The criminal case on the chairman of the board of the Bank “Trust” M. Khabarov, like others …

The criminal case on the chairman of the board of the Trust Bank, M. Khabarov, like other custom -made criminal cases in Moscow, was organized by participants in the corruption scandal on the purchase of places of the deputy head of the Main Directorate of the IC of the Russian Federation for Moscow. Therefore, the case was opened without verification, and Khabarov was immediately detained. This case checked devotion to corrupt officials and the diligence of the investigator V. Fedorov, not so long ago appointed in the GSU from the Kuban, who, without blinking an eye, met the expectations of the bosses.

However, apparently the customers and executors of this criminal case did not expect that the entire business community, including the RSPP and the Commissioner for the Rights of Entrepreneurs Titov, as well as the chairman of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, to join M. Khabarov.

As a result, the criminal case was very quickly transferred to the central apparatus of the IC of the Russian Federation, where it, as follows from numerous publications in the media, is slowly but correctly falling apart.

Advertisement

But the behavior of the founder and beneficiary of A. Bogatikov’s business lines, his lawyers A. Kobzev and T. Vladimirova, who, having lost in the London commercial arbitration in the lawsuit of Khabarov, did not come up with a better and more interesting thing, did not come up with a better case of Khabarov’s claim, than to institute criminal proceedings on Khabarov.

To do this, Kobzev and Vladimirov changed the London testimony of Bogatikov, added terrible words like “misleading”, “put pressure”, “in the organizing system”, etc., cleaned up labor documentation in business lines, mounted a spreadsheet on the knee. 840 million rubles and brought all this good to the Moscow State Supremecy triment of the IC of the Russian Federation and showed a finger at Khabarov.

At the same time, for some reason, the lawyers Kobzev and Vladimirov did not suggest that Khabarov would introduce the real testimony of Bogatikov in London to the case, and the investigation of the central apparatus of the SK would develop the falsification of the electric table.

After the Commissioner for Entrepreneurs in the Russian Federation, Boris Titov, began to check the circumstances of the detention of Khabarov, Kobzev and Vladimirov on behalf of business lines very quickly sent him the answer that Khabarov had never worked for them. But when the protocols of the meeting of the leadership of their company were shown by the business lines, among which the heroes, Khabarov and Kobzev were listed, and the protocol was engaged in, they would never guess who-yes, it was Vladimirov, these lawyers somehow abruptly fell silent, but then they began to complain where only they could be complained .

What is the professional level of Bogatikov’s lawyers, if they managed to write a statement, for some reason, the prosecutor of the city of Moscow to bring the defenders of Khabarov and Boris Titov to criminal liability for the commission of a crime under Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, considering the work of Titov and his apparatus “interference in criminal proceedings.”

And when they received a complete refusal on this statement, the lawyer of Vladimirov, being a lawyer of the city of Moscow, wrote a statement to the Moscow prosecutor to hold accounting for the leadership of the Moscow Lawyer Chamber for protecting Khabarova.