1. Interference in any form in the activities of the court in order to obstruct the administration of justice -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to two hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or by forced labor for a term of up to two years, or by arrest for a term of up to six months, or by imprisonment for a term of up to two years.
2. Interference in any form in the activities of a prosecutor, investigator or person conducting an inquiry, in order to impede a comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the case -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to eighty thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to six months, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to four hundred eighty hours, or by arrest for a term of up to six months.
3. Acts provided for in parts one or two of this article, committed by a person using his official position, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two years, or by forced labor for a term of up to four years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or imprisonment for a term of up to four years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it.
Commentary to Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The generic object of criminal law protection in the commented article, as well as in general in Chapter. 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, are the relations that develop in the sphere of the exercise of state power, and the specific object is the relations associated with the implementation by the judiciary of the function of administering justice, as well as with the activities of specialized bodies (preliminary investigation, inquiry, prosecutor's office, bodies executing court decisions), ensuring the implementation of the goals and objectives of justice.
The direct object of the crimes provided for in the commented article is social relations that ensure the normal administration of justice by the court (Part 1), as well as the activities of persons carrying out the preliminary investigation of criminal cases and supervision of it (Part 2).
2. By virtue of Art. Art. 118, 125 - 127 of the Constitution and Art. 4 of the Federal Constitutional Law of December 31, 1996 N 1-FKZ “On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation”, judicial power is exercised through constitutional, civil, administrative and criminal proceedings, respectively, by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, federal courts of general jurisdiction (including military courts), federal arbitration courts courts, constitutional (statutory) courts and magistrates of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
The liability established by Part 1 of the commented article occurs for interference in the activities of any of these courts that obstructs the administration of justice. At the same time, the administration of justice should be understood as the activities of all these courts in considering civil, administrative, criminal cases, cases of economic disputes and resolving other issues within their jurisdiction (in particular, those related to checking the legality and validity of the actions and decisions of the investigator or interrogator, permission to carry out investigative and other procedural actions that limit the constitutional rights and freedoms of participants in legal proceedings, taking measures to ensure the execution of court decisions) regardless of which of the judicial authorities and in what composition (collegially or individually) they exercise these powers .
3. The acts provided for in Part 1 of the commented article can be committed both in relation to a professional judge (collegium of professional judges) and in relation to other persons participating in the administration of justice - jurors, arbitration assessors.
4. From the objective side, the crime provided for in Part 1 of the commented article is characterized as interference in any form in the activities of the court. Moreover, such interference can be expressed both in influencing the court in order to obtain from it a decision desired by the person, and in creating any obstacles to the court’s administration of justice, a quick and objective resolution of the case.
5. In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 120 of the Constitution, judges are independent and are subject only to the Constitution and federal law, and therefore any attempts in extra-procedural forms to impose on a judge, jury or arbitration assessor a position that does not correspond to the law, the circumstances of the case, or their internal convictions should be regarded as an encroachment on the independence of the judge. Influencing a judge in order to induce him to make a certain decision is carried out, as a rule, in the form of active actions: giving instructions or “strong advice”, uttering threats, blackmailing, promising any benefits, committing attacks on a judge, juror or arbitration assessor , their relatives or their property. However, the possibility of influencing a judge through inaction cannot be ruled out (for example, through a long-term failure to provide the judge with housing, failure to repair court premises, etc.).
The exercise by the parties of their procedural rights in the form of filing petitions, writing complaints, submitting to the court in writing the proposed wording of decisions, making requests for certain actions or decisions cannot be regarded as interference in the activities of the court in the administration of justice. However, in cases where requests addressed to the court are accompanied by promises to reward with money or other material benefits, they may be regarded as falling under the elements of a crime provided for in Part 1 of the commented article.
6. The creation for this purpose of interference in the objective and fair resolution of a case by the court within a reasonable time by destroying evidence or other materials of the case, failure to serve subpoenas on participants in the proceedings, failure to bring a defendant in custody to a court hearing with reference to an allegedly introduced document should also be considered as obstruction of justice. quarantine in the pre-trial detention center.
7. Interference in the activities of a court constitutes a crime under Part 1 of the commented article, both in the case when it is related to proceedings in a specific case, and when such interference is aimed at achieving a certain result in a certain category of cases or at preventing the activities of a certain judge with the aim of removing him from participation in the case or terminating his powers.
8. The crimes provided for in the commented article are considered completed after the perpetrator has performed the appropriate actions, regardless of whether they led to the results he expected. The occurrence of certain socially dangerous consequences as a result of interference in judicial activities must be taken into account when assigning punishment. In cases where the consequences were expressed in the unlawful deprivation of liberty of an innocent person, causing harm to the health or property of other persons, the act is subject to qualification according to the totality of crimes provided for in Part 1 of Art. 294 and the corresponding article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
9. The subject of the crimes provided for in Parts 1 and 2 of the commented article can be any sane individual who has reached the age of 16. To recognize the presence of signs of these crimes in a person’s actions, it does not matter whether this person is a participant in the proceedings, a close relative of such a participant, or a subject not participating in the proceedings in a specific case considered by the judge.
10. The subjective side of the crime in question is characterized by the presence of guilt in the form of direct intent, which includes influencing judges and other persons administering justice, or creating other obstacles to achieving the goals of justice, as well as the presence of a special purpose - obstructing the administration of justice. Taking this into account, actions that are expressed in inducing the judge to make a legal and fair decision are not subject to qualification under Part 1 of the commented article. At the same time, in the case when such actions form part of another crime (if they, for example, are related to giving a bribe or causing harm to health), they are also subject to qualification under the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The motives for the offender’s intervention in the activities of the court do not affect the classification of the crime, but can be taken into account when assigning punishment.
11. The crime provided for in Part 2 of the commented article, in its main elements, coincides with the crime provided for in Part 1 of this article. The main difference between them is that Part 2 establishes a prohibition of interference in the activities not of the court, but of the prosecutor, investigator or person conducting the inquiry, in order to impede a comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the case at the stages of initiating a criminal case and preliminary investigation. Actions expressed in exerting influence on the prosecutor, investigator or person conducting the inquiry, regardless of their activities in the investigation of criminal cases (for example, in connection with the participation of the prosecutor in judicial proceedings in a criminal or civil case or in connection with the implementation by a body authorized for the conduct of inquiry, permitting measures) are outside the scope of the crime provided for by the norm in question. Under certain conditions, such actions can be classified as crimes against the order of government or against the person.
The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the actions of the accused, expressed in sending complaints against the investigator to various officials, as well as in forcing witness S. to slander the investigator for unlawful actions in order to remove him from the investigation of the criminal case, were recognized as not forming the objective side of the crime , provided for in Part 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since the accused did not directly influence the investigator and interfere in his activities. ——————————— See: Def. dated February 14, 2006 N 56-O05-94.
12. Under the prosecutor for the purposes of Art. 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with paragraph 31 of Art. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure means the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and the prosecutors subordinate to him, their deputies and other officials of the prosecutor's office participating in criminal proceedings and vested with the corresponding powers by the federal law on the prosecutor's office.
13. In accordance with paragraph 41 of Art. 5 and part 2 art. 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an investigator is an official of the investigative body of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, the FSB of Russia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, authorized to carry out a preliminary investigation in a criminal case. Since, by virtue of Part 2 of Art. 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the head of the relevant investigative body may also have the powers of an investigator; interference in his activities related to the investigation of criminal cases should also be recognized as falling under the elements of a crime provided for in Part 2 of the commented article.
14. The Code of Criminal Procedure, unlike the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, does not provide for such a participant in criminal proceedings as the person conducting the inquiry; the use of the corresponding term in the commented article, which was put into effect before the relevant changes were made to the domestic criminal procedural legislation, gives reason to believe that it refers to such persons participating in criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stages as the investigator, the head of the inquiry unit and the head of the inquiry body.
15. The qualifying feature of the crimes provided for in the commented article is the commission of appropriate actions using the perpetrator’s official position (Part 3). The use of official position, within the meaning of this norm, can be expressed in the use of administrative potential by heads of courts or law enforcement agencies, heads and officials of state bodies of legislative and executive power to influence a judge, prosecutor, investigator or investigator, or to create obstacles to their activities, local government bodies, officials of non-governmental organizations, on whom the satisfaction of everyday and other needs of judges, prosecutors, investigators, and interrogators depends. The range of subjects subject to liability in accordance with Part 3 of the commented article is thus not limited to persons who are in accordance with paragraph 1 of the note. to Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, subjects of crimes provided for in Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The court passed a verdict against the accused of committing a crime under Art. 294 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Case No. 2 – 19/2010
PRI G O V O R
In the name of the Russian Federation
Yakutsk July 14, 2010
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) composed of: presiding judge Ivanov M.E., with secretary Kolesova S.I., with the participation of the state prosecutor - prosecutor of the prosecutor's office of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) Poselsky N.V., defendant Solovyov A.N. ., defense attorney V.T. Kopylov, who presented certificate No. and warrant No. dated June 16, 2010, having considered in open court in the city of Yakutsk on the premises of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) a criminal case against
Solovyov Alexey Nikolaevich,
………., not previously convicted,
accused of committing a crime under Art. 294 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
U S T A N O V I L:
Soloviev A.N. interfered with the activities of the court in order to obstruct the administration of justice.
He committed the crime in the city of Yakutsk in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) under the following circumstances.
During the period from December 8, 2009 to January 29, 2010, in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), with the participation of jurors, chaired by Judge T., a criminal case was considered against Ya., accused of committing crimes under Art. 285 part 1, 290 part 4 pp. “a,c,d” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, B., accused of committing a crime under Art. 290 p.4 p.p. “a, c, d” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Soloviev A.N., who, by order of the head of the department of the Ministry of Justice of Russia for the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) No. 25 dated August 30, 2002, was assigned the status of a lawyer with his inclusion in the register of lawyers of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) No., according to order No. dated December 8, 2009 g. took part as Ya’s defense attorney in the trial with the participation of jurors.
Based on the results of the formation of the jury on December 8, 2009, M., Z. became part of the main jury, and O. became a reserve juror.
On December 25, 2009, the jury returned a guilty verdict against defendants Ya. and B.
After the announcement of the guilty verdict, Soloviev A.N., deliberately, not accepting the fact that his client Ya. was found guilty, wanting to by any means avoid his client from criminal liability, in violation of paragraph 11 of Part 1 of Art. 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, clause 1, part 1, article 7 of the Federal Law of May 31, 2002 No. 63-FZ “On advocacy and advocacy in the Russian Federation” and art. 12 of the “Code of Professional Ethics for Lawyers”, decided to influence the jurors by persuasion to create doubts about the legality and objectivity of the guilty verdict rendered by the jury of the presiding judge T. by providing her with untrue information about the rendering of the verdict by a biased and illegal composition jury panels; creating, in a manner not provided for by procedural legislation, conditions for declaring, in cassation proceedings, illegal a conviction, which the judge decides on the basis of the guilty verdict of the jury of December 25, 2009, and its cancellation.
Why on the same day after the announcement of the verdict at about 21:00. 30 min. near the building of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), located in Yakutsk on the street. ………., No. Soloviev A.N. gave juror M. a note asking him to call him, indicating his cell phone number.
December 26, 2009 at 2 p.m. 41 min. Solovyov, after the call, M. called her back and, having aroused her interest with the message that the defendant Ya. was from the same village as her ………., and he knew her, offered to meet with her. Further, Soloviev A.N. during telephone conversations held on December 31, 2009 at 10 o’clock. 38 min., January 11, 2010 at 09 o'clock. 19 min., January 17, 2010 at 2 p.m. 14 min. and 2 p.m. 25 minutes, by persuading him to show a feeling of pity for Ya., he convinced M. to meet him on January 17, 2010 at 2 p.m. 30 min. Soloviev A.N. January 17, 2010 from 07:00 00 min. 14 hours 00 min. at home at the address: Yakutsk, st. ………., No., apt. No., printed on a personal computer a sample statement addressed to Judge T., the presiding judge in a criminal case being considered with the participation of a jury against Ya. and B., with a request to refrain from pronouncing a guilty verdict, since the verdict was rendered biased, biased and illegal composition of the jury . In the sample statement, Soloviev indicated the following deliberately false data: about the concealment by juror M. of the existence of her personal hostile relationship with defendant Ya.; about the bias of jurors No. and No. when voting due to the fact that they do not speak Russian and did not take part in the discussion in the deliberation room; about the influence exerted on other jurors by juror No. by transmitting to them newspaper publications and messages from the Internet concerning defendants Ya. and B.; about concealment by juror No. of the criminal record of a close relative.
On the same day, around 2 p.m. 30 min. Soloviev during a meeting in the lobby of the hotel “……….”, located in Yakutsk on the street. ………., No., handed over to M. the sample application he had prepared, while Z., who participated in the case as a juror, was present, Solovyov explained the need to write an application according to the specified sample and submit it to the secretariat of the Supreme Court before January 19, 2010 On the same day, M. and Z. arrived at O.’s home at the address: Yakutsk, st. ………., No. informed her about the need to write an application and discussed the sample application given to them by Solovyov. On January 18, 2010, M., Z. and O. took their statements, which they compiled according to the sample provided by Solovyov, to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) and handed them over to the secretariat, where they were registered and handed over to Judge T.
Thus, the defendant A.N. Soloviev, carrying out his intent to interfere in the activities of the court in order to obstruct the administration of justice, took actions aimed at making a court decision in the case that was favorable to him.
At the court hearing, defendant A.N. Solovyov did not admit his guilt and explained in court that on his part there was no interference in the activities of the court with the aim of obstructing the administration of justice; in the courtyard of the building of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) on December 25, 2009, after 21:00, he passed a note asking him to call , written by him in his own hand, to juror M. He gave this note at the request of his client Ya. in order to get her cell phone number for him. The next day M. called him, but he was busy. After some time, I called her back, and she immediately began to talk about how the jurors of Yakut nationality did not understand the Russian language, did not participate in the discussion, juror No. said that he would vote as a foreman, juror No. had a prejudice about the guilt of the defendants, juror assessor R. hid the fact of her adopted son’s criminal record, the judge’s assistant came into the deliberation room three times, she knew defendant Ya., they were in a close relationship. He didn’t say anything at the same time. M. gave the phone number to Ya. on December 28, 2009 in the pre-trial detention center. On December 31, 2009, he called M. to wish her a Happy New Year. M. did not speak about pity for Ya., did not offer to write a statement to the judge. On January 17, 2010, he called M. and said that he was at the hotel “……….”, at the request of Ya. he drew up a sample application. M. came to the hotel with Z.. M. handed over a sample application. Indeed, at the request of Y., he prepared a sample application addressed to judge T.. In the sample application he indicated information that became known to him from M..
However, it is the fault of A.N. Solovyov. the commission of this crime is confirmed by the evidence collected in the case.
The court came to this conclusion based on its analysis of the testimony of A.N. Solovyov. and witnesses in court, as well as other evidence.
Thus, from the testimony of witness M. in court it follows that she took part in the consideration of the criminal case against Ya. and B. as a juror. On December 25, 2009, when she and Z. were leaving the court building after the verdict was announced, they were approached by Ya.’s defense attorney, lawyer A.N. Soloviev. He handed her a note with the following content: “Ugh. M.! Please call me No. I need to meet from Ya.” The next day, when she called Solovyov at the number indicated, he was busy and replied that he would call back himself. After some time, Soloviev called her and said that Ya. was also from ………. and he knows her, I feel sorry for him, we need to help and invited her to meet. He said that he would give her phone number to Ya and he would call her back. December 27, 2009 Ya. called her on her cell phone, introduced himself, said that he studied at school ………., told about the school, and she remembered that he really studied at their school. Then Ya called her several times and asked her to help him. Soloviev also called her several times on her cell phone and each time persuaded her to show a feeling of pity for Ya., saying that Ya. had so much hope for her, she needed to help. On December 31, 2009, Solovyov congratulated her on the upcoming New Year and again began to say that he needed to help Ya., he would fight to the end, we need to get him out of there, he felt sorry for Ya.. After constant calls from Solovyov and Ya. with calls for pity on her I really felt sorry for Ya.. Ya. suggested that she meet with lawyer L., but the meeting did not take place. After the New Year's weekend, Solovyov called and offered to meet her at her work, but did not show up. He then called her on January 17, 2010 and asked her to meet in the lobby of the hotel “……….”. She agreed. I went to the meeting with Z., who was also a juror in the said criminal case. In the lobby of the hotel “……….” Soloviev handed her two sheets of paper with samples of the application addressed to the presiding judge T. and invited her to write a statement according to the sample he had given. Solovyov said that he sketched it this morning, correct it, you can add something of your own. After the meeting with Solovyov, she and Z. went to see O., who also did not agree with the guilty verdict. The three of them discussed the sample application given by Solovyov. During the discussion, Y. called her and they clarified some points about writing a statement with him. They all decided that they would write a statement according to the model given to them by Solovyov. That evening, at home on her computer, she typed a statement addressed to the judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) T.. In the statement, she indicated information that did not correspond to reality that she had a close relationship with Ya., she voted for the charge, since she concealed a grudge against him and thus took revenge on him, and on this basis she asked to cancel the verdict as rendered illegally and biased. In fact, she didn’t even know that Ya studied at school………., she recognized him after the verdict was pronounced, after Solovyov told her about it. She succumbed to the persuasion of lawyer Solovyov, who constantly called for pity on the phone, saying that Ya had so much hope for her, she needed to help him. I typed the application on the computer and on January 18, 2010, submitted my application to the office of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Y. Soloviev was the first to persuade her to help, this was December 26, 2009. Then Y. began to call and asked to help him.
Witness O. testified in court that she was a reserve juror in the court's consideration of the criminal case against Ya. and B.. In January 2010, M. and Z., who were also jurors, came to her home. They had a statement that they did not agree with the verdict, which they asked her to sign. At the same time, M. showed a photograph where she was sitting with Ya.. She explained that they studied at the same school and were friends. We were supposed to go to study together. She refused to sign and said that she would write it herself. After that, she wrote a statement to Judge T., in which she indicated that she did not agree with the verdict, the laws were harsh, the jurors were not always adequate, some jurors did not understand the Russian language, the son of one juror was convicted. During the trial, she did not bring to court newspaper publications and messages from the Internet concerning the criminal case against Ya. and B. and did not transmit them to the jurors. On Monday I took my application to the Supreme Court and submitted it to the office. She wrote the statement on her own initiative out of pity for Ya..
From O.’s testimony read out at the court hearing during the preliminary investigation, it follows that after lunch Z. and M. came to her home, showed her a sheet of paper with the printed text of a statement addressed to Judge T., and said that they had come for her signature. The statement indicated that M., knowing Ya., because of personal hostility, voted to be found guilty. In response to her question why she did not inform the court about this, M. explained that in reality this did not happen, she did not recognize Y. during the trial, and only recognized him after the trial. When discussing the text of the statement, she hand-wrote additions to the text of the statement. At this time M. was talking to someone on the phone and talking about her consent. Having discussed the text of the statement, she said that she would write it herself, M. and Z. said that the text of the statement was not true. They replied that we must try to help Ya at any cost. She realized that Z. and M. intended to write information in the application that did not correspond to reality. In her statement, she indicated that one of the jurors had a son who was convicted; some of the jurors did not understand the Russian language. She wrote all this without knowing the veracity of this information. In the evening of the same day, that is, January 17, 2010, I wrote a statement addressed to the judge by hand and took it to the secretariat of the Supreme Court on January 18, 2010. There in court she met Z. and M. (vol. 1, pp. 2141-244).
Witness L. testified in court that he defended the interests of Ya. in court together with lawyers A.N. Solovyov. and U. After the verdict of the jury was announced, when they were going to the pre-trial detention center, Solovyov said that Ya. recognized M., she is his close friend, but they broke up. M. voted against Ya.. We need to meet with her and we need to find out everything. Ya. and Soloviev invited him to meet with M., but he refused.
At the preliminary investigation, L. testified that Soloviev, in the presence of lawyer D., told him that one of the jurors was a close friend of Ya., they studied at the same school. She agreed to help Ya in a criminal case. To his question, Solovyov replied that she was ready to say that she had a personal hostile relationship with Ya. and therefore voted for the accusation biasedly. He refused to participate in this and said that this should not be done; he would be prosecuted. Soloviev and Ya. told him to meet with M. and explain to her. He refused to meet and call M. (vol. 2, pp. 5-9)
Witness D. testified in court that in his presence between Solovyov A.N. and L. there was a conversation about the fact that one of the jurors studied with Ya.. At the same time, Solovyov said that she agreed to help Ya., for the common cause it was necessary to meet with her and find out. L. refused to meet with this juror, explaining that the verdict was made, there is no point, if you consider it necessary, you can meet with her yourself.
Witness U. testified in court that after the verdict against Ya. and B., in the courtyard of the building of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), lawyer A.N. Soloviev. approached juror M. He (U.), at Ya.’s request, found out M.’s phone number from Solovyov and gave it to him.
According to the testimony of witness Ya., convicted by a jury, interrogated at the request of the defendant A.N. Solovyov, Solovyov defended his interests in court. The jury's verdict was delivered on December 25, 2009. M. had a close relationship with the juror. After the jurors left, he told his defense attorney Solovyov that juror M. was his close friend and asked to take her cell phone number. A day later, in the pre-trial detention center, Soloviev gave him M.’s phone number. He and M. talked on a cell phone many times over the course of a month. M. asked Solovyov to prepare a sample application. Soloviev, at his request, helped M. draw up a statement addressed to judge T.. From M.’s words, he understood that two more jurors wanted to write a statement to the judge.
Witness K. testified in court that in the winter of 2010, at her request, he took his ex-wife Z. to the hotel “……….”.
Witness Yu. testified in court that she took part in the court's consideration of the criminal case against Ya. and B. as a juror; during the court hearing, E. did not tell anyone about the criminal record of her husband's distant relative.
Witnesses G., N. and Sh. testified in court that they took part as jurors in the criminal case Ya. and B., speak Russian perfectly, well understood the speeches of the participants in the process, during the court session none of the jurors did not talk about his relative’s criminal record.
The defendant's guilt is also confirmed by the materials of the case:
- protocol for receiving documents and materials confirming the report of a crime dated January 26, 2010, according to which M. voluntarily handed over a note on 1 sheet of A4 paper and a sample statement on 2 sheets of A4 paper (vol. 1, pp. 21);
- seizure protocols dated March 18, 2010 and February 19, 2010, according to which in the Yakutsk branch of OJSC “……….” in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the call list of client A.N. Solovyov was seized. from December 25, 2009 to January 19, 2010 and information about subscriber No., the registry file of lawyer A.N. Solovyov was seized from the building of the Office of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). (vol.1, pp. 101-103, 116-121);
- protocol of the search of A.N. Solovyov’s home. dated February 11, 2010, during which in the quarter. No. No. No. st. ………. In Yakutsk, cell phones "……….", "……….", diaries "……….", "……….", 534 sheets of A4 format, a system unit "………." and the protocol of inspection of these items dated February 20, 2010 (vol. 1, pp. 172-177);
- a protocol for the inspection of items dated March 31, 2010, according to which the details of the telephone conversations that took place for the period from December 25, 2009 to January 19, 2010 between A.N. Solovyov were examined. and M., that is, to the subscriber number No. belonging to A.N. Solovyov, on December 26, 2009 they called once and sent sms twice from the subscriber number No. belonging to M., from the specified subscriber number of Solovyov they called to the specified subscriber number M. On December 26 and 31, 2009 once, on January 11, 2010 once, on January 17, 2010 twice and on January 18, 2010 once, in total Solovyov called M. 7 times during the specified period, and M. came into contact with Solovyov three times (vol. 1, pp. 22-39, 111-113);
- protocol of inspection of items dated February 11, 2010, according to which a sample statement with the following content was examined: “Uv. M. Please call me No. I need to meet. From Ya." (vol. 1, pp. 46, 91-93);
- expert opinion No. dated March 3, 2010, according to which the above note was made by A.N. Solovyov. (vol. 1, pp. 206-208);
- a statement addressed to the judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) T. on behalf of M. dated January 18, 2010, without a signature, according to which the applicant considers the verdict to be illegal, made by a biased composition of the jury and demands that the judge does not have the right to decide guilty verdict, since M. was in a close relationship with the defendant Ya., when forming the jury, she hid her acquaintance with Ya., voted for a guilty verdict due to personal feelings, won over some of the jurors to her side, although she was convinced of his innocence and he was slandered by B., jurors No. and No. did not speak Russian, juror No. was biased in Ya.’s guilt, reserve juror No. brought with her newspaper publications and messages from the Internet concerning Ya. and B. and gave them to the jury to read jurors, juror No. hid the fact of a criminal record of her close relative;
- a statement addressed to the judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) T. from M. dated January 18, 2010, according to which M. in her statement indicates that the judge should not pass a sentence based on the verdict of the jury, since she and the defendant I ... studied at the same school, were in a close relationship, despite her offer to go to study together, Ya. left alone, they broke up, she found out Ya. at the end of the trial, she was controlled by old feelings and grievances, so she voted for a guilty verdict and she won some of the assessors over to her side, although she was convinced that Ya. had not committed a crime and that B. had slandered him (vol. 2, pp. 241);
- Z.’s statement to the judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) dated January 18, 2010, according to which she asks to cancel the jury’s verdict due to the fact that jurors No. and No. did not speak Russian well and said that they would vote as a foreman, assistant judge Zh. repeatedly came into the deliberation room and discussed problems with the foreman, juror No.’s blood pressure rose, the foreman was in a hurry to vote, juror No. (No.) raised two hands when voting, after the verdict was announced, juror No. said, that her close relative had been convicted several times, so the decision was made out of revenge (vol. 2, pp. 242-245);
- O.’s statement to the judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) dated January 18, 2010, by which O. indicates that jurors No. and No. had poor command of the Russian language, juror No. behaved inappropriately, was under the influence of juror No. , many jurors did not understand the responsibility, they were in a hurry to go home, since they were from distant areas (vol. 2, pp. 247-248);
The testimony of witnesses and the above materials of the case do not contain any contradictions, and they are consistent with each other.
The court, having examined all the evidence presented to the court, recognizing it as admissible evidence in the case and assessing it as reliable, comes to the conclusion that Solovyov, first through repeated telephone calls to M. and constant calls for pity for Ya., reinforcing this with words that help him, Ya knows her, studied at the same school, had so much hope for her, aroused in her a feeling of pity for her client I.. Then, making sure that, out of a feeling of pity for Ya, she was ready to write a statement that did not correspond to reality information addressed to the judge, prepared a sample application and ensured that she wrote a statement with untrue information according to the sample he had drawn up addressed to the judge. M. included information that did not correspond to reality in the statement, succumbing to Solovyov’s persuasion. At the same time, Solovyov’s goal was to create doubts about the legality and objectivity of the jury’s verdict and to achieve the overturning of the verdict by the court of cassation due to the violation by the court of first instance of the requirements of procedural legislation.
Testimony of witness M. that the defendant Soloviev A.N. repeatedly called her and put pressure on her, persuaded her to write a statement to the court, citing information that did not correspond to reality, called for pity for Ya., gave her a statement with a self-written text containing false information in order to influence the judge and prevent the rendering of a lawful verdict, confirmed and details of telephone conversations between Solovyov and M., that is, they communicated by telephone from December 25, 2009 to January 18, 2010 only ten times.
Statement by witness M. that the initiative came from Solovyov and his persistence in interfering in the activities of the court of the defendant A.N. Solovyov. is also confirmed by a note that was given to her by Solovyov after the verdict of the jury.
The testimony of witnesses M. and O. that they wrote a statement to the judge, having previously discussed the three of them, that is, M., Z. and O., a sample statement drawn up by the defendant Solovyov, confirms Solovyov’s intent to interfere in the activities of the court, using persons who participated in the consideration of the case as jurors.
The details of telephone conversations between Solovyov and M. confirm the statement of witness M. in that Solovyov repeatedly called her on a cell phone and called on her to have pity for Ya. and thereby arousing in her a feeling of pity for Ya. and the desire to write a statement about facts that do not correspond to reality, in order to obstruct the administration of justice.
When assessing the evidence regarding the testimony of the defendant A.N. Solovyov, put forward in his defense about the absence of his guilt and that he, by drawing up a sample statement addressed to the judge, was only fulfilling his lawyer’s duties, the court is critical and finds them untenable, since they are contrived for the sole purpose of avoiding criminal liability. His claims are refuted by the above evidence.
Having comprehensively, fully and objectively examined the presented evidence, the court finds that the defendant A.N. Solovyov, persuading M. to file a statement with untrue information, had the goal of influencing the judge presiding over the criminal case against Ya. and B. ., in order to raise doubts in him about the legality of the composition of the jury and to achieve in the court of second instance the cancellation of the verdict due to the illegality of the composition of the jury.
The court is critical of the testimony of witness Ya. regarding the fact that he had a close relationship with juror M. and she voted for a guilty verdict because of a feeling of revenge against him; he told Solovyov about his close relationship with M. immediately after the announcement of the verdict and regards it as his attempt to help Solovyov evade criminal liability.
According to the read-out testimony of witness O., M. denied a close relationship with Ya. and hostility towards him and said that she recognized him only after the trial. O.’s testimony in this part is consistent with M.’s testimony and confirms her testimony that she recognized Ya. after Solovyov’s message to her on the phone and refute Solovyov’s statements that M. herself told him about her connections with Ya. during the first telephone call conversation.
The court considers O.’s testimony at the preliminary investigation to be true, and is critical of her testimony in this part in court and agrees with her explanation that she forgot some points.
L.'s testimony at the preliminary investigation that he learned about Ya.'s relationship with M. from Solovyov's words confirms Solovyov's initiative and role in interfering in the activities of the court. The court considers his testimony at the preliminary investigation to be true. There are no significant contradictions in L.’s testimony about Solovyov’s role in interfering in the activities of the court.
Defendant Soloviev A.N. interfered with the activities of the court with direct intent, since he purposefully called on M. to feel pity for Ya., drawing up for her a sample application addressed to the judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) with false information, persuading her to submit an application to the court office, wanted to obstruct the administration of justice.
The motive for the crime committed by the defendant A.N. Solovyov This crime is obstruction of justice.
Under such circumstances, the court of action of the defendant Solovyov A.N. qualifies under Art. 294 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – interference in any form in the activities of the court in order to obstruct the administration of justice.
When determining the type and amount of punishment for Solovyov A.N., the court recognizes the commission of a crime for the first time and advanced age as a mitigating circumstance. The court did not establish any circumstances aggravating his punishment.
Defendant Soloviev A.N. characterized positively.
Taking into account the personality of the defendant A.N. Solovyov, the court comes to the conclusion to impose a penalty not related to imprisonment, namely in accordance with Art. 46 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - fine. The court determines the amount of the fine based on the defendant’s property status and the fact that he is currently not working anywhere.
Return physical evidence of value to the owner, keep the sample application and other documents in the file.
Based on the above and guided by Art. 307, 308 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)
PRI G O V O R I L:
Recognize Alexey Nikolaevich Solovyov
guilty of committing a crime under
Art.
294 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and impose a fine on him in the amount of thirty thousand (30,000) rubles.
Preventive measure against Solovyov A.N.
– a written undertaking not to leave the place – until the sentence comes into force, leave it unchanged.
Physical evidence: sample application on 2 pages, note on 1 sheet, registry file of lawyer A.N. Solovyov. on 18 sheets, details of telephone conversations on 18 sheets, a list of calls from Solovyov’s client on 6 sheets - keep on file; system unit "………." and a notebook “……….” upon entry into force of the verdict - return to the owner A.N. Solovyov.
The verdict can be appealed in cassation to the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation through the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) within 10 days from the date of pronouncement of the verdict. If a cassation appeal is filed, the convicted person has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the court of cassation.
Chairman: M.E.Ivanov
Judicial practice: sentences and punishment under Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 27, 2002 N 29 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF THEFT,...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N 203-APU17-21... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 203-APU17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow August 31, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme...
- Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 5, 2018 N 126-P18 ON RESUMING PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE DUE TO NEW...
- Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases, appeal:... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 72-APU 17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow October 04, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Resolution No. 310P13 dated... DECISION OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 310-P13 Moscow January 23, 2014 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION of November 15, 2016 N 48 ON THE PRACTICE OF APPLICATION BY COURTS OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING FEATURES...
- Ruling of the ECtHR dated 02/14/2017 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE “MASLOVA VS. RUSSIAN FEDERATION” (Complaint No. 15980/12) JUDGMENT…
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENAUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated June 25, 2022 N 18 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF CRIMES,...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENAUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 17, 2022 N 43 ON SOME ISSUES OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 38-АПУ17-2 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION No. 38-АПУ17-2 APPEAL DECISION Moscow March 1, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court...
