The accused are the ex-director of the foundation, Elena Naidanova, and the former deputy governor of the Perm region, Elena Lopayeva. One of the witnesses is Maxim Reshetnikov, who held the position in 2017-2020. position of Governor of the Perm Territory, and now Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation.
The defendants claim that they received instructions from the former governor to spend the funds of the fund on the personal needs of Reshetnikov and his family. The range of these expenses is wide – from expensive Mercedes, furniture and home appliances to restaurants and linen. The corresponding accounts were marked “MG” (Maxim Gennadievich), they were recorded in a special Excel table. Both defendants point to Maxim Reshetnikov as the organizer of the embezzlement.
Reshetnikov, during the interrogation in absentia, replied that he knew nothing about spending the funds of the fund on his personal needs; he allegedly paid for them himself from his own personal funds. He admitted that the defendants could pay from the funds of the fund for goods and services related to its maintenance, on their own initiative, “showing excessive official zeal.”
According to experts, according to established judicial practice, if there are a large number of obvious contradictions in the case, the final judicial act is not issued, and the court returns the case to law enforcement agencies for re-investigation.
Lawyers comment that no evidence has pre-established force, as stated in Article 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The verdict must be made on reliable evidence, when all the emerging versions of the case have been investigated, and the existing contradictions have been clarified and assessed. All doubts about the guilt of the accused, which cannot be eliminated in the manner established by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, are interpreted in favor of the accused.
In complex criminal cases of an economic and corruption nature, taking into account the large volume of the case, the number of episodes included in it and the presence of grounds for declaring a number of evidence inadmissible, a large number of obvious contradictions, established judicial practice shows that from the first time the final judicial act, as a rule, is not issued, and the court sends the case for re-investigation.
In Perm, the judicial investigation into a high-profile criminal case regarding the theft of 67.7 million rubles from the charitable foundation “Assistance – XXI Century” is being completed. Despite the obvious underlying corruption, they apparently try not to notice this at the trial.
“ВЧК ОГПУ”
