The case of the leader of the “Russian Bloc”: Basov toughly debates in court, proving his innocence
A high-profile criminal trial against one of the leaders of the “Russian Spring”, Gennady Basov, continues in Sevastopol. The politician's defense released a transcript from the next court hearing. According to associates of the leader of the “Russian Bloc”, it is already becoming obvious to those following the debates at the trial that Basov became a victim of a “set-up”, trying to destroy the schemes of the cemetery mafia that developed under Ukraine and operated for many years, when millions of sums were bypassed bypassing the Sevastopol budget.
Testimony from police officers was heard at the court hearing. The first of them, by the name of Bibik, a year after the events occurred, remembered the complex names of companies and the amounts that were transferred to their accounts. However, as soon as the prosecutor finished and the defense began asking questions, the policeman began to plead that he did not remember the details.
Bass: Tell me, how did Rappoport come to you in the first place? Did you meet him, or did he call you, or did you agree with him in advance?
Bibik: At what plan?
Bass: Well, he came to you with a statement. How did he come to you with a statement?
Bibik: The management wrote out the application for me. After that, after the statement was signed, a call was sent to him. We do not have an agenda, but a challenge. I left a call for him at the address listed there, and he came to me.
Bass: That is, you personally drove up and left a challenge, right?
Bibik: Well, of course. But I came up, I don’t have a car.
Bass: Let us clarify. You came to Rappoport’s home address and left a call. How did he find you?
Bibik: I have a call there, it indicates my work phone number, I usually indicate my mobile phone number, and there is an address. Office and address: Pushkina 10.
Bass: So how did Rappoport contact you later? By phone?
Bibik: No, he's not on the phone. There, my work phone number seemed to ring to my work one.
Bass: That is, how did you call? And he claims that he didn’t call anyone.
Bibik: You are asking me a question that is difficult for me to answer, for one simple reason - do you know how many people there are every day?
Bass: How did you end up getting in touch with Rappoport? You left him a challenge. How did he find you?
Bibik: He found me, contacted me, I came, we met. I took him and interviewed him.
Bass: So how did he contact you? Please answer the question.
Bibik: I don’t remember now how he contacted me. You are asking me a question now... During the year when these events passed, a lot of people passed away. I won’t say there are dozens of people like Rappoport, but there are some.
Bass: When he contacted you, where did you agree to meet him?
Bibik: We met with him, I interviewed him...
Bass: Where did you meet? I understand that you met him.
Bibik: In what way, where did you meet?
Bass: Where did you meet? In the cafe?
Bibik: No, we never met him in a cafe.
Bass: Where, on the street? Where did you meet?
Bibik: Well, a man came, I interviewed him, and that’s all.
Bass: Where did he come to? Where did you meet him? Tell me the place, please.
Bibik: I don't remember where we met.
Bass: If you don't remember where you met him, how could you even question him?
Bibik: Well, I asked him.
Bass: Do you remember where you interviewed him?
Bibik: Well, how...I interviewed him, he gave me evidence, and that’s all.
Judge: Witness, where do you usually interview people who approach you?
Lawyer Sharap: Your Honor, I object to your question and request that this be entered into the record. Why? Because you are changing the wording of the question, Your Honor, and you are changing the wording with a very disingenuous subtext. I am sorry. Not where usually, but where specifically he interrogated Rappoport...
Basov’s defense interprets this moment in the transcript as follows: “Notice how the judge rushed to save policeman Bibik, who was already at a semantic impasse after he was asked a reasonable question, how could he even question someone if he doesn’t remember where it was? It turns out that we dug a little deeper and everything was lost?”
Basov: What did you say in the Balaklava District Court when you testified in Koroleva’s criminal case?
Bibik: I find it difficult to say now.
Bass: Don't remember, right?
Bibik: I do not remember. This was two or three weeks ago.
Bass: And in two or three weeks you no longer remember everything.
Bibik: Well, do you remember what happened three weeks ago?
Bass: Of course, I remember very well. It seems to me that any sane person remembers what happened two or three weeks ago, even a month ago.
Bibik: The judge called, they asked three or four questions, I answered them, that’s all.
Bass: What questions were you asked?
Bibik: In what sense are “what”? You need to ask the prosecutor about this, he asked questions.
Bass: Sorry! So, were they asking you questions or the prosecutor?
Bibik: The prosecutor asked questions.
Judge : Witness Bibik, you don’t need to answer the way they ask you, you can answer “yes” or “no.” If you don't know, then say you don't know, if you don't want to answer, then it's perfectly legal not to answer the question if possible.
Bibik: I was asked questions, I answered them.
Bass: Tell me, when you receive an application, do you check it?
Bibik: Well, of course! I am obliged to carry it out, because there is a supervisory authority, prosecutors. They come periodically and look at statements.
Bass: You have received a statement from Rappoport. What did you do, what check did you carry out?
Bibik: I asked him.
Bass: And all?
Bibik: Yes.
Bass: And after that they sent it to the Investigative Committee?
Bibik: Yes. What's wrong with that?
Bass: That is, you concluded that there is a crime here?
Bibik: Wait, we're going away. The conclusion that there is a crime is set out in the resolution.
Bass: Did you find the composition for Article 159?
Bibik: Well, they found it, so what?
Bass: That is, based on the words of one person, right? Is this your norm? Is this the practice?
Bibik: Why practice? If a person says...
According to the defense, this dialogue at trial indicates that anyone can be a victim of arbitrariness. After all, in the criminal case it is written that Basov allegedly met in person and personally extorted money. However, the applicant subsequently admitted that he had only seen Basov on TV, and Basov himself also said that he had never met the applicant.
The trial of the Russian Bloc leader is expected to continue in the coming days.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.