Theory of everything. Andrey Abramov stole children's summer vacation Abramov Andrey Lvovich criminal case

The Tagansky Court of Moscow rendered a verdict in a high-profile case of embezzlement Social Insurance Fund(FSS). The chairman of the non-profit organization “Fund for the Support and Development of Health Resorts and Tourism” Nikolai Kuzmin received six years in prison. According to investigators, he embezzled more than 200 million rubles allocated from the budget for organizing children's recreation. As part of this investigation, another one was launched - against the former chairman of the FSS, Andrei Abramov.

According to the Investigative Committee under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, back in 2002, the leaders of the non-profit organization “Fund for the Support and Development of Health Resorts and Tourism” (NO “FPRZT”), having submitted documents that did not correspond to reality, won the competition of the Social Insurance Fund (FSS) of Russia for organizing children's recreation in health camps located on the Black Sea coast.

Thus, FPRZT received the right to sell vouchers and manage budget funds allocated by regional branches of the FSS of Russia for full or partial payment for these vouchers. Then representatives of FPRZT organized a very profitable business in children's holidays.

Government Russian Federation established prices for organizing children's recreation. Until February 12, 2003 - at the rate of 350 rubles per day per child, and after - 400 rubles per day.

As the Investigative Committee at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation found out, representatives of the non-profit organization made offers to the heads of camps and sanatoriums that were impossible to refuse: either they agree that FPRZT transfers them only 250-270 rubles per day per child, or these institutions will suspend the implementation of vouchers under the Social Insurance Fund program . Officials were forced to agree to such conditions, which, according to the Investigative Committee, affected the quality of food and leisure of vacationers.

A clear mechanism has started working theft of public funds: The FSS transferred money to FPRZT at the rate of 400 rubles per day, FPRZT gave only 270 rubles to the camps, and kept the remaining 130 rubles for itself.

When the FSS ordered that regional branches directly pay the camps, the leadership of the FPRZT found a new loophole for enrichment.

They began to force representatives of health institutions to enter into contracts with them for the provision of consulting and marketing services, which were assessed at the old rate - 130 rubles for every 400 rubles paid by the state. Otherwise, the camps were threatened with deprivation budget financing.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation suspects that in 2002-2005 the management of the non-profit organization earned 203 million rubles in this way, which then went into the accounts of shell companies.

In April 2004, the head of the Fund for the Support and Development of Health Resorts and Tourism, threatening me with termination of the contract, demanded that I send letters to him with instructions to transfer almost 6 million rubles to the account of Pravoved LLC for carrying out cultural work, - Tarusov said. - Then there were similar letters only about the transfer of money to the Garlex company. I never saw any of these companies, but nevertheless I paid them more than 11 million rubles. […]

You could refuse, but in this case you would not receive the next tranche,” said the head of the Black Sea children’s health resort. This is exactly what happened to him. The investigation does not exclude that there was an agreement between the private fund and individual officials of the regional divisions of the social insurance fund. This version is currently being tested.

No money was retained in the accounts of the non-profit foundation. They were transferred to several legal companies, which allegedly provided services to child care institutions. They, in turn, transferred them to third companies, and so on. There are no endings, as they say. There was another scheme for additional taxes. In particular, the investigation established facts of double collections of money for travel to and from the vacation spot. So in the Tver region they were first taken from their parents, and then from the health resorts where the children were sent. - Insert K.ru]

In May 2007, employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation conducted searches in the office of the FPRZT, as well as in the apartments and country houses of its former and current leaders.

In particular, the police visited buildings that belonged to the ex-chairmen of the FPRZT Nikolai Kuzmin and Valery Frolov. During the search, documents of a non-profit organization and a large amount of money were seized.

In June, the Investigative Committee under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation brought charges against Nikolai Kuzmin, and the court chose a preventive measure for him in the form of a written undertaking not to leave the place. After this, the ex-head of FPRZT simply disappeared. He was put on the wanted list and detained on November 29, 2007.

In October 2008, the Investigative Committee under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation completed a criminal investigation into one of the episodes - the theft of 73 million rubles, which should have been used to pay for vouchers for children vacationing at the Rossiyanka sanatorium, located in Anapa. Charges under Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (fraud) were brought against the former chairman of the FPRZT, Nikolai Kuzmin, and the head of one of the departments of the fund, Oleg Savin. Valery Frolov died in August 2008. Materials about the theft of another 130 million rubles were transferred to the Investigation Department of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Central Administrative District of Moscow.

However, as Rosbalt managed to find out, the investigation into the theft of “children’s” money was not completed. The Investigative Committee under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation opened two more criminal cases related to the activities of FPRZT.

The first was initiated under Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (exceeding official powers) against the former head of the Social Insurance Fund Andrei Abramov. It is clear that such large-scale thefts could not have happened without the support of the FSS officials themselves. Employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation suspected that it was Abramov who provided all possible assistance to representatives of the FPRZT.

According to investigators, he began collaborating with the non-profit organization back when he headed the Kaluga regional office FSS. Thanks to the efforts of the official, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation believes, the conclusion of contracts for the purchase of vouchers to health camps for children from the Kaluga region and a number of other regions was carried out exclusively through FPRZT.

In 2005, Andrei Abramov took the post of deputy chairman of the Social Insurance Fund, and in December 2007, head of the Ministry of Social Development Tatiana Golikova entrusted him with temporarily acting as its chairman. However, he worked in this position only until the end of March 2008.

Later, the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Moscow took over the case against Abramov.

The second investigation, which was launched by the Investigative Committee under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, concerns the further fate of budget funds, kidnapped by the leadership of FPRZT.

As the police found out, part of this money was transferred to foreign accounts, and the other was used to buy huge mansions in the Moscow region. Only Nikolai Kuzmin managed to acquire several residences at once in the village of Pervomaika, Ramensky district, as well as in other prestigious places in the Moscow region.

The accused registered the property in his name or in the name of his close relatives. A case was initiated against Kuzmin under Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (legalization - laundering - of funds or other property known to be obtained by criminal means).

At the hearing in the Tagansky Court, the prosecutor asked to find the accused fully guilty and sentence Kuzmin to eight years in prison, and Savin to five. The verdict was supposed to be announced on February 18, but then the hearing was postponed due to the illness of one of the accused. Today the judge read out the verdict, according to which Kuzmin received six years of imprisonment in a general regime colony, Savin was given a suspended sentence of five years.

The Tagansky Court of Moscow issued a verdict in a high-profile case of theft of funds from the Social Insurance Fund (FSS). The chairman of the non-profit organization “Fund for the Support and Development of Health Resorts and Tourism” Nikolai Kuzmin received six years in prison. According to investigators, he embezzled more than 200 million rubles allocated from the budget for organizing children's recreation. As part of this investigation, another one was launched - against the former chairman of the FSS, Andrei Abramov.

According to the Investigative Committee under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, back in 2002, the leaders of the non-profit organization “Fund for the Support and Development of Health Resorts and Tourism” (NO “FPRZT”), having submitted documents that did not correspond to reality, won the competition of the Social Insurance Fund (FSS) of Russia for organizing children's recreation in health camps located on the Black Sea coast.

The Government of the Russian Federation has established prices for organizing children's recreation. Until February 12, 2003 - at the rate of 350 rubles per day per child, and after - 400 rubles per day.

A clear mechanism for the theft of government funds was put in place: the FSS transferred money to FPRZT at the rate of 400 rubles per day, FPRZT gave only 270 rubles to the camps, and kept the remaining 130 rubles for itself.

When the FSS ordered that regional branches directly pay the camps, the leadership of the FPRZT found a new loophole for enrichment.

["Rossiyskaya Gazeta", 12/12/2006, "Trace of Children's Money": According to preliminary calculations by operatives, there were about a dozen such companies. Moreover, the transfers were allegedly made at the request of the children's health resorts themselves, who entered into agreements with front companies for the provision of marketing, consulting and other similar services. Nikolai Tarusov, head of the charity organization “Health for Children,” told the Rossiyskaya Gazeta correspondent why they did this. His health resort specializes in treating disabled children. She was forced to pay money to certain companies under fictitious contracts for several years. In well-known slang, such payments are called “kickbacks”.
In April 2004, the head of the Fund for the Support and Development of Health Resorts and Tourism, threatening me with termination of the contract, demanded that I send letters to him with instructions to transfer almost 6 million rubles to the account of Pravoved LLC for carrying out cultural work, - Tarusov said. - Then there were similar letters only about the transfer of money to the Garlex company. I never saw any of these companies, but nevertheless I paid them more than 11 million rubles. […]
You could refuse, but in this case you would not receive the next tranche,” said the head of the Black Sea children’s health resort. This is exactly what happened to him. The investigation does not exclude that there was an agreement between the private fund and individual officials of the regional divisions of the social insurance fund. This version is currently being tested.
No money was retained in the accounts of the non-profit foundation. They were transferred to several legal companies, which allegedly provided services to child care institutions. They, in turn, transferred them to third companies, and so on. There are no endings, as they say. There was another scheme for additional taxes. In particular, the investigation established facts of double collections of money for travel to and from the vacation spot. So in the Tver region they were first taken from their parents, and then from the health resorts where the children were sent. - Insert K.ru]

According to investigators, he began collaborating with the non-profit organization at the time when he headed the Kaluga regional branch of the FSS. Thanks to the efforts of the official, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation believes, the conclusion of contracts for the purchase of vouchers to health camps for children from the Kaluga region and a number of other regions was carried out exclusively through FPRZT.

In 2005, Andrei Abramov took the post of deputy chairman of the FSS, and in December 2007, the head of the Ministry of Social Development, Tatyana Golikova, entrusted him with temporarily acting as its chairman. However, he worked in this position only until the end of March 2008.

Later, the case against Abramov was taken over by the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Moscow.

Case No. 1-18/17

SENTENCE

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Povorinsky District Court of the Voronezh Region, consisting of:

presiding judge - judge I.V. Kukovsky;

under secretary Ponkratova N.A.;

with the participation of the state prosecutor of the Povorin interdistrict prosecutor's office Karpenko A.A.;

defendants Abramov Andrey Aleksandrovich, Bykov Nikolay Valerievich;

defender Kulyasov N.G., who provided certificate No. and warrant No. 36743, dated March 16, 2017;

defense attorney I.V. Zhukov, who provided ID No. and warrant No. 37413, dated March 16, 2017;

having examined in open court, in a special manner, the materials of the criminal case in relation to:

ABRAMOV ANDREY ALEXANDROVICH, DD.MM.YYYY year of birth, native, actually residing at the address: , convicted: 1) November 22, 2010 by the Povorinsky District Court of the Voronezh Region under Art. part 3, 158 part 3 paragraph “a”, to imprisonment for a term of 2 years suspended with a probationary period of 1 year; 2) 03/17/2011 by the Povorinsky District Court of the Voronezh Region under Art. Part 3, 158 Part 2, paragraph “b” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 1 year in prison. Based on Art. the unserved sentence of the sentence dated November 22, 2010 was partially added. A total of 2 years and 1 month of imprisonment. Released after serving his sentence on April 16, 2013; 3) 10/15/2013 by the Povorinsky District Court of the Voronezh Region under Art. Part 3, paragraph “a” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 3 years in prison. Released after serving his sentence on September 16, 2016, accused of committing a crime under clauses “a, b, c”, part 2 of Art. ,

BYKOV NIKOLAI VALERIEVICH, DD.MM.YYYY year of birth, native, registered at the address:, actually residing at the address:, not convicted, accused of committing a crime under clauses “a, b, c”, part 2 of Art. ,

INSTALLED:

Abramov Andrey Aleksandrovich and Bykov Nikolay Valerievich committed theft, that is, the secret theft of someone else's property, committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, with illegal entry into the premises, causing significant damage to a citizen, i.e. a crime provided for in paragraphs “a, b, c”, part 2 of Art. , under the following circumstances:

01/18/2017, around 21:00, Abramov A.A. together with Bykov N.V., being in a state alcohol intoxication and passing by, belonging to Victim No. 1, at the suggestion of N.V. Bykov. decided to steal any property from the summer kitchen, located in the courtyard of the above-mentioned household, in order to obtain material gain. Realizing that they were acting in concert by a group of people by prior conspiracy, complementing each other’s actions, and wanting to commit a crime in exactly this way, fulfilling their joint criminal intent aimed at secretly stealing other people’s property, making sure that no one was watching their actions, they climbed over the fence , fencing the territory of the household owned by Victim No. 1 After which, Bykov N.V., according to the role assigned to him, remained in the yard to observe the surrounding situation, so that if the owners of the house or other unauthorized persons appeared, he would warn Abramov A.A. ., and A.A. Abramov, according to his assigned role, having broken the glass in the window frame of the summer kitchen room, through the resulting opening, illegally entered this room, from where he secretly thefted funds in the amount of 15,350 rubles belonging to Victim No. 1, and through the same window opening left the summer kitchen. Having taken the stolen funds, Abramov A.A. and Bykov N.V. fled the crime scene after receiving real opportunity dispose of the stolen property at its own discretion, causing Victim No. 1 significant material damage in the amount of 15,350 rubles.

At the court hearing, defendant Abramov A.A. explained that he understood the charge brought against him, he agreed with it and supported his previously submitted request for a verdict without a trial. This petition is voluntary and submitted after consultation with a defense lawyer. He is aware of the provisions of Art. procedural consequences on the inadmissibility of appealing against a sentence passed without a trial, based on disagreement with the factual circumstances of the charge admitted by him.

At the court hearing, defendant N.V. Bykov. explained that he understood the charge brought against him, he agreed with it and supported his previously submitted request for a verdict without a trial. This petition is voluntary and submitted after consultation with a defense lawyer. He is aware of the provisions of Art. procedural consequences on the inadmissibility of appealing against a sentence passed without a trial, based on disagreement with the factual circumstances of the charge admitted by him.

Defender N.G. Kulyasov does not object to the consideration of a criminal case in a special judicial procedure.

Defender I.V. Zhukov does not object to the consideration of a criminal case in a special judicial procedure.

Victim No. 1, duly notified of the date and time of the court hearing, did not appear in court, sending a telephone message in which she asked to consider the case in her absence, and does not object to the consideration of the criminal case in a special court procedure. She asked that both be sentenced to imprisonment and objects to the reconciliation of the parties.

State prosecutor Karpenko A.A. does not object to the consideration of a criminal case in a special judicial procedure.

Based on the agreement of the parties on the procedure for rendering the verdict and taking into account that Abramov A.A. charge of committing a crime under paragraphs “a, b, c”, part 2 of Art. , is justified and confirmed by the evidence collected in the case, and the punishment for this crime does not exceed 10 years in prison, the court comes to the conclusion that there are grounds provided by law for the recognition of the defendant Abramov A.A. guilty of committing a crime under paragraphs “a, b, c”, part 2 of Art. , without a trial.

Based on the agreement of the parties on the procedure for determining the verdict and taking into account that the evidence presented to Bykov N.V. charge of committing a crime under paragraphs “a, b, c”, part 2 of Art. , is justified and confirmed by the evidence collected in the case, and the punishment for this crime does not exceed 10 years in prison, the court comes to the conclusion that there are grounds provided by law for recognizing the defendant N.V. Bykov. guilty of committing a crime under paragraphs “a, b, c”, part 2 of Art. , without a trial.

The court qualifies the actions of A.A. Abramov. according to paragraphs “a, b, c”, part 2 of Art. - theft, that is, the secret theft of someone else’s property, committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, with illegal entry into the premises, causing significant damage to a citizen.

The court qualifies the actions of Bykov N.V. according to paragraphs “a, b, c”, part 2 of Art. - theft, that is, the secret theft of someone else’s property, committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, with illegal entry into the premises, causing significant damage to a citizen.

There are no circumstances leading to the termination of criminal prosecution, the release of defendants from criminal liability or punishment.

When assigning punishment, the court takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, the identity of the perpetrators, circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted and the living conditions of their families.

When assigning punishment, the court takes into account that the defendants Abramov A.A. and Bykov N.V. committed a crime of moderate gravity.

The certificates examined at the court hearing established that the defendant Abramov A.A. previously convicted (vol. 1 case file 199-203, 214, 223-224, 225-226, 227-228, 229-230); actively contributed to the detection and investigation of the crime (vol. 1 case sheet 80-83, 116-119, 170-173); (vol. 1 case file 204); the district commissioner at the place of previous residence is characterized negatively (vol. 1, case file 209); the place of previous residence is characterized negatively (vol. 1, case file 210); characterized satisfactorily by the local commissioner at the place of registration (vol. 1, case file 211); at the place of serving the sentence in PKU IK-3 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Voronezh Region it is characterized negatively (vol. 1 case file 212-213); (vol. 1 case file 222); (vol. 1 pp. 218-219); (vol. 1 pp. 216-217); (vol. 1 pp. 220-221); was not brought to administrative responsibility (vol. 1 case file 205-208).

The court recognizes the recidivism of crimes as a circumstance aggravating the punishment of the defendant Abramov A.A.

According to the defendant, his being intoxicated did not in any way affect his commission of the crime, and regardless of his condition, he would have committed the crime.

The defendant is not registered (vol. 1 case file 216-217).

Thus, the court committed a crime while intoxicated caused by drinking alcohol, an aggravating circumstance for Abramova A.A. is not recognized.

Circumstances mitigating the punishment of the defendant Abramov A.A. recognized by the court: full admission of guilt, repentance for what they have done, active contribution to the detection and investigation of the crime).

The court takes into account the cost and nature of the stolen property, the circumstances established by the court of the behavior of the defendant Abramov A.A., both at the time of the commission of the crime and after it, the nature and degree of actual participation in its commission, the significance of this participation in achieving the goal of the crime, its influence on the nature and extent of the harm caused, the severity of the offense, the identity of the perpetrator (we have been previously convicted several times, the district commissioner at the place of registration is characterized as satisfactory, the district commissioner at the place of previous residence is characterized negatively, the head at the place of previous residence is characterized negatively, at the place of serving the sentence in the Federal Public Institution of the Penal Code -3 The Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in the Voronezh Region is characterized negatively, he was not brought to administrative responsibility) his marital status (), financial situation (), circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment, the need for the influence of the imposed punishment on the correction of the defendant.

Assessing these circumstances together, the court comes to the conclusion that the correction of Abramov A.A. is possible only in conditions of isolation from society, since after a short period of time (four months) after being released from prison after serving his sentence, during the period of an unexpunged and unexpunged conviction, he committed a deliberate crime of moderate gravity, which indicates an unwillingness to take the path corrections and persistent unlawful behavior and it is the actual deprivation of liberty of the defendant that will achieve the goals of punishment provided for in Part 2 of Art. - not only the correction of the convicted person, but also the prevention of the commission of new crimes, the restoration of social justice.

Grounds for appointing Abramov A.A. punishment using articles and is not available. The court comes to this conclusion on the basis of the fulfillment of the goals of punishment, namely the correction of the convicted person in conditions of his isolation from society and the prevention of his commission of new crimes. The court did not establish any exceptional circumstances related to the goals and motives of the theft, the behavior of the defendant during and after the crime, which significantly reduce the degree of public danger of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator.

Abramov A.A. a punishment must be imposed within the sanction of Part 2 of Art. , in the form of imprisonment, using Part 5 of Art. , part 2 art. .

In connection with the appointment of Abramov A.A. punishment associated with isolation from society, and in accordance with paragraph “c” of Part 1 of Art. , serving a sentence for Abramov A.A. having a relapse of crimes, and since he previously served imprisonment, be assigned to penal colony strict regime.

Grounds for imposing additional punishment on A.A. Abramov. the court does not have one.

The grounds for changing the category of the crime of which the defendant Abramov A.A. is accused of committing it to a less serious one, in accordance with Part 6 of Art. , the court does not have it.

Grounds for application to the defendant Abramov A.A. provisions of Art. Art. , the court does not have it.

Procedural costs, by virtue of Part 10 of Art. Part 3. Judicial proceedings > Section X. Special procedure for trial > Chapter 40. Special procedure for making a court decision if the accused agrees with the charge brought against him > Article 316. Procedure for holding a court hearing and passing a sentence" target="_blank">316 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation , are subject to reimbursement from the federal budget.

The certificates examined at the court hearing established that the defendant Bykov N.V. no previous convictions (vol. 2 pp. 1-3); actively contributed to the detection and investigation of the crime (vol. 1 case sheets 88-91, 110-112, 179-189); the district commissioner at the place of residence without registration is characterized negatively (vol. 2, case 7); characterized satisfactorily by the local commissioner at the place of registration (vol. 2, case sheet 8); at the place of registration it is characterized satisfactorily (vol. 2 case file 17); (vol. 2 pp. 10, 15); (vol. 2 pp. 12-13, 16); was not brought to administrative responsibility (vol. 2 case sheets 5-6).

The court did not establish any circumstances aggravating the punishment of the defendant N.V. Bykov.

Paragraph 31 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2015 N 58 “On the practice of imposing criminal punishment by the courts of the Russian Federation” established that, in accordance with Part 1.1 of the article, the commission of a crime in a state of intoxication caused by the use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, psychotropic or other intoxicating substances is not the only and sufficient basis for recognizing such a condition as an aggravating circumstance. When resolving the issue of the possibility of recognizing the specified state of a person at the time of commission of a crime as an aggravating circumstance, the court must take into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, the influence of the state of intoxication on the person’s behavior when committing a crime, as well as the identity of the perpetrator.

According to the defendant, his being intoxicated did not in any way affect his commission of the crime, and regardless of his condition, he would have committed the crime because he needed money.

The defendant is not registered (vol. 2 case sheets 12-13, 16).

Thus, the court committed a crime while intoxicated caused by drinking alcohol, an aggravating circumstance for Bykova N.V. is not recognized.

Circumstances mitigating the punishment of the defendant Bykov N.V. recognized by the court: no previous convictions, full admission of guilt, repentance for what they have done, active contribution to the detection and investigation of the crime.

The court takes into account the cost and nature of the stolen property, the circumstances established by the court of the behavior of the defendant N.V. Bykov, both at the time of the commission of the crime (offered to commit theft) and after it, the nature and degree of actual participation in its commission, the significance of this participation for achieving the purpose of the crime, its impact on the nature and extent of the harm caused, the severity of the offense, the identity of the perpetrator (we have not previously been convicted, the district commissioner at the place of residence without registration is characterized negatively, the district commissioner at the place of registration is characterized satisfactorily, the place of registration is characterized satisfactorily, administrative liability was not involved), his marital status (), financial situation), circumstances mitigating the punishment, the need for the influence of the imposed punishment on the correction of the defendant.

Bykov N.V. a punishment must be imposed within the sanction of Part 2 of Art. UK.

A more severe type of punishment from among those provided for the crime committed is assigned only if a less severe type of punishment cannot ensure the achievement of the goals of the punishment.

Taking into account information about the personality of Bykov N.V. and his active role in the commission of the crime, expressed in the proposal to commit theft, however, given that he has not previously been convicted, the court considers it possible to appoint N.V. Bykova. punishment not associated with actual deprivation of liberty, in the form of correctional labor, since his correction and re-education is possible without isolation from society.

In accordance with paragraph 33 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2015 N58 “On the practice of imposing criminal punishment by the courts of the Russian Federation,” the most severe type of punishment in the article should be understood as the type of punishment listed in the sanction of the article that is the most severe based on the provisions of the article. It does not matter whether this type of punishment can be imposed on the perpetrator, taking into account the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

SENTENCED:

ABRAMOV ANDREY ALEXANDROVICH was found guilty of committing a crime under clauses “a, b, c”, part 2 of Art. , and sentence him to imprisonment for a term of 2 (two) years 6 (six) months to be served in a maximum security correctional colony.

Preventive measure for A.A. Abramov until the sentence enters into legal force, leave it unchanged - detention.

The term of serving the sentence for Abramov A.A. count from March 29, 2017, count the time of his detention in custody from January 23, 2017 to March 29, 2017 into the term of serving the sentence.

Release A.A. Abramov. from collecting procedural costs from him, having reimbursed them from the funds of the Federal Budget of the Russian Federation.

NIKOLAY VALERIEVICH BYKOV was found guilty of committing a crime under clauses “a, b, c”, part 2 of Art. , and sentence him to correctional labor for a period of 1 (one) year 6 (six) months with the deduction of 10% of wages to the state.

Change Bykova N.V. a preventive measure from detention to a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior, leaving this preventive measure until the sentence enters into legal force.

Release N.V. Bykov. from collecting procedural costs from him, having reimbursed them from the funds of the Federal Budget of the Russian Federation.

Physical evidence: 1) a fragment of a shoe print in plaster cast No. 2, taken from the surface of the snow cover and hand prints taken from the surface of the window frame of the summer kitchen, located at the address: , during the inspection of the scene of the incident on January 19, 2017, stored at in a criminal case, after the verdict comes into force - to destroy; 2) a pair of winter men's boots, seized during the seizure on January 27, 2017 from the accused A.A. Abramov, stored in the criminal case, after the verdict enters into legal force, return according to their belongings to A.A. Abramov.

The verdict can be appealed on appeal to the Voronezh Regional Court within 10 days from the date of its proclamation, and by a convicted person in custody - within the same period from the date of delivery of a copy of the verdict.

If an appeal is filed, the convicted person has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the court of appeal.

Chairperson: ___________________________ I. V. Kukovsky

Court:

Povorinsky District Court ( Voronezh region)

Judges of the case:

Kukovsky Igor Vladimirovich (judge)

Judicial practice on:

For thefts

Judicial practice on the application of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Do you think you are Russian? Were you born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is wrong.

Are you actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian? But do you think that you are a Jew?

Game? Wrong word. The right word"imprinting".

The newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living creatures with vision.

Newborns in the USSR saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time during the first few days, and most of the time they saw the faces of the maternity hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. The technique is wild in its essence and effectiveness.

Throughout your childhood, you wondered why you lived surrounded by strangers. The rare Jews on your way could do whatever they wanted with you, because you were drawn to them, and pushed others away. Yes, even now they can.

You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It’s difficult to understand; the instinct took shape when you were still very far from being able to formulate it. From that moment, no words or details were preserved. Only facial features remained in the depths of memory. Those traits that you consider to be your own.

3 comments

System and observer

Let's define a system as an object whose existence is beyond doubt.

An observer of a system is an object that is not part of the system it observes, that is, it determines its existence through factors independent of the system.

The observer, from the point of view of the system, is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a cause-and-effect relationship with the system.

An internal observer is an object potentially accessible to the system in relation to which inversion of observation and control channels is possible.

An external observer is an object, even potentially unattainable for the system, located beyond the system’s event horizon (spatial and temporal).

Hypothesis No. 1. All Seeing Eye

Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can occur, for example, with the help of “gravitational radiation” penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The cross section of the capture of “gravitational radiation” is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the “shadow” from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the “shadow”.

The capture of “gravitational radiation” by an object increases its chaos and is perceived by us as the passage of time. An object opaque to “gravitational radiation”, the capture cross section of which is larger than its geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.

Hypothesis No. 2. Inner Observer

It is possible that our universe is observing itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles separated in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, reaching its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means that there is no capture cross section on the trajectories of objects that is large enough to absorb these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Passage of time

An outside observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the determining factor of time in the universe is an “external observer,” will slow down exactly twice - the shadow of the black hole will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation.” If the determining factor is the “internal observer,” then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for an outside view.

It is also possible that these hypotheses can be combined in one proportion or another.

The Vyborg District Court of St. Petersburg issued the first verdict in a high-profile criminal case against former top managers of the restoration company Intarsia, accused of embezzling at least 321.4 million rubles. during the reconstruction of the “house with lions”, which is on the balance sheet of the presidential administration (UDP). Former deputy general director of Intarsia Dmitry Sokolov, who signed a pre-trial cooperation agreement, received four years of suspended imprisonment. The case of the ex-owner and head of Intarsia, Viktor Smirnov, who lives in London, has not yet reached the court. As reported by the joint press service of the courts of St. Petersburg, the former deputy general director of Intarsia, Dmitry Sokolov, was recognized as an accomplice in the misappropriation and embezzlement of funds from Tristar Investment Holdings CJSC on an especially large scale (part 5 of article 33 and part 4 of article 160 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The court established his guilt in the execution of a contract concluded in 2009 for 2.1 billion rubles. for the reconstruction of the Lobanov-Rostovsky mansion (the famous “house with lions”) next to St. Isaac’s Square into a five-star Four Seasons hotel. The building was rented from UDP by the construction investor, Tristar Investment Holdings CJSC, controlled by the son of the ex-head of Russian Railways, Andrei Yakunin. The project of the Four Seasons Hotel, which opened in 2013 (investments amounted to $250 million), ended for Intarsia, at that time one of the largest contractors in the restoration market, with the termination of the contract with Tristar Investment Holdings and a commercial dispute, which, at the initiative of the customer, turned into a criminal case . During the arbitration processes, representatives of Tristar, according to them, were faced with “falsified documents and deliberate illegal actions.” The customer contacted law enforcement agencies, which became the reason for initiating a criminal case. The ex-owner of Intarsia, Viktor Smirnov, and his former deputy, Dmitry Sokolov, were accused of embezzlement of 320 million rubles; in addition, Viktor Smirnov was charged with attempted theft of another almost 400 million rubles. According to the verdict, Intarsia did not complete all the work within the 1.663 billion rubles allocated to it under the contract, without returning the unused portion of the funds. The court found that the customer suffered damage of at least 321.4 million rubles. Mr. Sokolov was sentenced to four years of suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of two years and a fine of 100 thousand rubles. The case of Dmitry Sokolov, who made a deal with the investigation and repented, was separated into a separate proceeding from another, in which Viktor Smirnov, now living in London and declared in international search. His case was returned from the Oktyabrsky District Court to the prosecutor's office in May last year due to procedural violations. The Prosecutor General's Office tried to get the case considered not in St. Petersburg, but in Karelia, suspecting the St. Petersburg judges of bias towards the defendants in the case and drawing attention to the fact that the case against Viktor Smirnov was closed five times by the main investigative department of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. However, the supervisory agency failed to convince the Supreme Court of the presence of a corruption component in the actions of the police and judges in the region, and the case was returned to St. Petersburg. However, it has not yet been received by any district court. Viktor Smirnov told Kommersant that, according to his information, the main case has been suspended until the completion of the trial against Dmitry Sokolov. “I’m glad that he remained free,” the businessman commented on the verdict, noting that his former deputy “has a sick wife and six children in his arms.” “He changed his testimony and made a deal with the investigation after he was arrested for several days,” Viktor Smirnov emphasized. Last year, the businessman appealed to President Vladimir Putin and Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika with complaints about “pressure from the security forces,” claiming that he was under criminal prosecution because of Intarsia’s conflict with Andrei Yakunin’s company. The position of the arbitration courts in this case changed radically: at first, the Moscow Arbitration Court satisfied the claim of Intarsia against Tristar in the amount of about 600 million rubles. But the proceedings in the appeal and subsequent instances ended with the opposite result: about 4 billion rubles. recovered in favor of Tristar from Intarsia. This company is now in bankruptcy proceedings; as part of a criminal case, a civil lawsuit was filed by the customer against Viktor Smirnov.

Discussing:

Training tasks for ket for schools: Greetings, my dear readers. Sometimes to make our dreams come true...
“And we met a living writer!: This year “DET GIZ” turned 80 years old. In honor of the anniversary, the most respected and...
Time indications – Zeitangaben Thursday in German: Today we will tell you about a rather interesting topic, such as the days of the week....
Gogol "Taras Bulba" (6th grade): Describing the steppe, Gogol is an excellent master of verbal painting,...