Important Documents

Complaint to S.V. Kudeneyev, Prosecutor of the city of Moscow

To: S. V. Kudeneyev
Prosecutor of the city of Moscow

From: M. S. Dolomanov
Attorney, Dolomanov & Partners
Registry Number 77/922

 

COMPLAINT

When I was received at the Russian General Prosecutor’s Office on 12 March 2012, I handed over to the host party a statement dated 11 March 2012 by Andrei F. Borodin addressed to the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation to be considered on its merits.  The statement contained facts pointing to misapplication of budget funds and numerous legal violations during the so-called “financial restructuring” of the Bank of Moscow.

On 16 March 2012 Mr Borodin’s statement was groundlessly forwarded by the Russian General Prosecutor’s Office to the Investigations Department of the Russian Interior Ministry to check the arguments in the course of the investigation of Criminal Case No. 89816. I have lodged a complaint against that action. Because my complaint was granted, Mr Borodin’s statement was forwarded to the Russian Interior Ministry Main Administration for Moscow Economic Security and Corruption Control Directorate to organize a check under Articles 144-145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. (more…)

Complaint Submitted by Andrey Borodins Defence

Attn: Lieutenant-General (Police) V.V. Kozhokar,

Head, Investigative Department, RF Interior Ministry

[from] attorneys

M.S. Dolomanov

Law firm «Dolomanov and Partners»,

14/17 Pokrovsky Blvd., Bldg. 1, Suite 9, Moscow, 101000

V.N. Krasnov

Law firm «Gauf and Partners»

7 B. Strochenovsky Lane, Moscow, 115054

D.V. Kharitonov

Law firm «Gridnev and Partners»

1 Golutvinsky Lane, Domus Business center, Suite 9, Moscow, 119180

In defense of A.F. Borodin

APPEAL

(as per Art. 124 of the RF CCP)

On September 29, 2011, the head of the investigative group handling criminal case №89816 issued an order to indict A.F. Borodin as a defendant whereby he was charged with committing the crime contemplated in part 4, Art. 159 of the RF CC.
We will show below that charging A.F. Borodin with committing fraud is knowingly false, whereas the order to indict him as a defendant (subsequently, “the Indictment”) is inconsistent with the provisions of part 4, Art. 7 and Art. 171 of the RF CCP. In particular, it fails to describe properly circumstances subject to proof due to the rules contained in paragraphs1-4, Art. 73 of the RF CCP, which significantly infringes on the right to defense and, therefore, evidences a violation of guarantees afforded A.F. Borodin [under] Art. 46 (part 1), Art. 48 (part 1) of the RF Constitution, Art. 11 of the RF CCP.

Начальнику Следственного Департамента МВД РФ

Генерал-лейтенанту полиции Кожокарю В.В.

Адвокатов

Доломанова М.С.

Коллегия адвокатов «Доломанов и Партнеры»,
101000, г.Москва, Покровский бульвар, д.4/17, стр.1, офис 9

Краснова В.Н

Коллегия адвокатов «Гауф и Партнеры»
115054, г.Москва, Б. Строченовский пер., д.7

Харитонова Д.В.

Коллегия адвокатов «Гриднев и Партнеры»
119180, г.Москва, 1й Голутвинский пер., д.1, БЦ «Домус», офис 9

 

В защиту Бородина А.Ф

 

ЖАЛОБА
(в порядке ст.124 УПК РФ)
29  сентября  2011  г.  руководитель  следственной  группы  по  уголовному  делу №89816 вынес постановление о привлечении Бородина А.Ф. в качестве обвиняемого, в соответствии с которым ему было вменено обвинение по ч.4ст.159 УК РФ.
Как будет показано ниже, обвинение Бородина А.Ф. в совершении мошенничества является заведомо ложным, а постановление о привлечении в качестве обвиняемого (далее – ППО) не соответствует  требованиям ч.4 ст.7 и ст.171 УПК РФ, в частности в нем неописаны должным образом обстоятельства, подлежащие доказыванию в силу норм п.п.1-4 ст.73  УПК  РФ,  что  существенно  ущемляет  право  на  защиту  и,  следовательно, свидетельствует о нарушении гарантий, предоставленных Бородину А.Ф. ст. 46 (ч.1), ст.48 (ч.1) Конституции РФ, ст.11 УПК РФ. (more…)