually testified his desire to keep solvency of the enterprise he had headed and to fulfill the obligations to the bank that eliminated his intention of deliberate bankruptcy and causing serious damage to another person.
Judge Belousova M.Y
and transferred it to JSC “Commercial Finance Group “Premyera”, made a false debt of the enterprise to that company, having deliberately caused the bankruptcy of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket», at the same time the instructions to who and what damage was caused by those actions were not specified in the resolution. (Author: the bills were secured by the property of shareholders and issued in order to secure the transaction of sale of shares of Dastin GmbH of the Luxembourg company Dastin Handelshaus AG on request of shareholders. It was a property of shareholders, but we remember that OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk” in the person of its president Mizgulin decided «to take away everything» from Shmidt A.I., that’s why fraudsters behaved as it had been already decided that CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» was their property). By the time of the institution of the criminal case there was a ruling of the commercial court of the Tyumen region of 19.02.2004 under which the satisfaction of the application of JSC “Commercial Finance Group “Premyera” for estab lishment of its requirements to CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» was refused that actually eliminated the causing of any damage, especially in large size by the actions of Shmidt A.I. mentionned-above During the numerous judicial proceedings according to the court’s rules of procedure the analysis of a position of Shmidt A.I. visually testified his desire to keep solvency of the enterprise he had headed and to fulfill the obligations to the bank that eliminated his intention of deliberate bankruptcy and serious damage to another person.
Besides, at the moment of the institution of the criminal case it was for certain established that Shmidt A.I. hadn’t transferred the bills in the amount of 220 000 000 rubles to JSC “CFG “Premyera”, so those circumstances didn’t correspond to the facts and its indication in the resolution was illegal too.
As provided by Article 146 (4) of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation the person with respect to whom the criminal case is instituted is informed on the same day about the institution of the criminal case. This requirement of the criminal procedural law was roughly ignored, therefore the constitutional procedural rights of the applicant were essentially infringed. (Author: further in the matter of Kvassov against Shmidt, that trick – failure to notify the person about the institution of the criminal case — would be repeated. It is one of the numerous ways of prosecution the obviously innocent person to deprive him/her of the possibility to be protected at the right time and appeal against the illegal actions in the court).
Thus, during the consideration of the A.I. Shmidt’s complaint numerous infringements of the criminal procedural law were fixed in the course of the institution of the criminal case concerning him, besides it was established that there had been no grounds for such procedural decision, that’s why the resolution on institution of the criminal case was to be recognized illegal». I don’t want to comment on the impartial court judgment, so I provided all the text without a word to be thrown out. The judge is an attagirl who stated an assessment to the illegal actions of the detective of DFEC Reshetnikova S.A. and to the infringement of the constitutional procedural rights of Shmidt A.I. It will be interesting to know, if she is still working in the court or has already been «pushed out»? Our rotten judicial system “usually releases» from the high-principled and non-corrupt judges. So, we know that after the decision of the judge Belousova in 2004, the prosecutor Mokhov apologized to A.Shmidt only in 7 years, in October 2011. Thereby he helped to keep «limitations» for the victim. I would like to give advice to A. Shmidt to file the application with the Committee of Inquiry (CI) of the Russian Federation for «manufacturers» of the criminal case who caused grave consequences to the obviously innocent person – institution of the criminal case, court proceeding, moral and material losses with the involvement of law enforcement bodies, prosecutor’s office and applicant S.Baskova (as attorney and lawyer S.Baskova knew about the criminal liability for the false denunciation that’s why the detective Reshetnikova accepted her application as an exception without date indication and obligatory notification against signature about the criminal liability. But in this case it would not make her exempt from compliance thereof as she supported the prosecution at the trial and trumped up the charges in a pre-judicial procedural phase, she also involved law enforcement bodies and prosecutor’s office for that purpose, and these have already been the aggravating circumstances …). If the court didn’t acquit A.Shmidt the real prison term would threaten him, then why is there no punishment for Baskova S., the falsifier of the institution of the criminal case, the worker of DFEC Reshetnikova S.A and the public prosecutor who supported the trumped-up charges? Is everybody equal before the law? Or only “commoners”?
How are the judgments trumped up in the interests of the customer?
Look at the evidences — «receipts» produced by Kvassov to the court.
Let’s analyse these «receipts» from the point of view of the legislation of the Russian Federation, instead of that one of the judge Agafonova.
I received on the previous conditions 20 000 (twenty thousand) US dollars.
10.07.2001 /signature/ The copy is true
Seal with inscription: Central district court of Tyumen 14
Coat of arms of Russia
From the conclusion of the lawyer: «Receipts» provided for a consideration aren’t named so in the document, aren’t the agreement according to the requirements to an agreement form of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the word «loan» isn’t mentioned, there is no surely specified loan repayment, in some documents there are no titles «Creditor» and «Borrower», i.e. there are no objective parties and loan subject in the loan agreement. The provided «receipts» were renamed arbitrarily to «contracts» by the judge in the court decision. As the judge considered «receipts» as receipts, stated that the receipts
were provided and in the Decision renamed receipts to Contracts, we consider it the deliberate distortion of truth and manipulation with the definitions of the current legislation in order to conceal the evidences. Later when the Respondent appeals to the higher instances or supervisory authorities, relying in practice, everyone will pay attention and read only the Judgment, nobody will be bothered by studying the materials of the case and, by examining of the receipts in particular».
Receipt (text) 3:
I, Shmidt Franz Iosifovich received from Kvassov Vladislav Viktorovich 54 152.32 US dollars (fifty-four thousand one hundred and fifty-two dollars thirty-two cents) on the previous conditions.
Therefore in the previous article «Expropriatopion» I emphasised that it wasn’t a harmless substitution of the term, but the «intentional» substitution in order to make the Judgment legitimate and de facto to deprive the Respondent of the possibility to protect himself subsequently. Do you remember? If the court decided that 2х2 = 5 it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to reverse it!
Article 808 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The Form of the Loan Agreement
A loan agreement between individuals shall be concluded in writing, if its sum of money exceeds in more than ten times the statutory minimum amount of wages or salaries and regardless of the sum of money in case where the lender is a legal entity.
2. In acknowledgment of a loan agreement and its terms and conditions the borrower’s receipt or another document certifying the transfer of a definite sum of money or a certain quantity of things may be presented
Receipt (text) 5:
I received on the previous conditions five thousand US dollars
under 18% per annum.
Seal with inscription:
Central district court of Tyumen
Coat of arms of Russia
In this case the agreement should be in writing, the receipt isn’t obligatory, but it can be the evidence of the agreement.Where is the agreement, Mr. Kvassov and judge Agafonova?
In front of me I have the minutes of the general meeting of shareholders of «Dastin GmbH» where the decisions on shareholders contribution for shares in the company were made and on additional financing of the “DastinMarket” project at the expense of additional contributions of shareholders «on completion of commissioning of the shopping center» under 18% per annum with the return of «the sum on development» and interests to shareholders within a year after the opening of the shopping center, and the corresponding payment orders of the company which these receipts completely correspond. The content of receipts becomes clear, why Shmidt Franz Iosifovich received money («but didn’t borrow») as the director of «Dastin GmbH», why some sums had 18 % per annum, why there was no surname of «person» on some receipts … The reason is that V. Mits was the vice governor of Khanty-Mansiyskiy AC and didn’t want to appear in the commercial affairs at all. As the trial took place in the absence of the respondent, A. Shmidt was deprived of the possibility to file allthese documents with the court. V. Mits and V. Kvassov were shareholders …
Article 807. The Loan Agreement
1. Under the loan agreement one party (the creditor) shall transfer into the ownership of the other party (borrower) money or things marked by generic features, while the borrower shall undertake to return to the creditor the same sum of money (the loan amount) or the equal quantity of things of the same type and quality. A loan agreement shall be deemed concluded from the moment the money or things are transferred.
2. Foreign currency and currency values may be a subject of a loan agreement on the territory of the Russian Federation with the observance of the rules of Articles 140, 141 and 317 of this Code.
How did the judge fix the money transfer? How did she establish that money had been loaned from Kvassov exactly to Shmidt exactly?
From the materials of this case it wasn’t obvious what receipts had been shown by V. Kvassov to the court – originals or copies, certified or not. If the receipts’ copies were made by the court from the copies of the claimant Kvassov, so these receipts hasn’t been examined on authenticity and there has been no originality acknowledgment of the respondent or his debt recognition. Thus the provided receipts couldn’t have been taken as evidence by the court according to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The unclear thing is how the court could establish in the absence of the respondent that it was his (respondent’s) signature on receipts as even passport data wasn’t indicated and nobody knew how and under what circumstances the signature of the respondent had been put, scanned, inserted, falsified, simply speaking by Kvassov or undetermined person “at gunpoint”. One more thing is unclear — for what reasons the court established that it was a debt if during the trial the fact of loan reception (transfer) and of return-non-return (transfer) of money hadn’t been investigated.
The court deprived the respondent of the right to judicial protection i.e. granting evidences and essential data for his part. It is theoretically possible to imagine that the respondent, i.e. A.Shmidt, could have appealed and proved that money had been repaid (returned) long ago; it hadn’t been borrowed from Kvassov and it was a mystery how he had got those receipts; the money had been repaid by the debt return of Kvassov before A.Shmidt; «signature isn’t mine»; the receipts had been false; the receipts had been issued on the other occasion, but not concerning a loan; the receipts had been issued in order to deliver money to the exchange office of currency, and ruobles had been returned to the cash desk; the receipts had been issued for the contribution to the cooperative, etc. We give these options to clarify that the respondent was deprived of the basic constitutional law – the right on protection, and the judge exceeded her powers in the interests of one party with prejudice – the claimant. There is no word «loan» in the receipts, as well as there are no objective parties «Creditor» and «Borrower».
Just as easily as if you write your phone number on a napkin to your new acquaintance while visiting a restaurant and put the signature or write your surname under the number, and the girl for any reason (to offend) files an appeal with the court that it is the receipt of loan under which you borrowed money from her personally, the judge can admit you as the debtor of the considerable sum, but on the essential condition that the judge is the mother of this girl. (Wasn’t the judge Agafonova a Kvassov’s mother? Then what was such prejudice of the court motivated by?). The decision would be made, but it would obviously be illegal. It has nothing in common with the Law. The words «agreement», a debt, the sum and … «In the Name of the Russian Federation …» would appear in the official Decisionofthe judge. Then try to prove by contradiction.
From the conclusion of the lawyer: «In the materials of the case you sent there is no document that will notify the respondent about this court proceeding. If the respondent wasn’t notified in a proper way, the proceeding is illegal.
1. We consider as violation the conduct of this civil proceeding by the judge Agafonova as the vice-chairman of the court on criminal cases.
2. We consider as procedural violation the Ruling on court proceedings that had been passed one day earlier, than the application of the claimant was brought to the court office.
3. We consider as violation of the Civil Code the court venue. In the legislation it is accurately specified that the claimant is obliged to file an application with the court according to the place of residence of the respondent. The place of residence of the respondent is Nizhnevartovsk, it was known for certain by the court and the claimant as before the respondent had been present at numerous arbitral proceedings in the matter of «DastinMarket», and there was the decision of the judge Belousova on recognition as illegal the criminal prosecution of A.Shmidt.
4. We consider as the gross violation of human rights the conduct of the proceedings in the absence of the respondent and the passing of the sentence to him «in absentia». The failure to notify the respondent of the conviction is regarded as the aggravating circumstance. Only this fact is enough to declare this judgment deliberately illegal. Today is not 1937. Everything in total indicates on the vendibility and prejudice of the court that caused grave material and moral losses to the respondent. The respondent has a right to appeal to the supervisory and law enforcement bodies».
In our country only few people have heard about Article 305 of The Criminal Code under which the punishment for a knowingly unjust judgment can state up to 300 thousand rubles, or the amount of the wage or salary for a period up to two years, or the deprivation of liberty for a term of up to four years. If an unjust sentence caused serious consequences to the knowingly innocent person or his/her deprivation of liberty one can be punished for a term ofthree to ten years.
This «dead article» was included to the Code in order to calm the society and just to show that judges are responsible for something, as well as everybody. Even if A.Shmidt file complaints with the appropriate instances it will lead to no good. All the more, so he has already done this several times. I have no data that under this article at least one judge was convicted in our big country. At least one! Do we have idealjudges?
Here is an extract from the blog of a writer Aleksander Nikonov (http://a-nikonov.livejournal.com/1021842.html): «On the TV program of Solovyev «Poyedinok», having heard that the guy was sentenced to 4 years for the rape after the very long and repeatedly resuming proceedings, the lawyer Barshchevskiy told: «You understand, if he was given only 4 years for such a crime, it meant that he was innocent». The system works as follows: if the person is innocent, he/she gets a short prison term or suspended sentence. As the Russian machine of justice is arranged so. It is criminal in its essence…»
It is necessary to take into account that the judge Agafonova is a very experienced judge, enjoys good standing with the Central district court of Tyumen, has merits, in other words all this cannot be written off on «the miscarriage of justice».
The claimant Kvassov testifies that loaned US dollars to the respondent. At that time the currency transactions between the residents of the Russian Federation were forbidden by the currency legislation. The claimant couldn’t have the license of the Central Bank to fulfil currency transactions as a credit institution; it means that at least this comes within the article on violation of the currency legislation in especially large size in this case. What does it mean? It means that the judge had to pass the Ruling and direct this case to investigating authorities by the fact of violation of Article 140 of the Civil Code of RF and the Law «On currency regulation and currency control» of RF. (I have one more question to the tax inspection of Tyumen – what is the «origin» of the big amount of foreign currency of Mr. Kvassov and is these money declared?) Let’s consider to the «official» conclusions of the competent authorities that the judge executed the judicial functions non-professionally. What were the consequences?
The judge Agafonova issued the writ of execution for the arrest of A. Shmidt’s property. He was arrested 1% of shares of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket», taken away everything he had, even the mobile phone. He didn’t have the real property, as he lived with his family in the rented apartment. Thus the punishment was carried out pursuant to the court judgment.
But A. Shmidt was continuing to have legal proceedings in the commercial courts in order to restore his property and was informing the law enforcement bodies about the money laundering facts in “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”!
￼Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the RF. Deliberate Evasion of the Repayment of Debts
Deliberate evasion by an organization’s manager or an individual of the repayment of debts of a large size, or from the payment for securities, after the entry into legal force of an appropriate court judgment, shall be punishable by a fine in the amount up to 200 thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period up to 18, or by compulsory works for a term of 180 to 240 hours, or by arrest for a term of four to six months, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to two years.
(edit. Federal Law of 08.12.2003 No162-ФЗ)
That’s why Kvassov filed the application on evasion of repayment of debts of A.Shmidt according to the court judgment with the law enforcement bodies. Everything was planned by those fraudsters and everything «was in their pockets».
On 27 April 2006 A.Shmidt was called to the Russian Society of Neighbouring Rights (RSNR) of the Central Administrative district where he received a copy of the resolution on institution of the executive proceeding of 02.03.2006. Shmidt claimed the protest motions. He
didn’t get the result of their consideration. Meanwhile in 2009 the events were developing as follows:
The bailiff instituted the executive proceedings to the addresses of Tyumen which had no relation to Shmidt A.I. because he lived in Nizhnevartovsk of what he informed repeatedly the court bailiffs of Tyumen. The bailiffs of RSNR of the Central AC of Tyumen were bringing Shmidt A.I. forcibly those days when the arbitration proceedings concerning «DastinMarket» were taking place. The actions of the court bailiffs and policemen were done the way specified in resolutions on forcible bringing to court, on the data basis of a claimant V. Kvassov about time and place of the following court session in the matter of the bankruptcy of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” where Shmidt had to be present.
For example, a court bailiff I. Romashova brought to Shmidt A.I. the ruling on summons on 17 June 2009 although Shmidt explained that he couldn’t be present there, because the court proceeding on bankruptcy of CJSC “Enterprise with foreign investments “DastinMarket” had been sheduled on that day in the Eighth Commercial Appeal Court in City Omsk.
Although Shmidt on his own and without permission of the court bailiffs decided to be present at the court session of the Eighth Commercial Appeal Court in the matter of the bankruptcy of CJSC “DastinMarket”, the court bailiffs responded the following way: the court bailiff-executor of RSNR of the Central AC of Tyumen G.V. Zhirnova granted the resolution on forcible bringing to court of Shmidt A.I №72/71/5/1726/14/2006 of 27.08.2009 for evasion from the presence at the court bailiffs. But that forcible bringing concerning the notification of the liability in accordance with Article 177 on 28 August 2009 at 12:00 was to be appointed precisely on a day and time of a new arbitral sitting in the matter of «DastinMarket» and on the subject of A.Shmidt’s complaints about the bankruptcy trustee Shabalin. That’s how prosecution of the person is organized, that’s the way they interfere in carrying out the legal judgment activity over and over again. The person who isn’t concealing and is present at the court proceedings in order to protect his rights is always «knocked out» of the processes. It was clear that A.Shmidt was present at the court instead of the bailiffs. But he informed about a good reason of his absence in writing.
Later on, according to the application of Shmidt A.I. by the decision of the judge of the Central district court of Tyumen Serebryakova A.V. the resolution of the court bailiff- executor of RSNR of the Central AC of Tyumen G.V. Zhirnova of 27.08.2009 on forcible bringing to court of Shmidt A.I was recognized as illegal! As well as the refusal of the head of the department, the senior court bailiff of RSNR of the Central AC of Tyumen D.V. Grigoriev of 01.09.2009 from the examination of the materials of the executive proceeding by Shmidt A.I.
Having carried out the illegal bringing to court on 28 August 2009, the bailiffs got the main thing — Shmidt was warned about the criminal liability according to Article 177 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation. And the fact that the resolution of 27.08.2009 on forcible bringing to court was recognized as illegal by the decision of the judge Serebryakova, in their opinion, didn’t abolish it! Exactly so the materials of the case were collected, «appearances of malicious evasion» were kept, from notes of the bailiffs one could have the impression that A.I. Shmidt was concealing.
Here it is necessary to explain: A.Shmidt as well as thousands of our citizens didn’t know his rights and legal niceties. Once again I want to put an emphasis: he had been already withdrawn all his property according to the writ of execution, he had been dismissed (illegally) and tried to be re-employed, to restore his rights, as well as “DastinMarket”. He had no property and no income, i.e. he was “insolvent» under the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
The leading specialist-expert (investigator) of the district department of the court bailiffs of the Central AC of Tyumen Bukina A.N., who examined the conversation about crime provided by Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (malicious evasion), that had been sent on 15 December 2010 to RSNR of the Central AC of Tyumen by Kvassov V.V., instituted the criminal case №201124559/74 concerning Shmidt Aleksey Iosifovich by the resolution of 28.09.2011. When did Kvassov file the application again? At the time A.Shmidt appealed to the President of Russia and the Council of the Federation. (I can’t help noting that all lawlessness occurs exactly in the Central AC of Tyumen; the «proximity» of the regional and municipal authorities, merging of the corrupted structures, «mutual protection» has a strong impact. The mechanism of the “caste of untouchables” works in this administrative circuit. Here everything «is in their pockets» – the police, the court, the prosecutor’s office, the tax inspection, the administrations …).
Pay attention now: the criminal case can be instituted against the citizen, if he conceals the property of more than 250 thousand rubles from the penalty. The article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is applied more often when the debtor has a possibility to pay a debt, but he doesn’t do it for the subjective arguments. Let’s emphasize if a person has a lack of possibility to repay debt of more than 250 thousand rubles (the previous legislation), the criminal liability according to Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is impossible as it is a kind of the strict liability. The Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to actions after the emergence of debt and doesn’t refer actions after the money reception. How the acting prosecutor of the region Russkikh could put this criminal case under control of the regional prosecutor’s office if that was him, the supervisory authority, who had to abolish it as illegal? Was it legal illiteracy or deliberate prosecution? Shmidt had been already recovered! The institution of the criminal case was the second punishment and prosecution, but those were repressions after all.
Imagine a state of mind of the person who had his firm bankrupted by fraud, his property for half a billion rubles stolen, his personal property under the Kvassov’s claim arrested, been «thrown out» on the street with empty pockets, dismissed without salary payment. They instituted the first criminal case, but didn’t succeed, then the second case, then there was the illegal bringing to police, to the court bailiffs, «taking out» from halls of justice, threatening over phone, assault and battery (three months of being in the hospital), attempted murder (hoses of an service car were cut, the case under the application of the victim to the police was «lost»). It is the direct incitement of the person to a suicide! The outrages of werewolves with shoulder straps and the mockery of the person and his rights. I do not want even recall our Constitution, anyway NOBODY FOLLOWS it.
you surf the Internet and visit the forums of the court bailiffs you’ll find the way they communicate, ask each other about the forms and measures of the impact on debtors, consult how to “put” the Article 177 on debtors, ask for advice «how to imprison the person» or «how to convict him/her», they mock the people who have got into trouble, i.e. INSOLVENT people, because the fraudsters disable to pay the credit aren’t so numerous. For the most part these are common citizens, workmen, young families, youth, «marketing victims», who bought the next I-Pad or I-Phone and didn’t estimate «the forces» or due to unforeseen circumstances failed to return money to the bank (dismissal, death of the breadwinner, the birth of the child and thousands other objective and subjective reasons). In the West the banks and consumers don’t «suffer», because risks of the failure to return are insured! In the Internet you’ll come across the absolutely stupid bailiffs who make 14- 20 grammatical mistakes in 6-8 phrases of the text! And these people, so-called «court bailiffs», serve the Law, «chase» citizens and fabricate cases at the same time. The same was done concerning A.Shmidt – a court bailiff Eremchuk arrested the property (imported goods) of «DastinMarket» under the claim of the tax inspection for 4 million rubles, and … «forgot» to transfer funds to the tax inspection in order to initiate the bankruptcy proceeding ordered by the Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk. According to the writ of execution for Kvassov’s benefit the other bailiff confiscated the mobile phone of A.Shmidt that cost 14 000 rubles but was given the value of 100 rubles! But he «forgot» to turn into Kvassov’s benefit 1% of shares of CJSC «EFI «DastinMarket» belonging to A.Shmidt arrested under the same writ of execution for more than 4 million rubles. Of course, the bank of Khanty-Mansiysk took away the property there! And then it would be impossible to institute the criminal case ordered by Kvassov against Shmidt as «malicious debtor». Dear God, what is happening in our country?
Here is how A.I. Shmidt learnt about the institution of the criminal case. At 5:00 a.m. on 6 June 2012 Shmidt was detained on the platform of the railway station in Tyumen by the police officers of OP-4 without explanations of the reasons for detention and its basis (without presentation of the custody report or delivery report) and he was delivered to the bailiff service at 11:40 in order to be questioned by the leading specialist-expert (investigator) of RSNR of the Central AC Prokhorov S.Y.; that time Shmidt learnt about the institution of the criminal case against him No201124559/74. One more gross violation of human rights was committed – Shmidt had to be informed about the institution of the criminal case against him on the same day!
Shmidt A.I. immediately notified the public prosecutor’s office of the Tyumen region by phone 345354 with a telephone message about all specified violations during the detention applying for taking the appropriate measures for restoration of his rights and freedoms. But there was no appropriate response of the public prosecutor’s office. Since 5:00 a.m. Shmidt had been being kept in the police department and only at 11:40 he was brought to the investigator of RSNR who was questioning him for some hours. In such a way the public prosecutor’s office responded the Shmidt’s written complaint on illegal actions during the detention of 06.06.2012 (outg. prosecutor’s office w/n of 09.06.2012). Shmidt A.I. received the reply of the Federal Bailiff Service in the Tyumen region outg. 72/04-14/7244-kmk of 27.06.2012, signed by the deputy chief court bailiff K.M. Khaydarov. It explained that on 28 September 2011 the criminal case No201124559/74 against Shmidt A.I. had been instituted the court proceeding on which had been suspended on 27 December 2011 and renewed on 6 June 2012, and Shmidt had been handed over the copy of the resolution on institution of the criminal case! In other words it was confirmed officially that the copy of the resolution had been handed over only on 6 June 2012 and he was charged with the punishment twice. The native land! Till that moment Shmidt hadn’t known about the institution of the criminal case against him for more than 8 months as the resolution wasn’t sent to his address!
Pay attention now again! In the materials of the case – I have the copies in front of me — there is a note of the investigator Bukina A.N. that the resolution had been sent to the suspect on 28 August 2011, i.e. a month earlier, than the criminal case was instituted! The office concocted … In my childhood I didn’t understand till the end the granny’s words: «the fool sits on the fool», now I understand it well.
Having appealed to the Federal Bailiff Service with an exposition of all facts of the illegal activity of the service and appropriate questions
Subject: Online-office of the Federal Bailiff Service of the Russia. Reply for the appeal
Hello, Mr. Shmidt Aleksey Iosifovitch. Everything was explained by phone.
Federal Bailiff Service.
to the Federal Department, A.I. Shmidt received on the day off (!) a call from Tyumen of the person introduced himself as the court bailiff who invited him to the municipal bailiff service/ A. Shmidt answered on that: «I’m waiting for the written reply on my written application». And he received it in several days! Read everything, it is the way they relate to us, to the Russian citizens, as to the «cattle»!
I have never harmed a fly in my life, I have an enough peaceful profession – I’m a journalist. But I would like to «behave bestially” in such occasions. How to turn out neck and crop these parasites from our society, what to undertake for “getting the place too hot for them”?
We needn’t form the opposition and parties which take away people from the main matters of life and daily chores. All the people are the opposition — opposition to this system of bureaucratic power and repressive bodies. We are already formed! Thousands of chased and persecuted businessmen, thousands of insolvent debtors, thousands of the illegally convicted, thousands of victims of corruption and lawlessness of the officials, thousands of swindled shareholders, thousands of the not indifferent – there are hundreds of thousands and millions of our citizens have their lives and the future of their children stolen, have their centuries-old history and culture of their people destroyed. If there is no country these creatures will spread on Europe’s, to Switzerland’s and London’s, the offspring’s of theirs are already there with their benefits and real property. What about us, where shall we go?
During the journalistic investigation I found out the strange fact confirming the prosecution of the citizen and a fabrication of the basis for such prosecution: in the period between the apologies of the deputy prosecutor of the Central AD of Tyumen Mokhov A.S. for the illegal prosecution outg. No135-204 of 28.10.2011 before the issue of a new recognizance not to leave to A. Shmidt of 06.06.2012 on fabricated criminal case No201124559/74 the employees OP-4 MIA of the Russian Federation in Tyumen put A.I. Shmidt on the Federal wanted list.
SHMIDT ALEKSEY IOSIFOVITCH
Date of birth: 07.02.1958
Place of birth: KAZAKH SSR, KUSTANAY REGION, TARANOV
DISTRICT, NOVOIMENOVKA SETTLEMENT Kind of investigation: federal (warning)
Number of investigation case: 34204
Date of investigation case: 19.12.2011
Circular letter: 2012/112
Date of disappearance: 13.02.2011
Measure of restriction: RECOGNIZANCE NOT TO LEAVE
Investigation Department: MIA of Russia in the Tyumen region OP-4
Date of reception: 21.03.2012
Time of reception : 15:07:46
Series of passport: 6704
Number of passport: 103917
Search in other bases
What were the reasons? Who fabricated the investigation case if the recognizance not to leave was handed over to him on 6 June 2012? The person who didn’t conceal, fought for his rights during the court proceedings, was present at all court sessions, and was put on the Federal wanted list. You can check it in the Internet; the photo was made from the appropriate site. You ask why? In order not to let him go to Moscow or Luxembourg with the materials of the illegal expropriation of
foreign property by a group of persons in conspiracy in the interests of the Bank of Khanty- Mansiysk, to intimidate, to prevent the corruption fight, not to let A. Shmidt act legally, to take part in the court proceedings protesting against the illegal liquidation of “DastinMarket”, and, the most important, «to shut him up» that he didn’t take out the facts of money laundering in the Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk under the fictitious consumer credits to the physical persons in especially large size. But all the materials are now in Luxembourg, and I write this article based on them.
I want to assure my dear Reader that it may seem to some people that A. Shmidt was “imposed” and “driven into the ground” that it was managed to conceal fraud with foreign property and money laundering in the Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk that it would come to “the expiry of the term of legal limitation” soon, — everything is absolutely different:
Personally me, I feel hurt that in our native land it is almost impossible to seek for justice! For previous 8 years all the facts of violations of the law REPEATEDLY were brought to the notice of ALL FEDERAL LAW-ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURES. There is no result. And there won’t be any liability of persons, because they don’t serve the Law and the Russian People, they carry out other functions. The main one is a protection of interests of a special clan – “untouchables”. Therefore, who will make them answerable? Under the vertically integrated centralized system of the power formation in the country, including judicial power, people and the public aren’t capable in any way to supervise this system and furthermore to change something. We don’t have even the election of a sheriff, there are no instruments of influence – everything is in the hands of a new monopoly of Russia, a class of bureaucrats and law-enforcement officers. The single thing that can’t be taken away from us is our desire and our right to better life.
I sent the article “Expropriation” with inquiries to 19 federal departments and the organizations, the Duma of the Tyumen region and the Duma of Khanty-Mansiysk under the law of the Russian Federation «On mass media». Let’s see the results … All responses will be published in my blog on http://simakov.wordpress.com. Let’s look how numerous laws, resolutions, committees, coordinating councils for corruption fight and money laundering, meetings and other imitation of violent activity of elective and state authorities work. All the same, we have confidence in the deputies.
It would be very interesting to know, how many Swiss per capita went to the ECHR in comparison with Russians and why it was so. Maybe the authorities don’t treat the people as “cattle” maybe they love and respect their people? Maybe the real democracy is there? Maybe Swiss policemen and bureaucrats don’t even intend to violate human rights? Maybe that’s why the offspring’s of the powerful elite don’t live in Russia and study more often in Switzerland’s and London’s. They love their children. If they loved their country …
Now a bit of information for the responsible persons on corruption fight.
Corruption (from lat. corrumpere — to “deprave”) – a term that usually means the use by the official of the powers of authority and entrusted rights for the personal benefit contradicting the legislation and moral faiths. The most often this term is used in relation to the officialdom and the political elite. The term in the European languages usually has wider meaning coming from the primary meaning of a Latin word.
In the majority of the European countries the corruption belongs to crimes.
The characteristic sign of the corruption is the conflict between the actions of the official and interests of his employer or the conflict between the actions of the elective person and interests of the society. Many types of corruption are similar to the fraud made by the official, and belong to the crimes against the government.
The subject of the corruption can be a person having discretionary power — the power to distribute the resources that don’t belong to him at his discretion (official, deputy, judge, law enforcement officer, manager, examiner, doctor etc.). The main incentive for corruption is the possibility of getting the economic profit (rent) connected with the use of powers of authority, and the main deterrent is the risk of exposure and punishment.
According to the macroeconomic and political economic researches, corruption is the largest obstacle to the economic growth and development, capable to threaten any reforms.
The main international documents on corruption:
Criminal Law Convention on corruption
Convention on criminal liability for Corruption
Resolution of the Council of Europe No97 on the twenty guiding principles for the fight against corruption
The Legislative Guide to Promote the Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption
The Federal Law of 08.03.2006 No40-ФЗ “On ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption” The Federal Law of 25.07.2006 No125-ФЗ “On ratification of the Convention on criminal liability for Corruption” The Federal Law of 28,05.2001 No62-ФЗ “On ratification of the Convention on laundering, revelation, withdrawal and confiscation of the income of the criminal activity”
Generally on the basis of these documents the group of lawyers of EU prepares the claims to Russia and to OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”.
The president of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”, the chairman of the management board, the owner of the minority block of shares of the bank – Mizgulin D., the deputy of Khanty-Mansiyskiy AC of the 4th and 5th convocations, the chairman of the committee on budget, finance and tax policy, was the vice-chairman of the Council of Association of Regional Banks of Russia, the member of the Council of Association of Russian Banks, the member of Advisory Councils at the State Duma and the Federation Council of the Russian Federation, the honourable consul of the Czech Republic in Khanty-Mansiysk AC – Yugra.
(photo and data from an official site of the Duma of Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Circuit – Yugra http://www.dumahmao.ru/deputies/V/mizgulin/ )
(I think, it is time to check the activity of the bank, district funds and the use of money by INDEPENDENT auditors of the Federal Center under the governor Filipenko. The big money was depraved by the officials.)
A.V. Filipenko, nowadays the auditor of the Audit Chamber of the Russian Federation, in 2001- 2010 repeatedly was a part of the Presidium of the State Council of the Russian Federation, in 1999- 2010 – the governor, head of government of Khanty- Mansiysk AC – Yugra. (data and photo from an official site http://www.ach.gov.ru/ru/about/auditors/filipenko/ ).
At the same time he was the chairman of the board of directors of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”
These years in favour of the bank the property of CJSC «DastinMarket» was illegally withdrawn, the money laundering was committed that was certified by courts, criminal cases, testimonies of physical persons and officials of the bank. Maybe because these persons «are covering» the crimes committed by the regional prosecutor’s office of Tyumen? Or maybe they “covered” such persons like Kvassov and Baskova? Then why don’t they address the public, don’t name guilty persons? Or the measures of crime are much bigger, than it was described in the article, and the bank is like «Titanic», that may sink, entraining plenty of people?
The main signs of corruption and crimes of a corruption orientation – the conflict of interests, affiliation, illegal actions in the interests of beneficiaries, conspiracy, crime protection – fraud, bribery, plunder using the official position, manipulation of the legislation deriving benefit (rent), prosecution of obviously innocent persons, concealment of crimes, direct crime participation/complicity, selective justice, abuse of office etc.
Corruption can have a concrete, material character and be expressed, for example, by money, property, securities. (for example – «kickbacks», wrongful withdrawal of another’s property and so on). The benefit may carry not only the material character, but be non-material (help in election campaign, lobbying of someone’s interests, creation of obstacles for justice execution, corruption fight, information concealment , inaction in corruption fight, imitation (appearances formation) corruption fight, etc.).
Unfortunately, our country was caught into a corruption trap: there was created the steady system of the relations which were de facto provoking the corruption behavior in various spheres of life: on the top stages of power and in the everyday situations.
The ignorance of the Law does not make one exempt from compliance thereof. Once Dmitriy Mizgulin, the President of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”, the deputy of the Duma of Khanty-Mansiysk AC – Yugra ordered to withdraw the property of CJSC «DastinMarket» and to liquidate the enterprise being threatened that all pledge contracts under the line of credit of CJSC «DastinMarket» because of numerous violations of the bank could be challenged by the company in the court and declared fictitious, that would make «unsecured holes» in the bank.
There was organized a group of fraudsters from the representatives and the officials of the bank headed by Mr. V. Kvassov and V. Mits (one time vice-governor of Khanty- Mansiysk AC, i.e. deputy of Filipenko) who planned and carried out the illegal capture of the operating commercial enterprise, using affiliated persons, falsification of documents, deliberately illegal commercial and arbitration courts, affiliated guild of court-appointed managers of «SGCM». The court-appointed managers intentionally underestimated the cost of the enterprise, its assets in order to recognize the enterprise bankrupt, plundered it, dismantled and sold out all equipment, stole the goods, «wrote off» the receivables of 19 million rubles, transferred (offered) the main asset without payment (a building of Shopping center of 5 000 m2) to the subsidiary of OJSC “The Bank of Khanty-Mansiysk”, «having fudged» the cost of the remained assets to the imaginary accounts payable to the bank, at the same time caused damage in especially large size to the shareholders of the company, to the state concerning the tax payment, abused the law of the Russian Federation on foreign investments – expropriated the goods that didn’t possess to CJSC «DastinMarket». The bank illegally «closed» in a fraudulent way the currency transaction passport in order to hide the accounts payable to the Luxembourg company Dastin Handelshaus AG and the theft of foreign property. With all these manipulations the bank provided the banking operations and standards, the illegal income, besides it tried “to cover” the money laundering in especially large size at the expense of CJSC «DastinMarket» (fictitious credits to the physical persons).
Against all this illegal activity came out the shareholders of the enterprise represented by A. Shmidt, director of CJSC «DastinMarket», having appealed to the corresponding courts. Within some years A. Shmidt has won almost all the court proceedings. The enterprise is ordered to be restored completely. All mortgages of the bank are recognized as null and void. The corrupted officials of the municipal departments of the federal structures aren’t executing the judgments of the courts, but are engaged in forgeries and falsifications of the records in Unified State Register of Legal Entities (USRLE). Numerous «backdating» additions and exclusions of the enterprise from USRLE are made without indication of the persons, who have made them, without publication and notification of the shareholders, without granting the copies and information; they are to be considered a crime according to the Russian legislation. The acting regional prosecutor
Russkikh having been informed of the mentioned-above crimes didn’t take any necessary procedural measures! The corruption involvement of persons in crimes in this case is increasing – and these are the consequences of failure to take measures by the law enforcement bodies and bodies of the prosecutor’s office that intentionally staying idle and hiding these crimes from the public and controlling authorities many years. Even if the bank was very important for the region it would not make it exempt from compliance thereof! The permissiveness and impunity of fraudsters and corrupted officials causes the new crimes!
I emphasize one more time – corruption crimes and crimes on money laundering are recognized in the international and Russian legislation as the most dangerous for the basis of the state and society. The concealment of these crimes is the complicity in them! What about us? The Tyumen region was de facto separated from Russia?
The bank in the person of its officials (S. Baskova, the bank lawyer who acted like a thief shouting «hold the thief!». The most interesting is that the Bar isn’t confused with the holding of the gainful activity of an attorney and a lawyer), corrupted persons of the law enforcement bodies and federal departments organized the prosecution of the obviously innocent person — A.Shmidt for which the prosecutor’s office apologized to A.Shmidt in 7 years on behalf of the Russian Federation. Nobody underwent the punishment for this illegal prosecution. Moreover, V. Kvassov organized a new prosecution of A.Shmidt under the deliberately illegal act. The Tyumen Bailiff service illegally instituted the criminal case having trumped up the charges and repressions in relation to A. Shmidt. The legal lawlessness is going on.
The new court session was appointed on 6 November 2012 on revealed circumstances under the claim of Kvassov to A. Shmidt. The shareholders of Dastin GmbH sent to the court their certified testimonies and motions about their involvement as witnesses in this proceeding. I ask all the active citizens of Tyumen, the representative of Committee on Human Rights, public organizations, colleagues-journalists, honest deputies and all the interested persons to visit this open civil proceeding. The court address: 1, 8th March str, Tyumen, Central district court, judge Ponomareva N.V., 10:00 a.m. We are going to organize the public reporting from a court hall. It is not because of the shareholders testimonies, we have the copies in our editorial board. We want the judicial act of the judge Agafonova to be recognized as obviously illegal as the evidences of the A. Shmidt’s guilt were trumped up, and the judge to be involved to criminal liability according to Article 305 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation.
Both parts of my journalistic investigation – «Expropriation» and «Prosecution» are published on a website of the European union of independent journalists. (www.eupress.org) in Russian, English and German. Besides, the journalists created a monitoring group «anti-corruption» that put this case «under control». People of active civic stand from any regions and the countries can help the work of the group. We haven’t reached the drawing up of the lists of corrupted officials yet, let’s wait for the formal responses.
You can write on e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org .
Soon on the website of the European Union of independent journalists will take pace the action “Corrupted officials to the dismissal” with general voting in Europe and Russia in three languages. The results of the voting will be sent to the President of the Russian Federation V.V.Putin and to the High Commissioner of EU.
Укажите свой email: