New details of the criminal investigation against Tatarstan businessman Sirin Badrutdinov, a former business partner of Senator Dmitry Savelyev, are becoming known. One of the tasks facing the investigator of the Investigative Directorate for the Southern Administrative District of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Moscow, Kirill Arkharov, in whose proceedings until recently there was a criminal case, was the task of taking Badrutdinov into custody, placing him in a pre-trial detention center and actually depriving him of the opportunity to take part in the activities of Spetsstroyservis LLC. . For this purpose, having detained Badrutdinov in December 2020, investigator Arkharov applied to the Chertanovsky District Court of Moscow with a request to take him into custody. However, seeing the absurdity of the charges brought against him and the absence of any grounds for placing Badrutdinov in a pre-trial detention center, the court took a “compromise” option, rejecting the investigator and choosing a preventive measure against Badrutdinov in the form of house arrest. Investigator Arkharov did not rest on this and six months later again appealed to the Chertanovsky District Court with a petition to change Badrutdinov’s preventive measure to detention. The basis was a “fake” report from operatives from the GUEBiPK Ministry of Internal Affairs about Badrutdinov’s alleged violation of the house arrest regime. This report is based on information from the Parsiv operational database, according to which allegedly “a match was established between Badrutdinov’s photo and the photo of persons recorded by the city video surveillance system in places remote from the location of Badrutdinov under house arrest.” But in the extract itself from this database, also presented by operas, this match is recorded as low, equal to 73%, which clearly indicates that the photos depict different people. For Arkharov, this turned out to be quite enough to ask the court to change the measure of restraint. Considering that the criminal-executive inspection, which monitors Badrutdinov’s compliance with house arrest, did not record any violations, investigator Arkharov presented the court with a report drawn up in his own hand, in which he indicated that he considered it inappropriate to send a request to the criminal-executive inspection about Badrutdinov’s execution of house arrest, adding , that “the defendant’s control device may be subject to physical and electrical influences aimed at disorienting the device in space and misleading employees of the regulatory authority.” Thus, Arkharov actually accused the entire penal system of the Russian Federation of incompetence. The Chertanovsky District Court, which was repeatedly noted for bias and bias, was satisfied with this justification and took Badrutdinov into custody. However, the Moscow City Court, having considered the appeal against this decision, logically doubted the objectivity of the investigator’s arguments and overturned the decision of the Chertanovsky District Court, releasing Badrutdinov from the pre-trial detention center back to house arrest. These actions of Arkharov and the operatives who condoned him show signs of malfeasance, which the competent authorities must look into. The very isolation of Badrutdinov in a pre-trial detention center and under house arrest made it possible for Dmitry Savelyev to remove him from the opportunity to take part in the activities and subsequent bankruptcy cases of their joint companies in order to shift the responsibility for bringing these enterprises to bankruptcy onto Badrutdinov. The tools for solving this problem for Savelyev are a criminal case on charges of misappropriation of assets of their joint LLC Spetsstroyservis, as well as direct bankruptcy cases, in which Savelyev shows particular ingenuity, which we will discuss later. At the same time, the groundlessness of holding Badrutdinov both in custody and under house arrest was actually confirmed by the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia, where the case was transferred for further investigation, after which Badrutdinov was released from house arrest, as the Cheka-OGPU previously wrote about.
“ВЧК ОГПУ”
