(The head of the Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee of Tatarstan analyzes a number of high-profile criminal cases over two and a half years)
The well-known Internet resource “BUSINESS Online” published a detailed interview with the head of the investigative department of the Investigative Committee of Russia for Tatarstan, Valery Lipsky. In a conversation with a journalist, he analyzes the work of the republic’s investigative bodies over the past two and a half years. It should be noted that this particular stage of the work of Valery Lipsky, who was appointed to such a responsible position for a five-year term in February 2020, was associated with a scandal; a safe with money and especially important documents was stolen from the department for investigating particularly important cases of the investigative committee for the region, and As it later turned out, investigators from the investigative committee were involved in the abduction. But Mr. Lipsky kept silent about this. But he talked a lot about his positions and beliefs.
– We have a principled position – there are no untouchables in the republic. And at the same time, there is no goal to imprison as many corrupt officials as possible. Our investigative department, which is a kind of “anvil,” is called upon to help the republic,” says the head of the Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee, and in this context talks about a number of high-profile cases that have received wide publicity.
This is the detention of the heads of the republican Ministry of Emergency Situations, the investigation of a new criminal case against the ex-head of Tatfondbank Robert Musin, as well as other bank managers – Evgenia Dautova, Marcel Zaripov.
In addition, Valery Lipsky answered questions related to the high-profile cases of the former chief of the Volga region department of Rostechnadzor Boris Petrov, the former head of Buinsk Aglyam Sadretdinov and the former rector of the federal university Ilshat Gafurov.
At first glance, the reader is presented with a fairly frank interview with a high-ranking employee of the investigative committee, who does not hide his assessment of the results of the investigation, which he essentially should not do.
However, upon careful analysis of the information, a number of questions arise. The cases that Valery Lipsky talks about are at different stages of “implementation”. Some of the defendants in high-profile criminal cases have admitted their guilt and are cooperating with the investigation, while others, like Ilshat Gafurov, completely deny it. In some cases, the investigation has been completed and a court verdict has been issued. Somewhere the court has yet to give its assessment of the totality of evidence against the accused.
For example, in the so-called “bankers’ case,” where the main defendant is the former head of Tatfondbank, Robert Musin, the court initially sentenced him to 12.5 years in prison. However, the court verdict has not yet entered into legal force. And “following up” another investigative material about “abuse of power” arose.
And in the case of Ilshat Gafurov, ex-rector of KFU, detained in December 2021, a preventive measure of detention was immediately chosen.
However, the head of the republican investigative department admits to the journalist in his interview that “based on my inner conviction and evidence base, I believe that rector Gafurov is involved in organizing the murder.” This statement is surprising in that a manager of this level gives an assessment of a case that is not under investigation by his subordinates – it has been under investigation by a higher investigative body for more than one year, and therefore he has no right to know the results of the investigation, much less comment on them.
That is, without waiting for a court decision and compliance with all procedural norms, the head of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Tajikistan a priori determines the guilt of the suspect and actually undoes the work of his colleagues and already made court decisions.
I would like to understand how much this kind of “revelations” corresponds to ethical and legal rules? And for one thing, let me remind you that, in accordance with the Constitution, the court in our state is an independent authority, including from the investigative authorities, and it is unacceptable to “suggest” to it the result of the verdict!
“ВЧК ОГПУ”
