What does bulk have to do with willow roche. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict in the case of Yves Rocher

Alexei Navalny was present at the meeting of the Supreme Court in person, his brother Oleg - via video link from the colony, where he is serving his sentence in this case.

The prosecutor's office opposed the cancellation of the sentence and the review of the case. Lawyers for the Navalny brothers advocated the cancellation of the sentence due to the absence of a crime event. Lawyer Vadim Kobzev emphasized that the European Court of Human Rights “came to the conclusion about judicial arbitrariness” in the case.

Alexey Navalny also spoke at the meeting. “Dear court, it sometimes seems to me that you and I will get so old and die in this wheel of samsara of their courts against me or my loved ones,” he said. The politician recalled that his brother had already served almost the entire term - 3 years and 4 months out of 3 years and 6 months. “And I don’t even know which is better: to sit to the end or now you will come up with something like this [that everything will start all over again]. This is cruel even by the standards of the "black lord". I believe that the only correct decision would now be to resume the proceedings and immediately terminate it in the absence of corpus delicti, ”Navalny said.

Oleg and Alexey Navalny were found guilty of fraud in December 2014. The Zamoskvoretsky court sentenced Alexey to 3.5 years of probation, and Oleg - to the same term of real punishment. According to the version of the investigation, which the court considered proven, Navalny organized the delivery of goods for the Yves Rocher company at inflated rates from Yaroslavl to Moscow and the MPK company

The reason for the reconsideration of the case was the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. In October 2017, the Strasbourg court found in the Navalny case a violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on the Right to a Fair Trial and Fair Punishment. The court also awarded them monetary compensation. As a result, the question of reviewing the case was at a meeting of the Presidium of the Supreme Court.

According to the investigation, the Navalny brothers back in 2008 established the Main Subscription Agency LLC through an offshore company in Cyprus. And after that, using the official position of Oleg Navalny, who was the head of the department of internal mailings of the FSUE Russian Post branch, the prosecution says, he literally forced the companies of the victims to conclude contracts with their company for the delivery of goods. In particular, we are talking about the delivery of goods for the Yves Rocher company from their wholesale warehouse to Moscow - to the Russian Post office on the square of three stations, from where they have already been dispatched throughout the country. The prosecution insisted that the tariffs at which the parcels were delivered were overstated, and thus Navalny stole more than 31 million rubles.

Themselves Navalny did not admit guilt. The brothers insist that they were only engaged in business and provided services for organizing transportation on a legal basis. They argued that the prices at which they performed the work were average market prices. They asked to summon the drivers of the cars who were flying to the court and interrogate the victims.

Now I’ll tell you something important, as well as illegal. Rather, it is considered illegal for me personally, so I don't care about such a ban. I want you to know.

On Thursday I will be judged, which is a completely unoriginal statement, because today they will judge me (and even sentenced), and they will also judge me constantly - since the beginning of this year, I have already been convicted three times, having been found guilty.

But on Thursday they will again be judged on a grand scale. This is the so-called Yves Rocher case, in which my younger brother Oleg and I will be the defendants.

As you may remember, this case was initiated very cynically: they did not directly hide it as a "response" for the fact that I called for an unauthorized rally on December 15th. The message was clear: if you think that you will lead people to massive unauthorized rallies and think that we will not answer in lawlessness, then you are mistaken ... Then, within a week, the Investigative Committee announced the initiation of as many as three criminal cases against me.

"The Yves Rocher case" was the main one and was actively used by the box office and all the vile United Russia members to add "to the word" Navalny "for two years in a row who and his brother stole 50 million rubles from the French company Yves Rocher ".

Gradually, the amount "stolen" dropped to 27 million, but the essence of this has not changed.

Dealing with this is not very easy. Do you understand what it is complete nonsense... That's just nonsense and complete invention. But you also understand that any normal person would think: Well, it’s impossible to come up with the theft of 27 million from scratch. Putin will not substitute himself like that. It means that there is some kind of evidence. Or in court Navalny will prove that he is right.

Will prove yes. On all ships recent years to the last it seemed to me that they could not condemn me, because both the right and the truth are on my side.

How can you condemn me for Kirovles without an economic examination?

How can you blame me for resisting the police if anyone can see on the video that there is no resistance?

How can you blame me for shouting if anyone in the video can see that I was standing calmly?

Fine. Everywhere they condemned. We watched the video, made sure that there were no shouts and wrote in the court decision: shouted and waved his arms... By the way, I will be judged in the Yves Rocher case by the same judge Korobchenko, who saw the chanting and shouts in this video.

Therefore, I will not prove anything in court. But I want to prove to you, that's why I am writing. And so I ask you to help me spread this information.

So, from the very beginning, we knew that Yves Rocher was forced to write a statement. They worked with "glavpodiska" (the company through which the theft was allegedly committed) for five years, were satisfied, and now all this work has been declared fraudulent.

The FSB and the Investigative Committee came to them, saying: there will be no application, you will not be able to work. We know this from the words of the employees of the company itself. Yves Rocher's business is completely tied to the customs, controlled by the FSB, and "minor problems with cargo clearance" would have buried the whole business within a month.

Wrote - nothing can be done. We are not the FSB and we cannot force them to take the application back.

After some time, apparently, Yves Rocher realized that they wanted to use them not just for some kind of routine intimidation and threats, but for the direct fabrication of a political criminal case. They made a very vague statement. " after everything is over, no one will doubt our reputation"What this means was completely incomprehensible.

Then there were different messages about the fact that Yves Rocher did not recognize the damage and took the application. In particular, Dmitry Muratov, editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, spoke about this many times with reference to a personal conversation with the director of the company named Bruno Lepru.

However, this did not have any formal consequences: the case was going on, under his sauce there were seizures, searches and interrogations, recognizance not to leave, etc. Yves Rocher's company kept silent, keeps it to this day and has not made a single statement, except for the one above on the link.

Well, then the long-awaited moment came when the Investigative Committee announced the "end of the investigation" and we had the opportunity to get acquainted with the case materials. 157 volumes. When we started to get acquainted, in one of the very first volumes, we found the following sequence of documents:

What do I want from you? You can help me very simply. Read it all and tell someone else. Lj blog blocked,. There are only a few media outlets that are not afraid to write about it.

On this and the calculation: few people on the Internet know the truth, and in the zomboyaschik bomb "stole 27 million."

But you are not "a few people on the Internet". There are hundreds of thousands of you. There are hundreds of thousands of us ... We pressed the button three times and talked to a couple of people - several million already know about this.

The guys from FBK even made such a small website to make it easier to spread this calculation by Yves Rocher: http://delo.navalny.ru

If you want to help: distribute it (and if it is more convenient, then this post) where you can, send it to everyone who, following the propaganda, writes about " kidnapped from Yves Rocher". Tell your mom, grandmother. Talk to the taxi driver.

That's all. I have said a hundred times: there are more of us and our strength is such that we can expose any propaganda instantly. You just have to work and not think that someone will do it for you. Someone with more time or Facebook friends.

Nobody will do anything - just your front section will not be closed.

Here the vile stigma of Dmitry Kisilev and a variety of Simonyan's margarita with trembling pseudopods will crawl into it. No one will be to blame but you.

The Investigative Committee of Russia on Tuesday brought the final version of the charge against the brothers Alexei and Oleg Navalny in the case of embezzlement of funds from the Yves Rocher Vostok company.
And if at the beginning of the investigation the amount of stolen goods was estimated at more than 55 million rubles, now the investigators have reduced it by half - to 26 million rubles.

The brothers were also charged with the theft of funds from the Multidisciplinary Processing Company in the amount of over 4 million rubles and the laundering of some of the stolen goods.
It should be noted that this is the second criminal case against the oppositionist. On July 18, by the verdict of the Leninsky District Court of Kirov, Alexei Navalny received 5 years in prison and a fine of 500 thousand rubles for organizing the embezzlement of property of the state enterprise "Kirovles". However, the higher court first changed the policy of the measure of restraint pending consideration of his appeal against the verdict, and then completely replaced the appointed term with a suspended one.
How 55 million went down to 26 million
The investigation into the second criminal case of Alexei Navalny and his younger brother Oleg has been going on since December last year. He was instituted at the request of the director of the Russian division of Yves Rocher, Bruno Leproux. He argued that in 2008 Oleg Navalny convinced his company to conclude an unprofitable contract with his elder brother's Main Subscription Agency (GCA) for mail transportation on the Yaroslavl-Moscow route. By the way, Navalny Jr. was then the head of the department of internal mailings of the Russian Post.
The investigation came to the conclusion that mail transportation services were provided not by the GPU, but by another company, which was headed by an acquaintance of Oleg Navalny. The money for the postage, which the Yves Rocher Vostok company transferred in 2008-2011 to the Main Subscription Agency, was stolen. It must be said that initially the investigation estimated the damage caused to the Yves Rocher Vostok company at more than 55 million rubles.
At about the same time, Interregional Processing Company LLC also filed a statement to initiate a criminal case in the ICR. She reported the damage of 3.8 million rubles.
Now the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee Russian Federation Alexei Navalny and his brother Oleg are ultimately charged with embezzlement for a much smaller amount. At least as far as Yves Rocher Vostok is concerned. The TFR reports that by deception the brothers kidnapped cash firms worth more than 26 million rubles, and more than 4 million rubles were stolen from a multi-profile processing company. In addition, both legalized funds in the amount of more than 21 million rubles.
As before, the actions of the brothers are classified under two articles: fraud on an especially large scale, as well as money laundering (part 4 of article 159 and clause "a" of part 2 of article 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The first provides for up to 10 years in prison, the second for up to two.
Evgeny Minchenko, Director international Institute political expertise: “Some use Navalny as a tool in the fight against other clans. On the one hand, they need Navalny to have the halo of a martyr, and, on the other hand, that he remains free. Others believe that he misbehaves and that if he is in the middle of the gun, there is nothing to fight against corruption. Navalny's fate depends on a large number of factors, but I think he is psychologically ready for any option and for the option that he will be imprisoned for some time, preferably, of course, so that he does not suffer for very long. "
One hour for the final charge As it became known, the younger brother of the oppositionist, Oleg Navalny, visited the TFR the day before. Alexei Navalny went there today. The procedure took a total of one hour.
“After Alexey was handed the final version of the indictment, he was interrogated as an accused. Naturally, he did not admit his guilt, ”the politician's lawyer Vadim Kobzev told BFM.ru.
He explains that after ten months of the investigation the detectives halved the amount of damage allegedly caused by Yves Rocher Vostok as follows: “Apparently, they were ashamed of this absurd figure of 55 million rubles. After all, at first they took the entire turnover of the GPU and incriminated him to the Navalny brothers. Everyone laughed at this in unison. Apparently, the Investigative Committee decided to correct itself and, finally, to include at least some logic, demonstrating it when determining the amount of damage. "
According to the defender, in the near future the defendants and their lawyers will begin to familiarize themselves with the materials of the criminal case. “So far, even the investigator could not name the exact number of volumes, since they have not yet been formed. He talked about 50-60 volumes, but maybe more, ”said Kobzev.
According to him, to study them all, the accused and their lawyers may take at least three to four months. However, the investigation may at any time demand to limit this period and, most likely, the court will satisfy this request, since “it always follows the lead of the Investigative Committee” on such issues.
After the end of the investigation is officially announced, the defense of the Navalny brothers intends to petition to terminate the criminal case due to the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the accused. “There were no grounds for bringing them to criminal responsibility,” Vadim Kobzev is convinced.
Navalny will be tried in Moscow
If the investigation denies them this, then after the approval of the indictment, the case will be sent to court. Which one is still unclear. However, according to the participants in the criminal case, most likely the proceedings will take place in Moscow, and not in Yaroslavl. During the process, the defense will insist on an acquittal by the court.
Alexander Zabeyda, attorney, managing partner of Zabeyda, Kasatkin, Saushkin & Partners: “The very charge brought against Navalny is difficult to assess from the point of view of reasonable enforcement. In the Russian Federation, the rule of freedom of contract is in force, entrepreneurial activity is carried out at your own peril and risk, the rules of freedom of contract are the basis for a competitive market, and this means that the parties, at their discretion, determine all the terms of the contract. If there are real signatures under the contract, then the parties agree with everything stated, including the price. In fact, by such actions, law enforcement officers outlaw any overpricing relative to certain average indicators, which is not the most the best way is reflected in the investment attractiveness of our country ”.
Alexei Navalny was unavailable for comment today. However, just two weeks ago, in the Moscow City Court, appealing against the initiation of a criminal case, the oppositionist argued that his role in the criminal case was far-fetched, and that the persecution was based on political motives. Then Navalny said that the case was opened in retaliation for urging people to go to an unauthorized rally in winter. With the help of the criminal case, the authorities also tried to prevent him political activities in the Russian regions, taking from him a recognizance not to leave.

The trial began with the announcement of the testimony of former Yves Rocher CEO Bruno Leproux. And here the first surprise awaited us. It turns out that the filing of an application for Navalny was coordinated by Leproux with the French founders Yves Rocher.

However, this did not raise any special doubts before, but now it has received documentary confirmation.

The fact that the French agreed to prosecute Navalny once again confirms that the statement was written by Yves Rocher of his own free will. It is unlikely that the investigators of the TFR could sneak into Paris, imprison the founders of Yves Rocher in the Bastille in order to force them to incriminate Navalny.

Bruno Leproux also said that Yves Rocher was constantly faced with the problem of timely receiving and sending parcels by mail. Oleg Navalny undertook to solve this problem, presenting Glavpodpiska as a company that has connections with the management of the Russian Post. At the same time, Yves Rocher did not know that Oleg was at the same time the beneficiary of the Main Subscription. The suspicions arose and prompted them to apply to the ICR.

Further in the debate, the representatives of the prosecution took the floor. In general, previously known facts were announced. But one thing immediately drew attention to itself - registration of the company Glavpodiska on a figurehead (Zaprudsky), who was also paid for this. At the same time, as Zaprudsky says, all questions about the company were solved by Alexei Navalny, to whom he handed over the documents. Due to the participation of the dummy director, Navalny neglected issues of legality: for example, a number of signatures on the founding documents of the company were forged. As well as the contracts of the Main Subscription Company with Yves Rocher and Avtosaga - Zaprudsky denies that he signed them.

The founder of Glavpodpiska was a shell company - the Cypriot offshore company Alortag, which Navalny personally acquired (which he does not deny). Thus, Alexey conveyed warm greetings to the fighters against corruption and the offshore economy.

Record these facts, we will come back to them when we analyze the position of the defense.

A representative of the victims, the Yves Rocher company, also spoke in the debate. He fully confirmed the position of the prosecution, said that his company is not going to abandon claims against the defendants. The contract with Navalny's company was concluded due to problems at the post office, which could not receive parcels on time, which was critical for Yves Rocher's business. According to him, if everything was normal at the post office, Yves Rocher would never have concluded an agreement with Navalny's firm.

Actually, the victim fully confirmed everything that I have repeatedly written about: they cut off the oxygen to the Yves Rocher company and deceived them, they did not refuse claims in spite of all the pressure exerted. All this was confirmed not only by the victim, but also by other employees of Yves Rocher, for example Shakhmanov.

Navalny's lawyers, in turn, focused not on refuting the foundation of the accusation as a whole, but tried to break up some of its small details, in the end pretending that the charge was broken as a whole. The key arguments of Kobzev and Mikhailova were as follows:

1) Navalny has nothing to do with Glavpodiska and never managed it. The company was not created with a criminal purpose, it is a common business activity. The prosecution deliberately ascribes intent to the defendants where there is none.

The question arises, how then to be with the testimony of the nominal director Zaprudsky? What about the fact that Navalny made his offshore Alortag the founder of Glavpodpiska? For what purpose did he keep the constituent documents?

Especially the defense and Navalny himself ridiculed the term "conspiracy", which was used by the prosecution, characterizing the involvement of a nominal general director and the registration of an offshore company as the founder of Glavpodpiska. It is not very clear, however, what is so funny about the position of the accusation. Indeed, why such conspiracy: if we are talking about ordinary business activities, why not just register the company for yourself and head it personally?

The defense has no answers to these questions. Navalny tried to justify himself by saying that he did not want to "shine" his name because of his political activities and courts with large companies, of which he was a minority shareholder. This "explanation" is pretty easy to refute. Glavpodpiska was founded in May 2008. Navalny did not conduct any active political activity at that time, and was not even a lawyer at that time.

2) The investigators of the TFR put pressure on Yves Rocher's company, so she was forced to write a statement against Navalny.

There is not a single proof that the statement was written under pressure. This is denied by all the witnesses questioned.

However, let us examine, for example, the defense's argument about "a large volume of investigative actions" with the participation of Yves Rocher. What are these actions? Probably, searches were carried out, Yves Rocher's employees were detained and arrested, documents and seals of the company were seized, which made commercial activity impossible?

Unfortunately no. As the defense itself admits, there were only two requests for documents on Navalny's company, some of which were seized in originals, and CEO Yves Rocher was interviewed. Nobody was delayed, there were no searches. How the production of such investigative actions can put pressure on the company is a big mystery.

3) Yves Rocher wrote a letter about the absence of damage to the TFR.

As I wrote earlier, Yves Rocher did not write any letter to the TFR. It was written by the administrative and financial director Melnik and addressed to the head of the company, Bruno Leproux, who did not agree with the presented calculation (since there was no internal audit) and decided not to abandon claims against Navalny. Further, the same letter from Melnik was given to the TFR by a lawyer, accompanied by a lengthy letter in which it was vaguely stated that "the authorized persons had doubts about the amount of damage." Of course, the lawyer did not give up his claims, and none of Yves Rocher's management authorized him to do this.

All of this is reminiscent of some failed attempt at conspiracy behind the back of director Yves Rocher.

It remains for us to make out the last word of the accused Navalny. The main leitmotif of the speech was statements about the political underpinnings of the persecution.

Okay, let's agree with Alexei for a minute. But does the presence of a political motive mean that there is no crime? For example, the state persecutes terrorists and extremists, including on the basis of political considerations and disagreements with them. But does this stop terrorists and extremists from being such?

From the point of view of Navalny, the government is thus taking revenge on him for investigating major officials. But this is such a slightly strange way of revenge - to create a reputation for being persecuted by the authorities, and the persecuted himself is still not in prison. Moreover, in the Kirovles case, he was removed from there the next day after the verdict - contrary to all existing norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the prosecutor's office filed a complaint against itself! Not a single such case has previously been recorded in the legal practice of Russia.

Further, already in the existing case of Yves Rocher, the prosecution asked three times (!) To change the preventive measure from house arrest to the prison. And three times the court denied this, despite the irrefutable (established by the court's decision) facts of violation of house arrest by Navalny. Maybe political motivation in decisions on his cases should be taken into account when she works for Navalny?

Separately, it is necessary to dwell on the following words of Navalny: “By the way, I draw your attention to the fact that little was said in the debate about the accusations of legalization. through the parents' company. Have you interrogated your parents? "

But here we agree with Navalny. The prosecution never asked him simple questions, and he never answered ours:

- If the transaction with Yves Rocher Vostok LLC was legal, then why were the funds received from this transaction not capitalized in accordance with the law, but withdrawn to the account of the Kobyakovskaya Wicker Weaving Factory, which is controlled by your family?

- How can you explain the economic sense of concluding an agreement with OOO Kobyakovskaya Wicker Weaving Factory for renting real estate in Kobyakovo near Moscow? What entrepreneurial activity carried out there LLC "Main Subscription Agency", if you were at that time studying at Yale University? What caused such a high price of the lease agreement (in comparison with similar offers in Moscow)?

- What products were purchased by OOO Main Subscription Agency from OOO Kobyakovskaya Wicker Weaving Factory and what is the further fate of these products?

- For what legal services did the Kobyakovskaya Wicker Weaving Factory, controlled by your family, pay you?

Let me remind you that 19,880,660 rubles were withdrawn to the accounts of the Kobyakovskaya factory.

The following is surprising here. Not only that, Navalny himself dragged his parents into this scam, thus exposing them as potential accomplices. He also demands that the same "large volume of investigative actions" be carried out with the parents. So that his parents excuse him in this story before the investigation and court.

And of course, one cannot ignore this statement: "I will continue to fight this junta, stir up trouble, agitate, whatever you like, these people who are looking at the table. People have the legal right to revolt against this illegal, corrupt government."

In any civilized country, including Russia, the violent, unconstitutional overthrow of the current government is a crime. As well as calls for him - the "overthrow" was not just said in the court session, there was a broadcast to a large number of people who were not participants in the process - which Navalny knew very well. By a strange coincidence, these words instantly spread in many "independent" media, which only added a degree of gravity to the committed act.

Position Russian government Navalny's complaint was that their prosecution was lawful, since their actions fell under the Criminal Code, and during the trial the accused and their defense were not prejudiced in any way. In addition, the court, when sentencing, reclassified the charge in favor of the brothers and assigned them a mild sentence, said Georgy Matyushkin, a former Russian commissioner at the ECHR.

After the decision of the ECHR comes into force, Russia should stop the criminal prosecution of Alexei and Oleg Navalny, Olga Mikhailova, lawyer of Alexei Navalny, told RBC. “The European Court (which it rarely does) recognized violations not only of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), but also Article 7, which says that punishment in criminal cases should be imposed solely on the basis of law. In this case, Russia has involved persons in criminal punishment contrary to the norms of its legislation. The European Court considered that the fraud and legalization, in which Navalny was accused, did not take place, ”she said. Mikhailova explained that the decision will enter into force after consideration of an appeal against it from one of the parties, if any.

Earlier, Alexey Navalny, through the ECHR, achieved the cancellation of the verdict in the "Kirovles case" and its sending for a new trial. In July 2013, the Leninsky District Court of Kirov sentenced Navalny and businessman Pyotr Ofitserov to five and four years in prison, respectively, for organizing embezzlement or embezzlement (on appeal, the terms were changed to conditional ones). According to the TFR, in 2009 Navalny, who was then an adviser to the governor Kirov region Nikita Belykh, introduced the director of Kirovles, Vyacheslav Opalev, to Ofitserov, who then founded the Vyatka forest company. Using his influence, Navalny imposed on Opalev a deal that was unprofitable for the enterprise: Kirovles was supposed to supply VLC timber at a reduced price, and she resold it at a market price. Under these conditions, Kirovles sold VLK about 10 thousand cubic meters. m of materials for the amount of almost 16.2 million rubles.

In February 2016, the ECHR said that the oppositionist and entrepreneur were convicted of ordinary business activities and that the court was uncritical about the testimony of Opalev, who made a deal with the investigation. He awarded Navalny and Ofitserov € 56 thousand and € 8 thousand, respectively, and decided to cancel the sentence. Supreme Court in November of the same year and sent the case for a new trial. In February of this year, Navalny and Officers, respectively, this time immediately conditionally. Political verdict at the ECHR.

Earlier this year, the ECHR awarded the oppositionist € 64,000 on seven complaints of illegal detentions and administrative arrests during rallies in 2011-2012. Strasbourg that the authorities in all cases violated Navalny's right to freedom of assembly and to a fair trial.