Yesterday, the trial in the "Yves Rocher case" was devoted to questioning the key "prosecution witnesses."
Let me remind you of the outline of the case according to Mr. Bastrykin: a) the criminal Navalny brothers created a fake company (Glavpodpiska) that stood between the client (Yves Rocher) and the subcontractor (AvtoSaga). b) In order to win the contract, they deceived Yves Rocher about the terms of the postal service. c) To increase the size of the contract, they disrupted the work of the entire Russian Post on the Moscow-Yaroslavl route. d) The entire price difference in the chain Yves Rocher - Glavpodpiska - AvtoSaga is allegedly the amount stolen, because AvtoSaga could have worked directly with Yves Rocher without the "fake company."
So yesterday they questioned: 1) the director and owner of "AvtoSaga," 2) AvtoSaga’s accountant, and 3) a Russian Post employee responsible for "federal clients," including Yves Rocher.
Given my bias, you can simply read three courtroom reports on what these key "prosecution witnesses" said:
Znak.com: Witnesses Without an Accusation: The Court Still Has No Testimony Against the Navalny Brothers
Moskovsky Komsomolets: Three Witnesses in the Yves Rocher Case Deny the Navalny Brothers’ Guilt
BFM: **Key Prosecution Witnesses Spoke in Defense of the Navalny Brothers**х
In other words, each witness gave testimony that systematically demolished the nonsense put forward by Bastrykin’s crooks, saying that: a) contracting and subcontracting are standard practice in freight transport; b) AvtoSaga never wanted a direct contract with Yves Rocher, because that is not their business. They do not want to handle freight forwarding; c) Yves Rocher is Russian Post’s third-largest client, and the very idea that it could be misled about postal services is absurd (a direct quote from the witness); d) all of Russian Post’s problems in Yaroslavl have existed for years, and management has been unsuccessfully trying to solve them for years, so even the idea that they were created by Oleg Navalny, who worked in a different division as an implementer, is laughable.
And so on and so forth.
So, in short, everything is already pretty clear to everyone in the courtroom—just as it is clear that the questioning of witnesses, speeches, testimony, and evidence have nothing to do with the future verdict.
Still, we will keep fighting.
People