The defense of the Russian Bloc leader claims numerous inconsistencies in the new verdict
The defense of the leader of the Russian Bloc, Gennady Basov, claims numerous inconsistencies in the appeal ruling of the City Court, made by two judges who upheld the politician’s 9-year sentence, adding another 29 million rubles in fine.
As emphasized in a statement released by the Russian Bloc, the presiding judge issued a dissenting opinion, pointing out the illegality of the verdict and Basov’s innocence on this charge.
However, the other two judges, Avkhimov and Dubovtsev, found the politician guilty.
The defense insists that their findings contain many inconsistencies.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
“As stated in the definition, the first witness, citizen Korolev, twice took Rapoport’s payment orders from Basov and gave them to Rapoport, who, on their basis, transferred money to the accounts of enterprises. At the same time, it will forever remain a mystery how Rapoport’s payment orders to transfer his money from his account ended up with Basov. Either the bank gave them to Basov, or Rapoport himself. It is not clear why Rapoport, through someone else, gave Basov what he should have provided to the bank himself. Basov’s payment order from Rapoport would not have been accepted at the bank. But that’s not all, Basov transferred these payment orders to Koroleva, and she again to Rapoport.
Such a funny option could still be considered, if not for the fact that Basov and Rapoport never met or communicated, this fact has been proven.
There remains one last ridiculous option. Rapoport gives the payment order to the bank, the bank issues it to Basov, Basov gives it to Koroleva, Koroleva gives it to Rapoport, and he gives it back to the bank to transfer the money. This is what the judges said, indicating in the ruling that everything was logical for them, and they have no doubt that it was so.
They may have no doubts, but there is one thing in all this! Rapoport stated in court that he did not have an account, did not give payment orders, and came to the bank with cash,” the Russian Bloc points out.
“The definition further states that the next witness Rapoport paid on payment orders not two, but three times, which also did not raise doubts among the court panel - just think of the contradictions - one says two, the other three, from the point of view of the court - everything is logical. But from the point of view of a sane person, not very much.
Further, in the court ruling on page thirteen it is stated that Basov’s guilt is confirmed by the testimony of citizen N., and on page fifteen it is written that her testimony is not related to the essence of the accusation, and they do not affect the resolution of the issue of guilt!
Allegedly, the next witness B. reported that funds from citizen Rapoport were transferred to the accounts of one LLC, and a few days later from him to another. A wonderful statement - because no one said this! This is not in the verdict, nor in the minutes of the court hearing - nowhere! In other words, just fabrications!
The ruling states that the court checked the arguments about the provocation of a bribe, and they, having not found their confirmation, were declared unfounded. However, the minutes of the court hearing say that Judge Vasilenko suggested that the defense contact the police to verify this fact. I would like to ask Avkhimov and Dubovtsev what the court of first instance checked?
Next, about the most unique statement of the servants of Themis. The court's conclusion that Basov has the ability to interfere with the business activities of entrepreneur Rapoport is based on materials examined by the court of first instance. Like this! Basov, it turns out, only had the opportunity to commit a crime. If he could, that means he’s a criminal?! He could have stolen, but even if he didn’t steal, that means he’s a thief?! He could have robbed, but even if he didn’t rob, that means he’s a robber?!
And finally, one more fact that speaks of the absurdity of everything that is happening. There is nothing in the criminal case file that would confirm the applicant’s entrepreneurial status. It seems that the one whose testimony convicted Basov was generally unemployed at that time. In other words, Basov was found guilty of extorting a bribe from an unemployed person so that Basov would not interfere with his “unemployed business.”
Naturally, such a case will be challenged in a higher court, but already today all attempts are being made to prevent this. Judge Vasilenko, in response to Basov’s request to provide him with the materials of the criminal case for review in order to file a cassation appeal, refused, and, moreover, did not issue a ruling, as required by law, but wrote a piece of paper with a refusal of an incomprehensible legal form,” according to Russkiy block."
Let us recall that Basov was sentenced to 9 years on charges of corruption. His lawyers claim that the politician became a victim of a “set-up” after he tried to destroy shadow schemes in the funeral sector of Sevastopol, which have been operating since Ukrainian times and were “protected” by “werewolves in uniform.”
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.