Some people asked me to post the full indictment. Basically: okay, you published all the financial documents — good for you, but we still haven’t seen the indictment. What if it contains wiretaps, emails, important witness testimony? A couple of days ago we sent it out to journalists, and now I’m making it public. At first we wanted to add comments throughout the text, to make it easier to strip away the nonsense, but then we gave up — any reasonable person can understand it as it is. So there are only a few comments. Here it is, in full. 207 megabytes, 99 pages. Emails, wiretaps, testimony — everything. There’s nothing new in the emails; they were published a hundred times after the first email hack two years ago. The investigators simply took them from there and wrote that they came from a computer. Correspondence between Ofitserov and me, like “I’ve registered a trademark, take a look,” or “I signed a contract, can you review it as a lawyer,” is interpreted as “Navalny is running a criminal group.” It would be funny to bring charges against everyone who has ever emailed me saying, “Could you please take a look, you’re a lawyer.” There’s not much of the “wiretap” material here, even though there’s plenty of it in the case file. When they presented it to us — “Here, recordings of conversations from the FSB (Russia’s security service)” — we read it and immediately said: “Then close the case at once. What these recordings do show is that Navalny swears every other word, but there is not a single word indicating that anyone stole timber/money, planned to steal it, split profits, or anything of the kind.” All of this is accompanied by an amusing little thing called a “psychological-linguistic expert analysis,” which, you’ll laugh, explains what exactly the villains were talking about:
The crook investigators commissioned it from some friendly little outfit in Volgograd Region (!), which is where one of the heads of the investigative team came from. So, in the “wiretaps” they kept only what the investigators consider suspicious, while leaving out what I consider excellent evidence — for example, my calls to a Big Four auditor asking them to arrange an audit of Kirovles. Agree, it’s a bit odd to be embezzling a company’s funds while asking for an independent audit of that same company — and they didn’t include that in the indictment. But it’s in the case materials. We’ll read it out in court. I apologize in advance to anyone who actually makes it as far as the wiretaps for the abundance of profanity. I’ll do better. Reading the indictment, what jumps out at you is that on every page they write about “unfavorable prices,” a “loss-making contract,” “undervaluation,” but nowhere — not in a single place — is any of it backed up by figures or expert analysis. Or even by comparison with another contract. We have all those figures; the investigators just aren’t interested in them. Amusingly, in one place they forgot to remove a mention that the timber had been paid for and the money transferred to Kirovles, which these payment orders fully confirm. Well, after old Voldemar’s interview, it’s ridiculous even to discuss it. In short, anyone who wants to dive deeper into this timber-fueled hell — dive in. While you’re at it, try to find any substantial evidence that I organized the theft of 16 million rubles (about 160,000 USD at the time). Whoever actually manages to find such evidence in the indictment wins a prize: 20 cubic meters of spruce sawlogs.
Tags
People