As Platon Lebedev continues his uncompromising struggle against Russia’s investigative committee, Lebedev’s defence team sent the committee yet another appeal.

Lebedev’s lawyers, Krasnov and Miroshnichenko, filed a report on March 6^th, 2013 detailing the crime committed by Moscow City Court judges who, on December 20, 2012, confirmed the verdict handed down at the end of the second trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev in December 2010, despite all the legal and factual arguments against it.

The investigative committee has not responded to this appeal. 

Below is a translation of their report:

To the Chair of the RF Investigative Committee

A.I. Bastrykin

from lawyers:

1) V.N. Krasnov

Law Partnership of Gauf and Partners);

2) A.Ye. Miroshnichenko

Branch No. 37 of the Moscow Oblast Bar Association);

in defence of Platon Leonidovich Lebedev
(165150, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Velsky Rayon,
village of Gorka Muravievskaya, FKU IK-14, 
UFSIN of Russia for Arkhangelsk Oblast, Detachment 7)

REPORT OF CRIME

On 20 December 2012, the Presidium of the Moscow City Court, composed of judges D.A. Fomin, G.A. Agafonova, S.E. Kurtsinsh, E.M. Bazkova and N.A. Vasilyeva issued a judgment on the supervisory appeals of P.L. Lebedev’s and M.B. Khodorkovsky’s defence against a verdict of the Khamovnichesky District Court of the city of Moscow of 27 December 2010 and respective judicial acts of courts of the subsequent instances (hereinafter – “the Judgment”).

This unjust court decision has been appealed by Lebedev’s and Khodorkovsky’s defence lawyers in the statutory procedure to the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the RF Supreme Court. Among the multitude of indisputable reasons for the repeal of the Judgment listed in the defence’s supervisory appeal, we should specifically note facts of direct inclusion in that court decision of blatantly and indisputably untrue information, that is of direct falsification (forgery), which notably had an obviously intentional nature.

Those facts of falsification, which resulted from deliberate actions of the judges (members of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court), should also be reviewed by preliminary investigation agencies in the procedure provided for by Chapter 19 CCrimP RF as containing features of abuse of office under Art. 292 CrimC RF irrespective of their mentioning in the supervisory appeal of the defence to the RF Supreme Court against the Judgment.

Pre-empting a possible mala fide attempt of the investigative agency to evade proper examination of this Report on the pretext of it allegedly being an appeal against a court decision that should be appealed to higher judicial instances in the procedure prescribed for that, the authors of this report would like to emphasize the following.

Neither the law, nor the judicial practice, in any way link the resolution of issues concerning carrying out of a pre-investigative review and opening of a criminal case upon facts containing features of the crime under Art. 292 CrimC RF to the results of appealing judicial acts to the higher courts. On the contrary, results of the investigation of abuse of office cases can, on some occasions, affect the very possibility of a review of a court decision.

What is checked in the process of the appeal of a judicial act is its lawfulness and substantiation per se, irrespective of whether the unlawful decision was issued maliciously or due to various misconceptions. A review of the reports of crime and criminal investigation of cases of the said categories, however, check the existence of features of the respective offences related to the process of the administration of justice. The criminal-procedure law does not provide for any other form of resolution of reports about crimes except for the one provided for by Chapter 19 CCrimP RF. Therefore, those issues cannot by any means substitute each other.

The specific facts of inclusion of knowingly false information into the text of the Judgment are as follows.

Page 10 paragraph 4 of the Judgment contains a knowingly false allegation that “The allegations of the authors of the supervisory appeals that the transactions resulted in the oil production companies receiving not only compensation of the cost of production of the product but also some profit do not square with the facts …” (emphasis added) However, from the case file[1] and even from the text of the verdict of the Khamovnichesky District Court of the city of Moscow itself[2] it follows irrefutably that during the material period the so-called “injured parties” received profit in excess of 3 billion US dollars. The cynical lies of the members of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court on this issue have been included into the text of the Judgment despite numerous mentionings of receipt of substantial profits by the so-called “injured parties” in cassation and supervisory appeals of the defence[3].

Page 11 paragraph 2 of the Judgment says that “The conclusions of the court concerning establishment of the maximally understated prices for oil purchased by OAO NK Yukos and other sham companies from OAO Samaraneftegas, OAO Yuganskneftegas and OAO Tomskneft VNK and the real market prices to be applied for the determination of the size of the damage caused to the injured parties were also based on case-file materials examined in the court hearing: forensic accounting reports (emphasis added)….” At the same time, no forensic accounting to determine prices for the oil produced by the so-called “injured parties” was done either in the course of the investigation of the case or in the course of the trial. The verdict of the Khamovnichesky District Court and the cassation ruling do not contain any references to that forensic accounting thought up by the members of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court.

The Judgment (p.7 paragraph 2) also says that general agreements concerning conditions of the sale of oil by the “injured parties” set some sort of “understated” prices, although in actuality those agreements contain no information about prices whatsoever!

Page 7 paragraph 3 of the Judgment contains a blatant lie about oil being transported by state-owned company Transneft on the basis of some “fictitious” documents; neither the charges, nor the verdict say a word about this.

The blatant, simple and inelaborate nature of the forgery committed multiplied by the substantial number of other manipulations existing in the text of the Judgment deprive anyone who will try to free the judges who signed it from blame of any opportunity to describe it as some sort of “awry” or “inaccurate” wording of allegedly correct inferences. The nature and the scope of what has been done during the issuance of the Judgment unequivocally shows intentional falsification simultaneously pursuing the goals of covering up a lynching disguised as court proceedings and helplessness of attempts to refute defence arguments using reasons.

On the basis of the above and pursuant to Arts. 140-141, 144-146 and 447-448 CCrimP RF, we hereby request:

1. That a criminal case be opened upon the facts of intentional actions containing features of the crime under Art. 292 CrimC RF set out in this report.

2. That the issue of holding Moscow City Court judges D.A. Fomin, G.A. Agafonova, S.E. Kurtsinsh, E.M. Bazkova and N.A. Vasilyeva criminally liable be resolved in the statutory procedure.

3. That the authors of the report and P.L. Lebedev be notified about the decision within the time-limit set by the law.

P.S. The documents referred to herein by the defence are not attached since they are contained in the criminal case file easily accessible for representatives of the investigative authorities.

Lawyers

V.N. Krasnov

A.Ye. Miroshnichenko