Theft of a car or a police "setup"?
Recently, the issue of provocations by police officers has often been raised on our website.
I would like to describe one case from my practice, which is interesting in that I had the opportunity to look at the same situation from two points of view - my own and the criminal investigators involved in this case.
And yet, the matter is old, so I can talk about it more openly.
This was one of my first things to do. when I just took off my police shoulder straps and started trying to apply my law enforcement experience in the glorious lawyer field.
I defended one of the two detained representatives of the "near abroad" who were accused of stealing the Volga car, which at that time had wide demand among our population.
One detainee, A., was accused of having got into someone else’s car and hijacked to steal, and my client, V., of being present at the same time and his actions contributed to the theft.
Both hijackers were interrogated, and from them the testimony “necessary” to the investigation had already been obtained.
When I got acquainted with V.'s testimony, in which he pleaded guilty and completely exposed A., with a full description of the objective and subjective side of the composition, provided for by Art. 158 h. 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, he discovered one most interesting fact -V. was a representative of a “non-Russian” nationality, but the investigation did not consider it necessary to explain to V. that he had the right to testify in his native language, use the services of an interpreter, and also did not find out whether V. agreed to testify in Russian and the degree to which he speaks this language. (Article 189, Part 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) And all the documents with the participation of V. were executed in Russian.
Of course, we didn’t refuse such a “gift” and immediately declared that V. was not of Russian nationality, had poor command of the Russian language, needed the services of an interpreter, and calmly “disowned” all the initial testimonies, giving in his native language V. using the services translator, new, not necessary to the investigation, but to us.
For A., I recommended a good lawyer who got involved. And with our joint efforts, we successfully began to “put sticks in the wheels” of the debugged “car” of the preliminary investigation.
The case looked like a banal, ordinary car theft, in a series of similar cases that would be completed and forgotten by going to the lawyer archive. If not for one, but .....
A group of ESD employees developed a group that was professionally involved in car thefts in the city.
The employees were aware of the places of “work” of the group and the vehicles for which they “specialized”.
It was decided to catch the hijackers on the "live bait". And while cars were tight. Therefore, one of the heads of the department, on parole, from his good acquaintance for a while took the new Volga, the latest model that they decided to use in the “operation”.
The plan was this - they put the Volga near the market - one of the places of the "sphere of activity" of the hijackers and monitor it. The capture group is nearby, out of sight. When the hijackers get into the car, the observer on the walkie-talkie must give the capture group a command to detain ...
One day, near the Volga, a car stopped, from which three men got out. Everyone approached the car, looked around. Then one of them, breaking a side window, quickly got into a car and started driving it ...
Further, the situation developed as in a bad detective story. The observer on the walkie-talkie began to give a command to detain him, and the walkie-talkie stopped working (either the wire went off, or the battery "sat down").
The hijacker calmly started the car and drove off. The other two got into their car and followed.
ESD staff were left with nothing.
Of course, they announced the Interception plan in the city, and gave the data of both cars.
An hour later they detained the car on which the hijackers drove up initially. It was the whole trinity.
But Volga isn’t ...
The department’s management felt very bad about this - how to explain to the owner of Volga?
The hijackers, realizing that "not caught - not a thief", where the car is not said.
But it is not for nothing that there is a police saying that “a real“ opera ”should be“ twisted ”, like a pig’s tail.
"Opera" find a way out with the least loss for themselves and offer one of the "crooks" to return the car to them in exchange for his freedom. He agrees. He is released, and he keeps his word and returns the stolen car.
It turns out that there are two hijackers left , there is a stolen car and there are witnesses - police officers. Article 158, part 3 (qualifying sign - major damage) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, looms quite real. But if the investigation “reveals” the entire “mechanism” of the actions of the ESD staff in this case, then there is a possibility that the court will consider these actions a provocation.
There was something to ponder ...
But the case developed according to its own scenario. A. took all the blame on himself, and was also able to refuse the initial testimony from our submission, since his interrogations were carried out with the same procedural violations.
V. was released from custody (facilitated by giving new testimonies in the native language of V. and A.), but the charge was not dropped.
After familiarizing himself with the case from custody, A. was also released (such miracles). Of course, he immediately left our hospitable country ...
A., of course, did not appear at the trial. And the court, it seems, had no desire to judge V. without A.
A. was wanted, and the case was quietly “buried” in the archives of the court. What, of course, we did not mind.
Of course, if there was a need, then we would have to prove the fact of police provocation. Maybe. This fact was taken into account by the court.
And we were deprived of the opportunity to see how the court will evaluate the actions of police officers in this situation.
I would like to describe one case from my practice, which is interesting in that I had the opportunity to look at the same situation from two points of view - my own and the criminal investigators involved in this case.
And yet, the matter is old, so I can talk about it more openly.
This was one of my first things to do. when I just took off my police shoulder straps and started trying to apply my law enforcement experience in the glorious lawyer field.
I defended one of the two detained representatives of the "near abroad" who were accused of stealing the Volga car, which at that time had wide demand among our population.
One detainee, A., was accused of having got into someone else’s car and hijacked to steal, and my client, V., of being present at the same time and his actions contributed to the theft.
Both hijackers were interrogated, and from them the testimony “necessary” to the investigation had already been obtained.
When I got acquainted with V.'s testimony, in which he pleaded guilty and completely exposed A., with a full description of the objective and subjective side of the composition, provided for by Art. 158 h. 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, he discovered one most interesting fact -V. was a representative of a “non-Russian” nationality, but the investigation did not consider it necessary to explain to V. that he had the right to testify in his native language, use the services of an interpreter, and also did not find out whether V. agreed to testify in Russian and the degree to which he speaks this language. (Article 189, Part 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) And all the documents with the participation of V. were executed in Russian.
Of course, we didn’t refuse such a “gift” and immediately declared that V. was not of Russian nationality, had poor command of the Russian language, needed the services of an interpreter, and calmly “disowned” all the initial testimonies, giving in his native language V. using the services translator, new, not necessary to the investigation, but to us.
For A., I recommended a good lawyer who got involved. And with our joint efforts, we successfully began to “put sticks in the wheels” of the debugged “car” of the preliminary investigation.
The case looked like a banal, ordinary car theft, in a series of similar cases that would be completed and forgotten by going to the lawyer archive. If not for one, but .....
Operational development.
From reliable sources regarding this matter, I became aware of the following information.A group of ESD employees developed a group that was professionally involved in car thefts in the city.
The employees were aware of the places of “work” of the group and the vehicles for which they “specialized”.
It was decided to catch the hijackers on the "live bait". And while cars were tight. Therefore, one of the heads of the department, on parole, from his good acquaintance for a while took the new Volga, the latest model that they decided to use in the “operation”.
The plan was this - they put the Volga near the market - one of the places of the "sphere of activity" of the hijackers and monitor it. The capture group is nearby, out of sight. When the hijackers get into the car, the observer on the walkie-talkie must give the capture group a command to detain ...
One day, near the Volga, a car stopped, from which three men got out. Everyone approached the car, looked around. Then one of them, breaking a side window, quickly got into a car and started driving it ...
Further, the situation developed as in a bad detective story. The observer on the walkie-talkie began to give a command to detain him, and the walkie-talkie stopped working (either the wire went off, or the battery "sat down").
The hijacker calmly started the car and drove off. The other two got into their car and followed.
ESD staff were left with nothing.
Of course, they announced the Interception plan in the city, and gave the data of both cars.
An hour later they detained the car on which the hijackers drove up initially. It was the whole trinity.
But Volga isn’t ...
The department’s management felt very bad about this - how to explain to the owner of Volga?
The hijackers, realizing that "not caught - not a thief", where the car is not said.
But it is not for nothing that there is a police saying that “a real“ opera ”should be“ twisted ”, like a pig’s tail.
"Opera" find a way out with the least loss for themselves and offer one of the "crooks" to return the car to them in exchange for his freedom. He agrees. He is released, and he keeps his word and returns the stolen car.
It turns out that there are two hijackers left , there is a stolen car and there are witnesses - police officers. Article 158, part 3 (qualifying sign - major damage) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, looms quite real. But if the investigation “reveals” the entire “mechanism” of the actions of the ESD staff in this case, then there is a possibility that the court will consider these actions a provocation.
Continuation of the investigation and trial.
Therefore, of course. The “scheme” of the actions of ESD employees is not disclosed in the case. A statement about the theft “appears” from the owner of the Volga, they are given evidence that it was he who set the car before the theft. And police officers, of course, quite “accidentally” witnessed the theft.There was something to ponder ...
But the case developed according to its own scenario. A. took all the blame on himself, and was also able to refuse the initial testimony from our submission, since his interrogations were carried out with the same procedural violations.
V. was released from custody (facilitated by giving new testimonies in the native language of V. and A.), but the charge was not dropped.
After familiarizing himself with the case from custody, A. was also released (such miracles). Of course, he immediately left our hospitable country ...
A., of course, did not appear at the trial. And the court, it seems, had no desire to judge V. without A.
A. was wanted, and the case was quietly “buried” in the archives of the court. What, of course, we did not mind.
Of course, if there was a need, then we would have to prove the fact of police provocation. Maybe. This fact was taken into account by the court.
And we were deprived of the opportunity to see how the court will evaluate the actions of police officers in this situation.
ليست هناك تعليقات: