His investigators are guilty of offences under the Criminal and Criminal Procedural Codes of the Russian Federation
[the texts of the Articles of Criminal and Criminal Procedural Code cited by Mr Lebedev, or website links to the same, are provided at the end of this statement]
In connection with my statement, added to the record of interrogation on 30 June 2008, concerning the knowingly false and slanderous accusations made against me by the criminal team of investigators (Alyshev and his gang), I have decided, after consultation with my defence lawyers, to refuse to give extensive testimony since I consider, in the circumstances detailed below, that it would be pointless.
At the same time, I consider it necessary to add the following to my testimony, so as not to leave unsubstantiated my accusations that Alyshev and his gang have committed offences (among them serious offences) that are envisaged in the following articles of the Criminal Code: §299 (Knowingly bring an innocent person to criminal responsibility), §292 (official forgery) and §129 (libel) and relate to the systematic forging and mass falsification of the official documents of the criminal investigation.
In a joint petition from our defence teams on 22 December 2007 [see vol. 142 of the case materials, pp. 171-210], and in my complaint of 21 February 2008, obvious examples of falsification were cited from the charges made against me on 3 March 2007 by the head of the investigative team Karimov.
In particular, on page 6 of the 3 March 2007 decree that I would be charged with offences, Karimov indicated that from 5 May 1997 to 13 April 1998 I was deputy chairman of the amalgamated board of Rosprom Ltd. This is true and can be proven (see relevant entries in my work record book and letters of appointment). Despite this Karimov insolently falsified a charge under Article 160 of the Criminal Code (Misappropriation or Embezzlement), referring to a transaction of which I have no knowledge that occurred in November 1998 in connection with a exchange of shares. The accusation contains knowingly false information that in November 1998 I was, supposedly, “deputy chairman of the amalgamated board of Rosprom Ltd” and was, allegedly, abusing that position. Such acts taken in conjunction with the lack of any evidence by these criminal investigators that I was involved in transactions that are unknown to me constitute a serious offence. They are envisaged in Article 299.2 (“Knowingly bringing an innocent person, accused of a grave crime, to criminal responsibility”), together with crimes described by Article 292 (Official forgery) and Article 129 (slander).
Long a member of the criminal Biryukov-Karimov group, Alyshev [the present chief investigator] has also, in turn, repeated the knowingly false and slanderous assertions of Karimov almost word for word. This was despite the evident instances of mass falsification to which I and the defence team drew his attention. In his 29 June 2008 decree informing me that I will face new charges, Alyshev has also therefore committed crimes covered by Articles 299, 292 and 129 of the Criminal Code.
On pages 9 and 14 of the 29 June 2008 decree, for instance, Alyshev lies like any hoodlum (see the definition of “hoodlum” in vol. 142, p. 53 of the case materials) when he says [as can be seen from the falsified accusation according to Article 160.3 (a, b) — Federal Law No 63 of 13 June 1996 — which is to be found on pp. 8-17 of the 29 June 2008 decree] that I worked “as the deputy chairman of the amalgamated board of Rosprom Ltd in the period from 6 to 12 November 1998 inclusive” and, allegedly, that in this capacity, “taking advantage of my official position”, in Rosprom Ltd [see p. 17 of the 29 June 2008 decree] I did commit the said offences.
Evidently Alyshev, operating as a member of an organised criminal group, is incapable of doing anything other than repeat the latest, medically speaking, schizophrenic and, legally speaking, knowingly false assertions. As a consequence I have decided that there is no point in taking the time to explain anything to such a criminal and incompetent yob.
The criminal actions of the investigative team that I have indicated are linked to the crimes they have committed as officials and are substantiated by the evidence cited in the 7 February 2007 report by Amsterdam & Peroff, “White Paper on Abuse of State Authority in the Russian Federation”. That document, 88 pp. in length, is appended to this testimony. It also constitutes case material supporting my complaint, which is currently being heard by the Chita Region Court.
In view of item 4 of Article 47.4 of the Criminal Procedural Code (“the accused shall have the right to furnish proof”) I attach the following testimony:
1. A copy of the letter of appointment No 1103/K issued by Yuksi on 23 April 1998, concerning the transfer of Platon Leonidovich LEBEDEV from Rosprom Ltd to become deputy board chairman of the aforementioned company (one page);
Also documents, witnessed by a notary, that the defence team have obtained in accordance with Article 86.3 of the Criminal Procedural Code (“right of defence counsel to collect proof”):
2. Explanations offered by D.V. (Dmitry) GOLOLOBOV on 27 February 2008 (two pages); with the appended copies of deposition No 2 of 3 November 1998 (two pages); and deposition No 4 of 10 February 1999 (two pages) of the board of directors of Rosprom Ltd; in total, 12 pages;
3. Explanations provided by R.R. BURGANOV on 3 April 2008 (six pages).
Taken together with the testimony of V.N. Kovalchuk, I.M. Marchuk and others, and also that of A.D. Golubovich (who was a direct participant, it appears from his testimony, in transactions of which I have no knowledge linked to the exchange of shares [see vol. 47, pp. 219-248, pp. 249-260, and vol. 2, pp. 108-110]), these explanations confirm:
on the one hand, that in November 1998 I was not and could not have been involved in transactions involving the exchange of shares of which I know nothing (simply because I did not take part), since it is obvious that in November 1998 I was no longer working for Rosprom Ltd;
and, on the other hand, that this criminal investigative team have turned lawful economic transactions into “acts of crime”.
Furthermore, just as Alyshev (who continues to copy Karimov) falsified in others of the investigators’ procedural documents [see vol. 133, pp. 61-65, 227-231, 239-245, 256-265 & 272-280] the episode concerning transactions during the exchange of shares, he also alleges that in November 1998 I stole “by misappropriation 38% of the shares in the Eastern Oil Company (VNK) plc, that belonged to the State, and then legalised these assets”. This is a totally crazy statement by this criminal yob since such an event as the “entrusting to P.L. Lebedev by the State of a 38% package of shares in VNK plc” simply never happened. (In respect of which statement I reported, in accordance with Article 141 of the Criminal Procedural Code, that a crime had been committed.) In effect Alyshev himself refuted this obvious lie in the 29 June 2008 decree, but he has not take any further action to withdraw his knowingly false allegations (which, incidentally, may still be found on the official website of the Prosecutor General's office).
I therefore request that my present statement be considered, in accordance with Article 141 Criminal Procedural Code (Report on a crime), a report that a crime has been committed; and that this statement be considered yet another demand that V.N. Alyshev be removed from the case in accordance with Articles 61, 62 and 63 of the Criminal Procedural Code (Circumstances precluding participation in court proceedings).
[Appended 63 pp of text.]
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Article 129. Slander
1. Slander, that is the spreading of deliberately falsified information that denigrates the honour and dignity of another person or undermines his reputation, shall be punishable by a fine in the amount up to 80 thousand roubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period of up to six month, or by compulsory works for a term of 120 to 180 hours, or by corrective labour for a term of up to one year, or by corrective labour for a term of up to one year.
2. Slander contained in a public speech or in a publicly performed work, and mass-media libel, shall be punishable by a fine in the amount up to 120 thousand roubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period up to one years, or by compulsory works for a term of 120 to 180 hours, or by corrective labour for a term of one year to two years, or by arrest for a term of three to six months.
3. Slander accusing a person of committing a grave or especially grave crime, shall be punishable by a fine in the amount from 100 thousand roubles to 300 thousand roubles or in the amount of a wage or salary or other income of the convicted person for a period from one year to two years or, by restraint of liberty for a term of up to three years, or by arrest for a term of four to six months, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to three years.
Article 292. Official Forgery
Official forgery, that is, the introduction of known false information into official documents by a functionary, and also by a civil servant or a local self-government employee, who is not a functionary, and likewise the introduction of corrections into said documents distorting their actual content, if these acts have been committed due to mercenary or any other personal interests, shall be punishable by a fine in the amount up to 80 thousand roubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period up to six months, or by compulsory works for a term of 180 to 240 hours, or by corrective labour for a term of one to two years, or by arrest for a term of three to six months, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to two years.
Article 299. Knowingly Bringing an Innocent Person to Criminal Responsibility
1. Knowingly bringing an innocent person to criminal responsibility shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to five years.
2. The same deed, joined with the accusation of a person of committing a grave or especially grave crime, shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of three to five years.
Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation
Article 47. The Accused
1. Recognized as the accused shall be the person, with respect to whom:
1) a ruling is passed on bringing him to trial in the capacity of the accused;
2) a bill of indictment is passed;
2. The accused, on whose criminal case are appointed the court proceedings, is called the defendant. The accused, with respect to whom a verdict of guilty is passed, is called the convict. The accused, with respect to whom the verdict of not guilty is passed, shall be seen as having been acquitted.
3. The accused shall have the right to defend his rights and lawful interests and to have enough time, as well as an opportunity, to prepare for the defence.
4. The accused shall have the right:
1) to know with what he is charged;
2) to receive a copy of the ruling on bringing him to trial in the capacity of the defendant, a copy of the ruling on applying towards him the measure of restriction, a copy of the conclusion of guilt or of the bill of indictment;
3) to object to the accusation, to give evidence on the charge brought against him, or to refuse to supply evidence. If the suspect agrees to give evidence, he/she has to be warned that his evidence may be used as proof in a criminal case, and likewise in the event of his/her subsequent denial of this evidence, save for the instance provided for by Item 1 of Part Two of Article 75 of this Code;
4) to furnish proof;
5) to enter petitions and to file recusations;
6) to bear evidence and to express himself in his native tongue or in a language, of which he has a good command;
7) to make use of an interpreter's services free of charge;
8) to resort to the assistance of the counsel for the defence, including free of charge in the cases, stipulated by the present Code; [... 9-21.]
5. Participation in the criminal case of the counsel for the defence or of the legal representative of the accused shall not serve as a ground for restricting any one right of the accused.
6. At the first interrogation of the accused, the prosecutor or the inquirer shall explain to him his rights, stipulated by the present Article. At the subsequent interrogations, to the accused shall be once again explained his rights, stipulated by Items 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the fourth part of the present Article, if the interrogation is conducted without the participation of the counsel for the defence.
Chapter 9. Circumstances, Precluding the Participation in Criminal Court Proceedings
Article 61. Circumstances, Precluding the Participation in Proceedings in a Criminal Case
1. The judge, prosecutor, investigator and the inquirer cannot take part in the proceedings in a criminal case, if he:
1) is the victim, civil claimant, civil defendant or witness in the given criminal case;
2) has participated as a juror, expert, specialist, interpreter, attesting witness, secretary of the court session, counsel for the defence or legal representative of the suspect or of the accused, representative of the victim, of the civil claimant or of the civil defendant, and as concerns the judge - also as the inquirer, investigator or prosecutor in the proceedings in the given criminal case;
3) is a close relative or a relation of any one of the participants in the proceedings in the given criminal case.
2. The persons, pointed out in the first part of the present Article, cannot take part in the proceedings on the criminal case also if there exist the other circumstances, giving a ground to believe that they are personally, whether directly or indirectly, interested in the outcome of the given criminal case.
Article 62. Inadmissibility of the Participation in the Proceedings in the Criminal Case of the Persons Subject to Recusation
1. If there are grounds for the recusation, envisaged by the present Chapter, the judge, prosecutor, investigator, inquirer, secretary of the court session, interpreter, expert, specialist, counsel for the defence, as well as the representatives of the victim, of the civil claimant or of the civil defendant shall be obliged to evade the participation in the proceedings in the criminal case.
2. If the persons, pointed out in the first part of the present Article, have not evaded the participation in the proceedings in the criminal case, the recusation against them may be entered by the suspect and the accused, by his legal representative or by his counsel for the defence, as well as by the public prosecutor, the victim, the civil claimant, the civil defendant or their representatives.
Article 63. Inadmissibility of the Judge's Repeated Participation in Consideration of a Criminal Case
1. The judge, who has taken part in the consideration of the criminal case in the first instance court, cannot take part in the examination of the given criminal case in the court of the second instance or by way of supervision, or to take part in the new consideration of the criminal case in the court of the first or second instance or by way of supervision, if the sentence or the ruling or the decision on the termination of the criminal case, passed with his participation, has been cancelled.
2. The judge, who has taken part in the examination of the criminal case in the court of the second instance, cannot participate in the consideration of this criminal case in the court of the first instance or by way of supervision, or in the new consideration of the same case in the court of the second instance after the cancellation of the sentence, of the ruling or of the decision, passed with his participation.
3. The judge, who has taken part in the examination of a criminal case by way of supervision, cannot take part in the examination of the same criminal case in the court of the first or of the second instance.
Article 86. Collection of Proof
1. Proof shall be collected in the course of the criminal court proceedings by the inquirer, the investigator, the prosecutor and the court through the performance of the investigative and of the other procedural actions, stipulated by the present Code.
2. The suspect or the accused, as well as the victim, the civil claimant, the civil defendant and their representatives shall have the right to collect and submit the written documents and the objects for enclosing them to the criminal case as proof.
3. The counsel for the defence shall have the right to collect proof by way of:
1) obtaining the objects, documents and other information;
2) questioning the persons with their consent;
3) demanding the reference notes, characteristics and other documents from the state power bodies, from the local self-government bodies and from the public associations and organizations, which are obliged to supply the requested documents or the copies thereof.
Article 141. Report on a Crime
1. A report on a crime may be made either verbal or in writing.
2. A written report on a crime shall be signed by the applicant.
3. A verbal report on a crime shall be entered into the protocol, which shall be signed by the applicant and by the person who has accepted the given report. The protocol shall contain the data on the applicant, as well as on the documents, identifying the person of the applicant.
4. If a verbal communication on the crime is made during the performance of an
investigative action or in the course of the judicial proceedings, it shall be entered, respectively, into the protocol of the investigative action or into the protocol of the court session.
5. If the applicant cannot attend in person when the protocol is compiled, his report shall be formalized in accordance with the procedure, established by Article 143 of the present Code.
6. The applicant shall be warned about the criminal liability for a deliberately false denunciation in conformity with Article 306 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, about which a note, certified with the applicant's signature, shall be made in the protocol.
7. An anonymous report on the crime cannot serve as a reason for the institution of a criminal case.