“Unacceptable procedural violations.” Lawyer Rustam Gabdulin. It’s time to…

“Unacceptable procedural violations.”
Lawyer Rustam Gabdulin.

It’s time to talk in detail about one of the cases where I am a defense attorney. It’s about about the detention of Marat Tambiev, head of the investigation department for the Tver district of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee for Moscowon suspicion of receiving a bribe of 26 million rubles.

1. Upon arrest.

Advertisement

Not long ago in the channel we raised the problem of calculating the time limits for the actual detention of suspects. So here is a very striking example from practice. My principal in this case, Tambiev M.Kh., was actually detained as a suspect (a criminal case has already been initiated at this point) March 25 at 9:53 during a search of his apartment. To the lawyer’s question “Has Tambiev been detained?” – the investigator, completing the preparation of the search protocol, replied that “yes, Tambiev has been detained as a suspect”. All this was recorded on video.

However, in violation of the requirements of Part 2 of Article 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in the arrest report The investigator indicates that Tambiev M.Kh. allegedly actually detained March 25 at 1:35 p.m. in the investigator’s office Main Investigative Directorate of the Russian Federation Investigative Committee.

The second point: during the search in the apartment, Tambiev’s lawyer M.Kh. was present. In accordance with Part 1.1 of Article 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the participation of a lawyer in drawing up a detention protocol is mandatory. However, the investigator violated this requirementthe participation of a lawyer in drawing up the protocol of my client’s detention is not ensured, which is recorded in the comments to the protocol.

Total: 1. the arrest report contains unreliable, false data on the time and place of his actual detention, 2. the report was drawn up in violation of Art. 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, respectively the very detention of Tambiev M.Kh. is already illegal!

2. Upon selection of a preventive measure.

Let’s start with the main thing – the investigation did not provide any specific factual data, confirming the involvement Tambieva M.Kh. to the charged act. The defense has reliably established that Tambiev M.Kh. did not have any information at all on the essence of the problem for the “solution” of which this money was allegedly transferred to him. This was a deliberately false denunciation and provocation.

Without going into other details, I’ll add one thing – even a copy of my principal’s passport is presented in the material in an unreadable form. In this regard, it is not clear how the court was able to verify Tambiev’s identity?! Perhaps this is really a mistake and they took the wrong one?

But jokes aside, what is important is this: the severity of the charge alone cannot be considered a sufficient circumstance for choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention. However, it is she who is chosen by the court in this particular case, despite all the arguments of the defense and gross procedural violations...