A new scandal in the Furgal case: the investigator did not comply with the court decision

One of the defendants is not allowed to meet despite the decrees of Themis

An interesting legal incident occurred in the struggle between one of the inmates of Lefortovo and an investigator from the Russian Investigative Committee. The court issued six rulings (the last one on March 28, 2023), in which it recognized the refusal to provide calls and visits to the prisoner as illegal and ordered to eliminate the violations. But the investigator simply … does not comply with these decisions. At the same time, it turned out that it was actually impossible to attract him for this. The prisoner writes appeals to the Investigative Committee about the crime under part 2 of article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “malicious failure of a representative of the authorities to comply with a court decision” (may be punished by imprisonment for up to two years). But they are not even considered there.

Until now, there have been no cases of repeated non-execution of court decisions by the employees of the TFR. So, I guess it’s a new trend.

Nikolai Shukhov, a person involved in the so-called economic case of the ex-governor of the Khabarovsk Territory, Sergei Furgal, played the role of a prisoner-fighter in this story. He was detained in July 2020, spent a year in the Khabarovsk pre-trial detention center, and then was transferred to Moscow, to Lefortovo. In total, he has been behind bars for almost three years. During this time, Shukhov asked many times to be allowed to see his parents, sister, minor daughter and wife. And many times the senior investigator for especially important cases under the Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Roman Mukhachev refused him this. He usually argued as follows: “there are no grounds” or “information on the case may be disclosed to the detriment of the preliminary investigation.” Let me remind you that according to the law on detention, calls and visits are allowed, but with the permission of the investigator. Themis was not satisfied with the argument that information could be disclosed – after all, all telephone conversations in the pre-trial detention center are tapped (and short-term meetings go through glass, which excludes the transfer of notes, under the control of employees and also with the help of telephones).

But the judges of the Basmanny Court of Moscow in this matter from time to time showed integrity. They declared illegal the actions of the senior investigator in refusing calls and visits and decided to eliminate the violations. Moreover, in her last decision dated March 28, 2023, Judge Lenskaya indicated that the previous one, issued on August 24, 2022, was not executed, although it is subject to, I quote “mandatory execution, as having entered into force.”

– What would happen to us if we did not comply with the court decision? – ask sister Maria Shukhova. – Absolutely nothing good. And the investigator, it turns out, is it possible? My brother and I wrote to both Bastrykin and Mukhachev. They don’t answer. The brother asked to check the actions of the investigator for the presence of corpus delicti in them. But he is denied. The investigator has not yet incurred any responsibility (even disciplinary responsibility), despite the complaints and appeals of my brother and me.

Part 2 of Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation seems to fit right into such a case. But you need to take into account, conduct an audit and initiate a case in the UK itself. And it doesn’t look like they’re going to do it. What do you think, will one investigator of this department try to bring to justice another (and even a “big man” under Bastrykin himself?). But the prisoner and his family do not give up.

– We are told that we can only try to punish the investigator with a ruble, – the sister sighs. – We have already prepared lawsuits to recover moral damages from the UK for non-execution of a court decision. There have been no meetings yet. In general, we are already tired of this struggle.

In general, the mechanism of “enforcement” turned out to be even more energy-intensive than the court itself.

– If the investigator does not give permission for calls and visits, and this has become a reason for a lawsuit, then the management cannot but know about this, – says former prosecutor Alexei Fedyarov. – Imagine the situation. The investigator comes to the authorities and shows the decision of the court. “What to do?” And to him: “Do not do it. Nothing will happen”. And he really doesn’t get anything for it.

“It must be taken into account that this article, in principle, does not work well in practice,” says Andrey Grivtsov, a former investigator for especially important cases of the TFR. – But in my time there was no such thing that the employees of the Investigative Committee did not comply with the decisions of the courts. And in general, I don’t remember this in recent years.