Pre-trial mitigation policy will prevent Serebrennikov from detention. RALFI, 23 August 2017
Petition of the investigation for home arrest of Kirill Serebrennikov as a measure of restraint indicates an adequate humanization of the criminal proceedings, appearance of a tendency for more active application of preventive measures not connected with taking into custody. Such was the opinion of the experts interviewed by the RALFI.
Press-secretary of the Basmanny District Court of Moscow announced today that a petition for home arrest of Serebrennikov, as a preventive measure, who was detained within a criminal case of fraud, was brought in court by the investigation.
Director of the "Gogol-Center" theatre was charged with committing a crime provided by part 4 clause 159 CC (major fraud). The investigation considers that the director is guilty of organizing embezzlement of at least 68 million roubles allocated to release the "Platform" project.
Managing partner of the CLC Natalia Shatikhina noted that "analysis of the mane part of decisions on corruption including not only abuse of authority (e.g. different administrative economic offenses), but also various forms of embezzlement of the state property, allows to say that, as a rule, they do not cause "real" imprisonment sentences".
"If one episode is incriminated and there are no signs of organized crime and also no risk that a defendant may escape abroad, preventive measure is usually milder than detention. It is the result of the consistent state policy aimed at decreasing the number of people in the FPS (Federal Penitentiary Service) establishments. It is quite natural, that those called "white collar" offenders are the first candidates upon whom measures not connected with isolation may be imposed. They are not dangerous for the society if they are deprived of an opportunity to exercise criminal activity they practiced before. Certainly, there are exclusions, but they are usually connected with the tactical goals of the investigation", - said the expert.
Senior Partner of Attorneys at Law Pen & Paper, State-Secretary of the FCA RF Konstantin Dobrynin considers that "if we sort out the figure of a really talented director and look with a dull view of an advocate, we will see the obvious formal processual grounds for the arrest of Kirill Serebrennikov". He emphasized that according to the sketchy information from mass media, the former accountant of the ANCC "Sedmaya Studia" who had already been charged with embezzlement of budget funds on part 4 clause 159 CC RF, had testified on the criminal role of Serebrennikov in the actions incriminated to her. Besides, the expert said that it seemed that the investigation had documentary enforced that testimony.
"Along with this, all outside and inside observers should realize a very simple thing commonly known as a deal: almost always in such cases the law-enforcement offer a pre-trial collaboration to the accused in return for changing a measure of restraint from detention to home arrest. Deals of that sort result in testimonies which do not correspond to the reality but have an absolute status of the proof and are the basis for charges against new participants in a criminal case. That must have happened to Kirill Serebrennikov", - said Dobrynin.
In the expert's opinion, the decision on the preventive measure will become a key or a very meaningful indicator. "As we understand it, it cannot be detention, of course, there are no grounds for this". "I think, the investigation will come to senses and content itself with recognizance. If the investigation fails to harness its emotions and institutes a petition for detention as a measure of restraint, the court will surely be able to correct such a wild desire. So, what's the use of moaning and sighing? And I'd like to wish those of my esteemed colleagues who defend the director in such a difficult situation to choose the right strategy and strengthen it, since it doesn't seem clear enough so far", - he summarized.
Advocate Alexander Bolomatov, partner of the legal firm "YUST", says that at present there is too little information on the case. "It is quite normal and ordinary to every criminal case. The investigation is not obliged to inform the society about its work because that may harm investigation of a case. The society should be informed about the circumstances of the supposed crime only after the indictment is ready", -
Bolomatov conciders that in this case the suspects have also chosen tactics of silence and don't give detailed comments and explanations. That is also a very common behaviour of the defense. The expert notes that any information which mass media has at its disposal is doubtful.
"We can just see the implementation of a charge of fraud and detention of three suspects. Charges of that kind together with detention as a measure of constraint usually indicate a serious intention to bring a case in court and pass a sentence. In this case we can only make suppositions based on indirect signs", - said the advocate.