Contact us in messengers or by phone.

whatsapp telegram viber phone email
+79214188555

LEGAL LIMITATION? INFINITE LAWLESSNESS?

Матушкин Андрей Николаевич

Президент IAPD
Staff member
Private access level
Full members of NP "MOD"
Joined
Jan 1, 1970
Messages
21,931
Reaction score
3,755
Points
113
Age
53
Location
Россия,
Website
o-d-b.ru
Good day, dear friends. A respected colleague from one of the regions of Russia addressed me, he is, as I understand it, under non-legal pressure. Below is an article about his current situation in which his last name has been changed. Request to colleagues, post this article in Russian and English versions on all possible Internet resources with a link to the forum.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely, Matushkin Andrey.


LEGAL LIMITATION?

A familiar detective turned to me, let's call him Shatov, and told the following.
In April 2010, a good acquaintance of Shatov, a construction businessman Utkin, rented an office and offered the detective a corner in his office to receive clients. Shatov agreed and almost immediately moved to a new room. At that time, the detective could not even imagine that a change of location would entail great and completely unbelievable consequences.
The businessman Utkin had disagreements with the employee Antipenko, who was leftist and stealing, which, of course, did not like his employer. In the end, the negligent worker went to the competitor Badyagin and after his departure he visited the office only once to find out the relationship with Utkin, which Shatov and his partner were witnesses to. It would seem that history should have ended on this, but everything turned out differently ...
In January 2011, Shatov accepted an order to collect information on a civil case regarding the appearance of illegally issued certificates of private security guards, which bear the signature of the former head of the Office for the Organization of Licensing and Permitting Work of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus, police colonel, now retired Ministry of Internal Affairs Martynenko. The detective managed to find out that private security guards paid 2000 rubles for each certificate and did not undergo any training. A criminal case was opened on the fact of illegal issuance of certificates of private security guards by the Investigative Committee for the city of Ufa. And in April of the same year, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus received a statement from Martynenko stating that detective Shatov allegedly illegally conducts ORM against him, which violate his rights and freedoms as a citizen of the Russian Federation. This statement became the reason for an unscheduled audit of Shatov’s activities, as a result of which the detective was issued an official warning for allegedly found violations of license requirements, he also drew up a protocol on an administrative offense and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles. It should be noted that the decision on an administrative offense was falsified - made retroactively. The detective began to “butt” with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus and the prosecutor's office of the Republic of Belarus, while preparing an application and documents for submission to the court.
Further events began to develop even more unexpectedly. On the 20th of June, Shatov was summoned to the police department in the Uth district and was interrogated twice during the week, first as a witness, then as a suspect (!) In a crime under 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (threat of murder). Citizen Antipenko, a former Utkin employee, acted as the victim in the case. As a matter of urgency in violation of Art. 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the investigating authorities carried out an identification, during which Antipenko recognized in detective Shatov a person who had come to him in the garden house on the N of December 2010 and threatened to kill him by putting a gun on his head.
It also turned out that the applicant had already written a corresponding statement to the Department of Internal Affairs of the U-th district in December 2010, but then a “rejected” order was issued. After which Antipenko wrote a letter addressed to the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation Nurgaliev R.G. that businessman Utkin is the leader of the organized crime group, sells drugs and weapons in Ufa, and has corrupt connections among police officers. On May 5, 2011, the prosecutor of the U-th district, Gubaidullin, canceled the decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings and instituted criminal proceedings under Art. 119 of the Criminal Code (threat of murder), and the applicant had a lawyer - former deputy prosecutor of the U-th district Pletnev.
During participation in investigative activities in the police department of the U-th district, Shatov realized that he was being “sewed” with a case. The confrontation of the “suspect” with the “victim” citizen Antipenko was actually led by a lawyer who openly worked on the interrogator and deflected the most significant and significant questions of detective Shatov. It turned out that the inquiry had a witness, which, according to Shatov, could not be in principle, because the detective was not in the indicated place and, accordingly, did not threaten anyone. And despite the fact that earlier Shatov in his complaint addressed to the prosecutor of the U-th district of Gubaidullin wrote that falsification of evidence was being prepared - the interrogation of false witnesses and the identification of the pistol, no action was taken by those in power.
Recently, Shatov received information that Antipenko is an insolvent client, and his current employer, Badyagin, a competitor of Utkin, pays for him with an expensive lawyer. In addition, it turned out that the detective “has a tooth” and other persons in power, as he “crossed the road” to many.
Information for consideration. The prosecutor of the U-th district Gubaidullin holds the justice of the peace of his region in a fist (the peace judges themselves call the prosecutor Gubaidullin and ask what sentence to pronounce in each particular case), therefore, he will push the criminal case to the court by all means to convict him . And the former head of the Organization for Licensing and Permitting Organization of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus, a colonel of police, and now a pensioner of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Martynenko, has a daughter, an employee of the prosecutor's office of the K-th district, Kolupaevu. The prosecutor's office of the K-th district and the prosecutor's office of the U-th district are in the same staircase.
Question: What should Detective Shatov do? I ask for advice.



Hello dear friends. A respected colleague from a region of Russia asked me to advise what he should do in the current situation (see the article). I think he is persecuted illegally. Below you can find the article about his situation (all surnames are changed). Please place this article in English and Russian with the link to Forum on all Internet resources where you can do it.
Best regards, Andrey Matushkin.


INFINITE LAWLESSNESS?

A detective, with whom I am acquainted, let's call him Shatov, came to me with the following story:
In April 2010, Shatov rented out some office space to his acquaintance, Utkin. Utkin is a businessman in the construction industry. In return for the office space, Utkin offered Shatov some space in this office where he can meet with his clients. Shatov accepted his offer and moved in the new office shortly. The detective did not foresee the grave consequences that this move would entail.
A discrepancy surfaced between Utkin, the businessman, and his employee, Antipenko. Antipenko was making money on the side without the approval of his employer. Eventually Antipenko left Utkin's employ and began working for a rival, Badyagin. After leaving, Antipenko only returned once to Utkin's office. He returned only to speak to Utkin regarding their relationship. Shatov and his co-worker witnessed this discussion. It would seem that the story should end there, but everything turned out differently.
In January 2011, Shatov received an order to collect information regarding a civil case about fake certifications issued to private security guards. This order was signed by the now retired police colonel and head of licensing of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Martynenko. The Shatov and his other detectives found out that private security guards were paying 2,000 rubles to be issued a certificate to work as private security guards without actually going through the required training. The Investigative Committee of Ufa filed a criminal case regarding these fake certifications. In April of the same year, the MIA received a statement from Martynenko that the detective Shatov conducted illegal searches which violated Martynenko's rights and freedoms as a citizen of the Russian Federation. This report was the reason for an unscheduled inspection of Shatov's operations. The inspection resulted in the detective receiving an official warning for the alleged breach of the licensing requirements. Also, a protocol was established regarding administrative violations and the detective was ordered to pay a fine of 1,500 rubles. It should be noted that the document given to Shatov establishing his offense and the fine he was required to pay was falsified. The date was back dated. The detective began to fight his case with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Attorney General of the Republic of Bashkortostan and at the same time he began preparing his documents to present to the court.

From there, the events began to unveil even more unexpectedly. At the end of June, Shatov was requested to appear before the Department of Internal Affairs of the U district. In the course of one week he was interrogated twice; first as a witness, then as a suspect of an offence under section 119 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation (death threats). Mr. Antipenko, the former employee of Utkin, appeared in the case as a victim. In a manner of urgency, with an alleged violation of section 193 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation, the investigating authorities carried out an investigation during which Antipenko identified the detective, Shatov, as a person who came to his garden, put a gun to his head and threatened him with death sometime in December of 2010.

It was later discovered that Antipenko provided a statement to the police station of U district in December 2010, but the statement was rejected. After that, Antipenko wrote a letter to Minister of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, Nurgaliev, that the businessmen Utkin is the leader of a organized criminal group, sells drugs and weapons in Ufa, and has a corrupt relationship with the employees of the police department. In May 5, 2011, a prosecutor of U district, Gubaidullin, voided the rejection of the statement and the decision not to commence criminal proceedings. He then filed a criminal case under section 119 of the Criminal Code (death threats). It appeared that Antipenko acquired an attorney who happens to be a former deputy of prosecutor of U district Pletnev.

While the investigation was taking place in the police department of U district, Shatov realized that the case against him was being fabricated. Antipenko's lawyer led an interrogation with the "suspect" and the "victim", Mr. Antipenko During this investigation, the lawyer took advantage of the situation and openly influenced the investigator by setting aside Shatov's most important and significant questions. Moreover, the investigators claimed to have a material witness. According to Shatov, however, this witness could not exist because Shatov was never in the alleged location (the garden) and therefore did not threaten anyone. Shatov wrote to the prosecutor of the U district, Gubaidulina, explaining that false evidence was being presented against him - the interrogation of false witnesses and false identification of the gun - however, no action was taken by the authorities. Recently Shatov received information that Antipenko is unable to pay his attorney. The lawyer in turn is being paid by Antipenko's current employer, Badyagin, Utkin's competitor. In addition, it turned out that several people in higher authority hold a grudge against Utkin.

Information to consider: (1) The prosecutor of U district, Gubaidullin, has the magistrates of his district at the palm of his hand. (2) The magistrates call Gubaidullin themselves and ask what sentence to give in each case. (3) Gubaidullin will do everything in his power to ensure that a guilty verdict is reached in this criminal case. (4) Furthermore, the now retired police colonel and head of the licensing of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) of the Republic of Bashkortostan republic, Martynenko, has a daughter, Kolupaeva, who works for the prosecutor's office of K district. (5) The prosecutor's office of K and U districts are located in the same entryway.

Q: What should detective Shatov do? Please advise.



Ciao cari amici. Un collega rispettato da una regione della Russia mi ha chiesto di consigliare quello che dovrebbe fare nella situazione attuale (vedi l'articolo). Credo che sia perseguitato illegalmente. Qui di seguito potete trovare l'articolo sulla sua situazione (i cognomi sono cambiati). Si prega di inserire questo articolo in inglese e russo con il link al forum su tutte le risorse internet dove si può fare.
Cordiali saluti, Andrey Matushkin.


SENZA PIU 'LEGGE INFINITO?

Un detective, con cui sono a conoscenza, chiamiamolo Sàtov, venne da me con la seguente storia:
Nel mese di aprile 2010, Satov affittato uno spazio ufficio per la sua conoscenza, Utkin. Utkin è un uomo d'affari nel settore delle costruzioni. In cambio per lo spazio ufficio, Utkin offerto Satov po 'di spazio in questo ufficio dove può incontrare i suoi clienti. Satov accettato la sua offerta e si è trasferito nella nuova sede a breve. Il detective non prevedeva le gravi conseguenze che questa mossa avrebbe comportato.
Una discrepanza tra superficie Utkin, l'uomo d'affari, e il suo dipendente, Antipenko. Antipenko era fare soldi sul lato senza l'approvazione del suo datore di lavoro. Alla fine Antipenko sinistra impiegano Utkin e iniziò a lavorare per un rivale, Badyagin. Dopo aver lasciato, Antipenko solo una volta tornato in ufficio di Utkin. Tornò solo a parlare di Utkin quanto riguarda il loro rapporto. Sàtov e il suo collega testimone di questa discussione. Sembrerebbe che la storia dovrebbe finire lì, ma è andato tutto diversamente.
Nel gennaio 2011, Satov ricevuto l'ordine di raccogliere informazioni in merito a una causa civile di certificazioni false emesse da guardie di sicurezza private. Questo ordine è stato firmato dal colonnello di polizia ormai in pensione e capo della licenza del Ministero degli Affari Interni (MIA) della Repubblica di Bashkortostan, Martynenko. Il Sàtov e il suo detective altri ha scoperto che le guardie di sicurezza private pagavano 2,000 rubli per essere rilasciato un certificato di lavorare come guardie di sicurezza privata senza in realtà passa attraverso la formazione necessaria. Il comitato investigativo di Ufa depositato una causa penale per quanto riguarda queste certificazioni false. Nell'aprile dello stesso anno, il MIA ha ricevuto una dichiarazione Martynenko che il detective Satov condotto perquisizioni illegali che hanno violato Martynenko i diritti e le libertà in quanto cittadino della Federazione Russa. Questo rapporto è stato il motivo di un sopralluogo in programma delle operazioni di Sàtov. L'ispezione ha portato alla detective riceve un richiamo ufficiale per la presunta violazione dei requisiti di licenza. Inoltre, un protocollo è stato stabilito in relazione a violazioni amministrative e il detective è stata condannata a pagare una multa di 1,500 rubli. Va notato che il documento consegnato Satov stabilendo la sua offesa e l'ammenda è stato tenuto a pagare è stato falsificato. La data è tornato datato. Il detective ha iniziato a combattere il suo caso con il Ministero degli Affari Interni e il Procuratore Generale della Repubblica di Bashkortostan e al tempo stesso ha iniziato a preparare i suoi documenti da presentare al tribunale.

Da lì, gli eventi cominciarono a svelare ancora più inaspettatamente. Alla fine di giugno, Sátov è stato chiesto di comparire davanti al Dipartimento degli Affari Interni del distretto di U. Nel corso di una settimana è stato interrogato due volte: prima come testimone, poi come un sospetto di un reato ai sensi della sezione 119 Codice penale della Federazione Russa (minacce di morte). Mr. Antipenko, l'ex dipendente di Utkin, apparso nel caso come una vittima. In un modo di urgenza, con una presunta violazione della sezione 193 del Codice Penale della Federazione Russa, le autorità inquirenti hanno svolto un'inchiesta nel corso della quale Antipenko identificato il detective, Sàtov, come una persona che venard ao gi pistola alla la testa e lui minacciato di morte qualche volta nel dicembre del 2010.

Successivamente si è scoperto che Antipenko fornito una dichiarazione alla stazione di polizia del distretto di U nel dicembre 2010, ma l'affermazione è stata respinta. Dopo di che, Antipenko ha scritto una lettera al Ministro degli Affari Interni della Federazione Russa, Nurgaliev, che il Utkin imprenditori è il leader di un gruppo criminale organizzato, vende la droga e le armi a Ufa, e ha un rapporto corrotto con i dipendenti della polizia dipartimento. In 5 maggio 2011, un procuratore distrettuale di U, Gubaidullin, annullato il rifiuto della dichiarazione e la decisione di non avviare un procedimento penale. Ha poi presentato una causa penale a sensi della sezione 119 del codice penale (minacce di morte). Sembrava che Antipenko acquisito un avvocato che sembra essere un ex vice procuratore distrettuale di U Pletnev.

Mentre l'inchiesta era in corso nel dipartimento di polizia di quartiere U, Sàtov capito che il caso contro di lui era stato fabbricato. Avvocato Antipenko ha condotto un interrogatorio con il "sospetto" e la "vittima", il Sig. Antipenko Durante questa indagine, l'avvocato ha approfittato della situazione e apertamente influenzato il ricercatore mettendo da parte Sàtov domande più importanti e significantativi. Inoltre, i ricercatori hanno affermato di avere un testimone materiale. Secondo Sàtov, però, questa testimonianza non potrebbe esistere perché Satov non è mai stato nella posizione presunta (il giardino) e quindi non minacciare nessuno. Satov ha scritto al procuratore del distretto di U, Gubaidulina, spiegando che la falsa testimonianza era stato presentato contro di lui - l'interrogatorio di testimoni falsi e falsa identificazione della pistola - tuttavia, nessuna azione è stata presa dalle autorit. Recentemente Satov ricevuto informazioni che Antipenko è in grado di pagare il suo avvocato. L'avvocato, a sua volta viene pagato dal datore di lavoro attuale Antipenko, il Badyagin, concorrente di Utkin. Inoltre, si è scoperto che diverse persone in maggiore autorità porto rancore a Utkin.

Informazioni da considerare: (1) Il procuratore del distretto di U, Gubaidullin, ha i magistrati del suo distretto al palmo della mano. (2) I magistrati chiamano Gubaidullin se stessi e chiedersi cosa frase di dare in ogni caso. (3) Gubaidullin farà tutto quanto in suo potere per garantire che un verdetto di colpevolezza è raggiunto in questo caso criminale. (4) Inoltre, il colonnello di polizia ormai in pensione e capo della licenza del Ministero degli Affari Interni (MIA) della Repubblica di Bashkortostan repubblica, Martynenko, ha una figlia, Kolupaeva, che lavora per l'ufficio del procuratore distrettu distrettu (5) L'ufficio del procuratore di K e distretti U si trovano nella stessa porta d'ingresso.

D: Cosa detective satov fare? Si prega di avvisare.
 
Original message
Доброго времени суток, уважаемые друзья. Ко мне обратился уважаемый коллега из одного из регионов России, он находится по моему пониманию под не правовым прессингом. Ниже приведена статья о сложившейся у него ситуации, в которой изменены фамилии. Просьба к коллегам, разместите данную статью в русском и английском вариантах на всех возможных интернет ресурсах с ссылкой на форум.
За ранее спасибо.
С уважением, Матушкин Андрей.


ПРАВОВОЙ БЕСПРЕДЕЛ?

Ко мне обратился знакомый детектив, назовем его Шатов, и рассказал следующее.
В апреле 2010 г. хороший знакомый Шатова коммерсант Уткин, занимающийся строительством, снял офис и предложил детективу угол в своем офисе для приема клиентов. Шатов согласился и почти сразу переехал в новое помещение. На тот момент детектив не мог даже предположить, что смена места его дислокации повлечет за собой большие и совершенно невероятные последствия.
У коммерсанта Уткина возникли разногласия с работником Антипенко, который левачил и подворовывал, что, естественно, не нравилось его работодателю. В конце концов нерадивый работник ушел к конкуренту Бадягину и после своего ухода наведался в офис только однажды, чтобы выяснить отношения с Уткиным, чему Шатов с напарником оказались свидетелями. Казалось бы, история должна была на этом и закончиться, однако все сложилось иначе...
В январе 2011 г. Шатов принял заказ на сбор информации по гражданскому делу по факту появления незаконно выданных удостоверений частных охранников, на которых стоит подпись бывшего начальника Управления организации лицензионно-разрешительных работ МВД РБ полковника милиции, ныне пенсионера МВД Мартыненко. Детективу удалось выяснить, что частные охранники платили за каждое удостоверение по 2000 рублей и при этом не проходили никакого обучения. По факту незаконной выдачи удостоверений частных охранников Следственным комитетом по г. Уфа было возбуждено уголовное дело. А в апреле того же года в МВД РБ поступило заявление от Мартыненко о том, что детектив Шатов якобы незаконно проводит ОРМ в его отношении, которые нарушают его права и свободы как гражданина РФ. Данное заявление стало поводом для внеплановой проверки деятельности Шатова, по итогам которой детективу вынесли официальное предупреждение за якобы найденные у него нарушения лицензионных требований, а также составили протокол об административном правонарушении и обязали выплатить штраф в сумме 1500 рублей. Следует заметить, что постановление об административном правонарушении фальсифицировали – сделали задним числом. Детектив начал «бодаться» с МВД РБ и прокуратурой РБ, параллельно подготавливая заявление и документы для предоставления их в суд.
Далее события стали развиваться еще более неожиданно. В 20-х числах июня Шатова вызвали в ОВД по У-му району и в течение недели два раза допросили, сначала в качестве свидетеля, потом в качестве подозреваемого(!) в преступлении, предусмотренном 119 УК РФ (угроза убийством). В качестве потерпевшего в деле выступил гражданин Антипенко – бывший сотрудник Уткина. В срочном порядке с нарушением ст. 193 УПК РФ следственные органы провели опознание, в ходе которого Антипенко узнал в детективе Шатове лицо, которое N числа декабря 2010 г. приходило к нему в садовый дом и угрожало убийством, прикладывая пистолет к его голове.
Выяснилось также, что заявитель еще в декабре 2010 г. писал соответствующее заявление в ОВД У-го района, но тогда было вынесено «отказное» постановление. После чего Антипенко написал письмо на имя министра внутренних дел РФ Нургалиева Р.Г. о том, что коммерсант Уткин является лидером ОПГ, торгует в Уфе наркотиками и оружием и имеет коррумпированные связи среди сотрудников милиции. 5 мая 2011 г. прокурор У-го района Губайдуллин отменил постановление об отказе в возбуждении уголовного дела и возбудил уголовное дело по ст. 119 УК РФ (угроза убийством), а у заявителя появился адвокат – бывший заместитель прокурора У-го района Плетнев.
В ходе участия в следственных мероприятиях в ОВД У-го района Шатов понял, что ему «шьют» дело. Очной ставкой «подозреваемого» с «потерпевшим» гражданином Антипенко фактически руководил адвокат, который открыто воздействовал на дознавателя и отводил наиболее значимые и существенные вопросы детектива Шатова. Выяснилось, что у дознания имеется свидетель, которого, по мнению Шатова, не может быть в принципе, т.к. детектив в указанном месте не был и, соответственно, никому не угрожал. И несмотря на то, что ранее Шатов в своей жалобе на имя прокурора У-го района Губайдуллина писал, что готовится фальсификация доказательств – допрос лжесвидетелей и опознание пистолета, никаких действий со стороны власть имущих не последовало.
Недавно Шатов получил информацию, что Антипенко является неплатежеспособным клиентом, и дорогостоящего адвоката ему оплачивает его нынешний работодатель – Бадягин, конкурент Уткина. Помимо этого оказалось, что на детектива «имеют зуб» и другие облеченные властью персоны, так как он многим «перешел дорогу».
Информация к размышлению. Прокурор У-го района Губайдуллин держит мировых судей своего района в кулаке (мировые судьи сами звонят прокурору Губайдуллину и спрашивают, какой приговор вынести в каждом конкретном случае), следовательно, он будет всеми способами продвигать данное уголовное дело в суд, чтобы там вынести обвинительный приговор. А бывший начальник Управления организации лицензионно-разрешительных работ МВД РБ полковник милиции, а ныне пенсионер МВД Мартыненко имеет дочь – работника прокуратуры К-го района Колупаеву. Прокуратура К-го района и прокуратура У-го района находятся в одном подъезде.
Вопрос: Что делать детективу Шатову? Прошу совета.



Hello dear friends. A respected colleague from a region of Russia asked me to advise what he should do in the current situation (see the article). I think he is persecuted illegally. Below you can find the article about his situation (all surnames are changed). Please place this article in English and Russian with the link to Forum on all Internet resources where you can do it.
Best regards, Andrey Matushkin.


INFINITE LAWLESSNESS?

A detective, with whom I am acquainted, let’s call him Shatov, came to me with the following story:
In April 2010, Shatov rented out some office space to his acquaintance, Utkin. Utkin is a businessman in the construction industry. In return for the office space, Utkin offered Shatov some space in this office where he can meet with his clients. Shatov accepted his offer and moved in the new office shortly. The detective did not foresee the grave consequences that this move would entail.
A discrepancy surfaced between Utkin, the businessman, and his employee, Antipenko. Antipenko was making money on the side without the approval of his employer. Eventually Antipenko left Utkin’s employ and began working for a rival, Badyagin. After leaving, Antipenko only returned once to Utkin’s office. He returned only to speak to Utkin regarding their relationship. Shatov and his co-worker witnessed this discussion. It would seem that the story should end there, but everything turned out differently.
In January 2011, Shatov received an order to collect information regarding a civil case about fake certifications issued to private security guards. This order was signed by the now retired police colonel and head of licensing of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Martynenko. The Shatov and his other detectives found out that private security guards were paying 2,000 rubles to be issued a certificate to work as private security guards without actually going through the required training. The Investigative Committee of Ufa filed a criminal case regarding these fake certifications. In April of the same year, the MIA received a statement from Martynenko that the detective Shatov conducted illegal searches which violated Martynenko’s rights and freedoms as a citizen of the Russian Federation. This report was the reason for an unscheduled inspection of Shatov’s operations. The inspection resulted in the detective receiving an official warning for the alleged breach of the licensing requirements. Also, a protocol was established regarding administrative violations and the detective was ordered to pay a fine of 1,500 rubles. It should be noted that the document given to Shatov establishing his offense and the fine he was required to pay was falsified. The date was back dated. The detective began to fight his case with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Attorney General of the Republic of Bashkortostan and at the same time he began preparing his documents to present to the court.

From there, the events began to unveil even more unexpectedly. At the end of June, Shatov was requested to appear before the Department of Internal Affairs of the U district. In the course of one week he was interrogated twice; first as a witness, then as a suspect of an offence under section 119 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation (death threats). Mr. Antipenko, the former employee of Utkin, appeared in the case as a victim. In a manner of urgency, with an alleged violation of section 193 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation, the investigating authorities carried out an investigation during which Antipenko identified the detective, Shatov, as a person who came to his garden, put a gun to his head and threatened him with death sometime in December of 2010.

It was later discovered that Antipenko provided a statement to the police station of U district in December 2010, but the statement was rejected. After that, Antipenko wrote a letter to Minister of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, Nurgaliev, that the businessmen Utkin is the leader of a organized criminal group, sells drugs and weapons in Ufa, and has a corrupt relationship with the employees of the police department. In May 5, 2011, a prosecutor of U district, Gubaidullin, voided the rejection of the statement and the decision not to commence criminal proceedings. He then filed a criminal case under section 119 of the Criminal Code (death threats). It appeared that Antipenko acquired an attorney who happens to be a former deputy of prosecutor of U district Pletnev.

While the investigation was taking place in the police department of U district, Shatov realized that the case against him was being fabricated. Antipenko’s lawyer led an interrogation with the "suspect" and the "victim", Mr. Antipenko. During this investigation, the lawyer took advantage of the situation and openly influenced the investigator by setting aside Shatov’s most important and significant questions. Moreover, the investigators claimed to have a material witness. According to Shatov, however, this witness could not exist because Shatov was never in the alleged location (the garden) and therefore did not threaten anyone. Shatov wrote to the prosecutor of the U district, Gubaidulina, explaining that false evidence was being presented against him – the interrogation of false witnesses and false identification of the gun – however, no action was taken by the authorities. Recently Shatov received information that Antipenko is unable to pay his attorney. The lawyer in turn is being paid by Antipenko’s current employer, Badyagin, Utkin’s competitor. In addition, it turned out that several people in higher authority hold a grudge against Utkin.

Information to consider: (1) The prosecutor of U district, Gubaidullin, has the magistrates of his district at the palm of his hand. (2) The magistrates call Gubaidullin themselves and ask what sentence to give in each case. (3) Gubaidullin will do everything in his power to ensure that a guilty verdict is reached in this criminal case. (4) Furthermore, the now retired police colonel and head of the licensing of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) of the Republic of Bashkortostan republic, Martynenko, has a daughter, Kolupaeva, who works for the prosecutor's office of K district. (5) The prosecutor's office of K and U districts are located in the same entryway.

Q: What should detective Shatov do? Please advise.



Ciao cari amici. Un collega rispettato da una regione della Russia mi ha chiesto di consigliare quello che dovrebbe fare nella situazione attuale (vedi l'articolo). Credo che sia perseguitato illegalmente. Qui di seguito potete trovare l'articolo sulla sua situazione (i cognomi sono cambiati). Si prega di inserire questo articolo in inglese e russo con il link al forum su tutte le risorse internet dove si può fare.
Cordiali saluti, Andrey Matushkin.


SENZA PIU 'LEGGE INFINITO?

Un detective, con cui sono a conoscenza, chiamiamolo Sàtov, venne da me con la seguente storia:
Nel mese di aprile 2010, Satov affittato uno spazio ufficio per la sua conoscenza, Utkin. Utkin è un uomo d'affari nel settore delle costruzioni. In cambio per lo spazio ufficio, Utkin offerto Satov po 'di spazio in questo ufficio dove può incontrare i suoi clienti. Satov accettato la sua offerta e si è trasferito nella nuova sede a breve. Il detective non prevedeva le gravi conseguenze che questa mossa avrebbe comportato.
Una discrepanza tra superficie Utkin, l'uomo d'affari, e il suo dipendente, Antipenko. Antipenko era fare soldi sul lato senza l'approvazione del suo datore di lavoro. Alla fine Antipenko sinistra impiegano Utkin e iniziò a lavorare per un rivale, Badyagin. Dopo aver lasciato, Antipenko solo una volta tornato in ufficio di Utkin. Tornò solo a parlare di Utkin quanto riguarda il loro rapporto. Sàtov e il suo collega testimone di questa discussione. Sembrerebbe che la storia dovrebbe finire lì, ma è andato tutto diversamente.
Nel gennaio 2011, Satov ricevuto l'ordine di raccogliere informazioni in merito a una causa civile di certificazioni false emesse da guardie di sicurezza private. Questo ordine è stato firmato dal colonnello di polizia ormai in pensione e capo della licenza del Ministero degli Affari Interni (MIA) della Repubblica di Bashkortostan, Martynenko. Il Sàtov e il suo detective altri ha scoperto che le guardie di sicurezza private pagavano 2.000 rubli per essere rilasciato un certificato di lavorare come guardie di sicurezza privata senza in realtà passa attraverso la formazione necessaria. Il comitato investigativo di Ufa depositato una causa penale per quanto riguarda queste certificazioni false. Nell'aprile dello stesso anno, il MIA ha ricevuto una dichiarazione Martynenko che il detective Satov condotto perquisizioni illegali che hanno violato Martynenko i diritti e le libertà in quanto cittadino della Federazione Russa. Questo rapporto è stato il motivo di un sopralluogo in programma delle operazioni di Sàtov. L'ispezione ha portato alla detective riceve un richiamo ufficiale per la presunta violazione dei requisiti di licenza. Inoltre, un protocollo è stato stabilito in relazione a violazioni amministrative e il detective è stata condannata a pagare una multa di 1.500 rubli. Va notato che il documento consegnato Satov stabilendo la sua offesa e l'ammenda è stato tenuto a pagare è stato falsificato. La data è tornato datato. Il detective ha iniziato a combattere il suo caso con il Ministero degli Affari Interni e il Procuratore Generale della Repubblica di Bashkortostan e al tempo stesso ha iniziato a preparare i suoi documenti da presentare al tribunale.

Da lì, gli eventi cominciarono a svelare ancora più inaspettatamente. Alla fine di giugno, Sàtov è stato chiesto di comparire davanti al Dipartimento degli Affari Interni del distretto di U. Nel corso di una settimana è stato interrogato due volte: prima come testimone, poi come un sospetto di un reato ai sensi della sezione 119 del Codice penale della Federazione Russa (minacce di morte). Mr. Antipenko, l'ex dipendente di Utkin, apparso nel caso come una vittima. In un modo di urgenza, con una presunta violazione della sezione 193 del Codice Penale della Federazione Russa, le autorità inquirenti hanno svolto un'inchiesta nel corso della quale Antipenko identificato il detective, Sàtov, come una persona che venne a suo giardino, puntarono una pistola alla la testa e lui minacciato di morte qualche volta nel dicembre del 2010.

Successivamente si è scoperto che Antipenko fornito una dichiarazione alla stazione di polizia del distretto di U nel dicembre 2010, ma l'affermazione è stata respinta. Dopo di che, Antipenko ha scritto una lettera al Ministro degli Affari Interni della Federazione Russa, Nurgaliev, che il Utkin imprenditori è il leader di un gruppo criminale organizzato, vende la droga e le armi a Ufa, e ha un rapporto corrotto con i dipendenti della polizia dipartimento. In 5 maggio 2011, un procuratore distrettuale di U, Gubaidullin, annullato il rifiuto della dichiarazione e la decisione di non avviare un procedimento penale. Ha poi presentato una causa penale ai sensi della sezione 119 del codice penale (minacce di morte). Sembrava che Antipenko acquisito un avvocato che sembra essere un ex vice procuratore distrettuale di U Pletnev.

Mentre l'inchiesta era in corso nel dipartimento di polizia di quartiere U, Sàtov capito che il caso contro di lui era stato fabbricato. Avvocato Antipenko ha condotto un interrogatorio con il "sospetto" e la "vittima", il Sig. Antipenko. Durante questa indagine, l'avvocato ha approfittato della situazione e apertamente influenzato il ricercatore mettendo da parte Sàtov domande più importanti e significativi. Inoltre, i ricercatori hanno affermato di avere un testimone materiale. Secondo Sàtov, però, questa testimonianza non potrebbe esistere perché Satov non è mai stato nella posizione presunta (il giardino) e quindi non minacciare nessuno. Satov ha scritto al procuratore del distretto di U, Gubaidulina, spiegando che la falsa testimonianza era stato presentato contro di lui - l'interrogatorio di testimoni falsi e falsa identificazione della pistola - tuttavia, nessuna azione è stata presa dalle autorità. Recentemente Satov ricevuto informazioni che Antipenko è in grado di pagare il suo avvocato. L'avvocato, a sua volta viene pagato dal datore di lavoro attuale Antipenko, il Badyagin, concorrente di Utkin. Inoltre, si è scoperto che diverse persone in maggiore autorità porto rancore a Utkin.

Informazioni da considerare: (1) Il procuratore del distretto di U, Gubaidullin, ha i magistrati del suo distretto al palmo della mano. (2) I magistrati chiamano Gubaidullin se stessi e chiedersi cosa frase di dare in ogni caso. (3) Gubaidullin farà tutto quanto in suo potere per garantire che un verdetto di colpevolezza è raggiunto in questo caso criminale. (4) Inoltre, il colonnello di polizia ormai in pensione e capo della licenza del Ministero degli Affari Interni (MIA) della Repubblica di Bashkortostan repubblica, Martynenko, ha una figlia, Kolupaeva, che lavora per l'ufficio del procuratore distrettuale di K. (5) L'ufficio del procuratore di K e distretti U si trovano nella stessa porta d'ingresso.

D: Cosa detective Satov fare? Si prega di avvisare.
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
300
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Екатеринбург +7-95-36-036-273
Ohhh, how everything is twisted, immediately into the head and nothing climbs, you need to think tightly


Sincerely, Alexander.
 
Original message
Оххх, как все закручено, сразу в голову и не лезет ничего, думать плотно надо


С уважением, Александр.
A

Anonymous

In all "ordered" criminal cases there is always selfish interest. I would advise Mr. Shatov to track this interest. And among other things, look and confirm this selfish interest with concrete examples from the everyday life of "stranglers". They don’t give a damn about their property ...
And specifically, always every corrupt "strangler" has the ability to live beyond his means. So let Detective Shatov first tell one of the stranglers a scary story about Comrade Koreiko and his plate with a blue border. Work - work, and his vest is always closer to the body ...: lol:
 
Original message
Во всех "заказных" уголовных делах всегда имеется корыстный интерес. Я бы посоветовал господину Шатову отследить данный интерес. А кроме прочего посмотреть и подтвердить этот корыстный интерес конкретными примерами из обыденной жизни "душителей". На свою то собственность им не наплевать...
А если конкретно, то всегда каждый корррумпированный"душитель" имеет свойство жить не по средствам. Вот и пускай детектив Шатов для начала одному из душителей расскажет страшную историю про товарища Корейко и про его тарелочку с голубой каёмочкой. Работа - работой, а своя тельняшка всегда ближе к телу... :lol:

ДНК

Зарегистрированный
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
162
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Age
51
Location
Частный детектив Карпович Дмитрий Николаевич Росси
I categorically disagree with Kurgan ... attacking when a shelter without a trace is not possible (because you can break your neck or nakulesil something else) .... first you need to stop, look around, choose a place for defense, and while biting - fight back. ... to find a normal lawyer, + a detective (having concluded an agreement with him and notifying the judge because he will not be able to collect information on the criminal case) to listen to the accusations and take pains to find justification and defense on every point .... but when the onslaught weakens, and he will weaken. for it is necessary to attack both time and desire and skill — to include means from defense to the offensive and systematically, breaking each point of the charge, bring not only their arguments, but also evidence conducive to obtaining inadmissible and incorrect and untrue evidence from the prosecution .... the case will still reach the court of our colleague - it is mandatory that the jury + additional witnesses and information of the defense .... first break up the charge and the case, and then go on the offensive ... good luck, colleague ...
 
Original message
Категорически не согласен с Курганом...нападать, когда бежищь без огядки - не возможно (ибо можно сломать шею или накуролесить еще чего либо)....для начала нужно остановиться, осмотреться, выбрать место для обороны, и пока кусаться - отбиваться....подобрать нормального адвоката, + детектива (заключив с ним договор и уведомив судью ибо самому собирать сведения по уголовному делу будет нельзя) выслушать обвинения и страраться по каждому пункту найти оправдание и защиту....а вот когда натиск ослабнет, а он ослабнет. ибо нападать нужно и время и желание и умение - включать средства от обороны к наступлению и планомерно, разбивая каждый пункт обвинения приводить не только свои доводы, но и доказательства способствующие получению не допустимых и не корректных и не правдивых доказательств со стороны обвинения....дело все равно дойдет до суда нашего коллеги - обязательно суд присяжных + дополнительные свидетели и сведения защиты....сначала развалить обвинение и дело, а затем переходить в наступление...удачи, коллега...
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
876
Reaction score
3
Points
16
Age
53
Location
Красноярск. ул. Красной гвардии 24 - 316. тел. 8-9
Детективное агентство. След. Екатеринбург. said:
Ohhh, how everything is twisted, immediately into the head and nothing climbs, you need to think tightly

Sincerely, Alexander.
That's it, that everything is twisted and somehow messy set out.
 
Original message
Детективное агентство. След. Екатеринбург. said:
Оххх, как все закручено, сразу в голову и не лезет ничего, думать плотно надо

С уважением, Александр.
Вот именно, что все закручено и как-то сумбурно изложено.

Евгений СБ

Зарегистрированный
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
684
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Age
56
Location
Москва
Website
iapd.info
From the foregoing, it is not clear. Is any pistol seized from Shatov as evidence. Does Shatov have (had) him at all?
Why was the rejection order originally issued?
There are a lot of questions, not enough information.
But he definitely needs an alibi confirmation. It is advisable to have at least two or three witnesses who confirm that on day X, Shatov was with them in the country and celebrated the birthday of one of those present. Or something like that. And everyone should "sing" in unison. Perhaps he was generally outside the region? There are many options.
It clearly follows that the interested person is Utkin’s competitor, Bodyagin, if it is reliably known that he pays for Antipenko’s lawyer.
It is necessary to break the testimony of the appeared witness. As an option, take the details of his mobile with details that will show in which area he was in time, allegedly a rude conversation with Antipenko. The same option can be used with a mob. tel. Shatova and Antipenko. Three such details will show, I hope, show that the whole trinity was in different places.
In addition, I can say that the falsification of administrative penalties is not subject (in case of proof) to any punishment. Currently, this future Law is only being considered.
And it would not hurt (among other things) to bring discord into the "friendly ranks of the law enforcement and punitive system).
In general, this topic, as I think, should be considered at least in semi-private.
 
Original message
Из вышесказанного не понятно. Изъят ли какой-либо пистолет у Шатова, как вещественное доказательство. Есть ли (был ли) он у Шатова вообще?
Почему изначально был вынесено Постановление об отказе?
Вопросов много, информации недостаточно.
Но однозначно ему требуется подтверждение алиби. Желательно не менее двух-трех свидетелей, которые подтвердят, что в день Х, Шатов находился с ними на даче и праздновал день рождения, кого либо из присутствующих. Или что-то в этом роде. Причем все должны "петь" в унисон. Возможно он вообще находился за пределами региона? Вариантов много.
Явно следует, что заинтересованным лицом, является конкурент Уткина, Бодягин, если достоверно известно, что он оплачивает адвоката Антипенко.
Нужно разбить показания появившегося свидетеля. Как вариант взять детализацию его мобильного с детализацией, которая покажет, в каком районе он находился во-время, якобы грубого разговора с Антипенко. Этот же вариант можно использовать с моб. тел. Шатова и Антипенко. Три таких детализации покажут, надеюсь, покажут, что вся троица находилась в различных местах.
Кроме этого могу сказать, что фальсификация по линии административных наказаний не подлежит (в случае доказанности) каким-либо наказаниям. В настоящее время этот будущий Закон лишь рассматривается.
И не мешало бы (помимо всего прочего) внести раздор в «дружные ряды правоохранительной и карающей системы).
А вообще эта тема, как мне думается, должна рассматриваться как минимум в полупривате.
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
876
Reaction score
3
Points
16
Age
53
Location
Красноярск. ул. Красной гвардии 24 - 316. тел. 8-9
Частный детектив CБ said:
It clearly follows that the interested person is Utkin’s competitor, Bodyagin, if it is reliably known that he pays for Antipenko’s lawyer.
I say that everything is stated chaotically, jumps from one to another. If the customer is Bodyagin, Utkin’s competitor, then why is the detective being pressed? And cell billing is a topic!
 
Original message
Частный детектив CБ said:
Явно следует, что заинтересованным лицом, является конкурент Уткина, Бодягин, если достоверно известно, что он оплачивает адвоката Антипенко.
Я и говорю, что изложено всё сумбурно, перескакивает с одного на другое. Если заказчик Бодягин, конкурент Уткина, то почему прессуют детектива? А биллинг сотовых - это тема!

Матушкин Андрей Николаевич

Президент IAPD
Staff member
Private access level
Full members of NP "MOD"
Joined
Jan 1, 1970
Messages
21,931
Reaction score
3,755
Points
113
Age
53
Location
Россия,
Website
o-d-b.ru
Our colleague will be on the forum in two hours and will give an explanation.
 
Original message
Наш коллега будет на форуме часа через два и даст пояснения.
A

Anonymous

In general, I think that Utkin was hit by a toad, but Shatov did not pay for the office corner, and that he burned the negligent Antipenko. Bodyagin, who hired Antipenko, was angry at Shatov, but Shatov did not warn him that Antipenko was negligent in stealing from Bodyagin too. At the same time, Bodyagin was very closely connected with the head of the licensing service, since he apparently worked in private security business and overnight lost all the guards who bought licenses. Antipenko, too, on Shatov’s “initiative”, lost his license for private security activities ист pistol ’work. It’s just not clear why Shatov needed a toy pistol, since no other BH weapons were required.
 
Original message
Я вообще думаю, что Уткина заела жаба, зато что Шатов за офисный угол не платил,�а что��палил нерадивого Антипенко. Бодягин, который взял на работу Антипенко, был зол на Шатова зато,что Шатов его не предупредил, что Антипенко нерадивый стал у Бодягина тоже приворовывать.В то же время Бодягин был очень тесно связан с начальником лицензионной службы, так как по всей видимости занимался частным охранным бизнесом и в одночасье лишился всех охранников, которым покупал лицензии. Антипенко тоже по "инициативе" Шатова лишился лицензии на частную охранную деятельность�пистолета��аботы. Вот только не понятно, зачем Шатову нужен был игрушечный пистолет, так как иное оружие ЧД не положено.

Евгений СБ

Зарегистрированный
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
684
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Age
56
Location
Москва
Website
iapd.info
Частный детектив. Анатолий Маланченко. Красноярск. said:
Частный детектив CБ said:
It clearly follows that the interested person is Utkin’s competitor, Bodyagin, if it is reliably known that he pays for Antipenko’s lawyer.
I say that everything is stated chaotically, jumps from one to another. If the customer is Bodyagin, Utkin’s competitor, then why is the detective being pressed? And cell billing is a topic!


As I understand it, in this case Utkin should be charged with the Organization and put into operation with a “steam locomotive”. Shatov, on the other hand, as a performer.
 
Original message
Частный детектив. Анатолий Маланченко. Красноярск. said:
Частный детектив CБ said:
Явно следует, что заинтересованным лицом, является конкурент Уткина, Бодягин, если достоверно известно, что он оплачивает адвоката Антипенко.
Я и говорю, что изложено всё сумбурно, перескакивает с одного на другое. Если заказчик Бодягин, конкурент Уткина, то почему прессуют детектива? А биллинг сотовых - это тема!


Я так понимаю, что в этом случае Уткину должны вменить Организацию и пустить "паровозом". Шатов же - как исполнитель.