The video about Police Lieutenant Colonel Artem Kuznetsov came out two months ago and caused quite a stir. Everyone was waiting for a reaction from what is commonly called “the authorities”: there had to be some kind of response. And we waited too. Maybe a little more than most, because by our usual tradition we didn’t just get outraged and forget about it — we got outraged and wrote a letter to the prosecutor’s office. A fairly simple one: information of this kind has been circulated, we ask that the stated facts be verified, as well as, within your authority, the sources of income of a police lieutenant colonel living in obvious luxury. Let them investigate — that’s what they’re paid for.
Thanks, of course, for forwarding the letter to the Department for Economic Security (DEB). But I was expecting a somewhat different reaction. In the letter, we asked for the facts set out in the video and on the website http://russian-untouchables.com/ to be verified; accordingly, the video and the site’s materials are part of the complaint and the review materials. The prosecutor’s office believes there is no “specific information indicating signs of a crime” here. Very interesting, I thought, and decided to take another look.
11 seconds — Artem Kuznetsov stole 5.4 billion rubles. 42 seconds — A.K. played a key role in organizing the tax crime and in the death of Sergei Magnitsky. 58 seconds — A.K. organized and carried out searches for one purpose only: to seize the incorporation documents. 1:19 — the documents were used for the fraudulent transfer of ownership. 1:30 — the new owners filed for a refund of taxes allegedly paid earlier. 2:00 — Magnitsky gives testimony against Kuznetsov and, a month later, is arrested by that same Kuznetsov. And so on. If that is not a classic “crime report,” then what is? But Prosecutor Burov did not see it that way. What kind of stone-cold prosecutor is this, I thought, and yesterday I wrote to the lawyers working on the “Magnitsky case”: “Guys, do you know the name A.V. Burov? Has this citizen shown up anywhere before?” I quote their reply almost in full: Prosecutor A.V. Burov took part in every single court hearing at which decisions were made to place S.L. Magnitsky in custody and to extend his detention:
1. On November 26, 2008, Burov asked the court to grant investigator O.F. Silchenko’s motion to place S.L. Magnitsky in pretrial detention, a motion based on information from officers of the Moscow Directorate for Tax Crimes (a police unit) that was knowingly false. 2. On January 19, 2009, Burov asked the court to grant investigator O.F. Silchenko’s motion to extend S.L. Magnitsky’s detention until March 15, 2009, again on the basis of information from officers of the Moscow Directorate for Tax Crimes that was knowingly false. 3. On March 13, 2009, Burov asked the court to grant investigator O.F. Silchenko’s motion to extend S.L. Magnitsky’s detention until June 15, 2009, again on the basis of information from officers of the Moscow Directorate for Tax Crimes that was knowingly false. Prosecutor Burov objected to the defense motion requesting an inquiry to the FSB (Federal Security Service) regarding a letter containing false information about a UK visa, and objected to the inclusion of medical certificates and information about Sergei Magnitsky’s children, as well as to the inclusion of the official reply from the British Embassy stating that Sergei had applied for a visa.* *4. On June 15, 2009, he asked the court to grant investigator O.F. Silchenko’s motion to extend S.L. Magnitsky’s detention until September 15, 2009, again on the basis of information from officers of the Moscow Directorate for Tax Crimes that was knowingly false. 5. On September 14, 2009, he asked the court to grant investigator O.F. Silchenko’s motion to extend S.L. Magnitsky’s detention until November 15, 2009, again on the basis of information from officers of the Moscow Directorate for Tax Crimes that was knowingly false. 6. On November 12, 2009, he asked the court to grant investigator O.F. Silchenko’s motion to extend S.L. Magnitsky’s detention until November 26, 2009, again on the basis of information from officers of the Moscow Directorate for Tax Crimes that was knowingly false. **7. Prosecutor Burov objected to the inclusion of ALL documents relating to Sergei Magnitsky’s deteriorating health, stating: “I do not see sufficient grounds to grant this defense motion, since the court has been provided with enough documents to conduct today’s hearing on the merits.” And four days later, Sergei Magnitsky died. That is, Prosecutor Burov, who is supposed to decide whether to investigate a possible crime committed by Kuznetsov, is in fact his accomplice. At the very least in the episode involving Magnitsky’s killing. In any case, one indisputable fact remains: Prosecutor Burov directly supported the prosecution against Magnitsky in the very case about which I filed my complaint. How could he possibly have been assigned to answer it? Magnitsky’s lawyers sent me a whole pile of scans, but I won’t bore you with the details. I’ll post just one, so that everything becomes clear regarding Prosecutor Burov and the investigators in the case.
They lock a dying man up in prison — a dangerous witness, from their point of view — on the basis of “information from the FSB” that he had “been photographed at a photo studio.” This is a gang. A mob. Call it whatever you like. A criminal group made up of officials from the Interior Ministry, the FSB, and the prosecutor’s office, engaged in theft and the murder of witnesses. It is still operating now. Its members wear uniforms, collect salaries, and receive promotions. They hire journalists and even some bloggers. This is obvious to everyone. Everyone except the President of Russia. He does yoga, breathes the sea air, and reads books on his iPad. P.S. Of course we will appeal all of this and demand that Burov and all the other figures be removed from the review.