Alexander Bastrykin instructed to take the actor on trial

Chairman of the Investigative Committee of Russia (TFR) Alexander Bastrykin instructed his subordinates to initiate a criminal case in the wake of actor Artur Smolyaninov’s harsh statements about the military conflict in Ukraine. Mr. Bastrykin’s reaction followed a wave of condemnation of Mr. Smolyaninov’s position by Russian politicians. Moreover, the position of the actor gave rise to a discussion about harsh sanctions, up to deprivation of citizenship, for critics who left the Russian Federation. The Kremlin also gave an assessment of what was happening.

On Monday, Alexander Bastrykin instructed “to open a criminal case because of the statements of the actor Artur Smolyaninov.” “In an interview with one of the Western publications, Smolyaninov made a number of statements directed against Russia,” the statement reads. message press service of the department without reference to the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, under which Mr. Bastrykin qualified the statements of Mr. Smolyaninov. The TFR did not name the mass media, in a conversation with a representative of which the actor made statements that outraged Mr. Bastrykin. Probably, we are talking about an interview with the editor-in-chief of the publication Novaya Gazeta. Europe” to Kirill Martynov (included in the register of foreign agents). The interview was released on January 8 and caused a wide resonance due to Mr. Smolyaninov’s harsh statements about the special operation, the future of Russia and President Vladimir Putin.

The actor, in particular, said that he felt “nothing but hatred for people on the other side of the front”, that he “doesn’t give a damn what form Russia will remain in”, even if the country “turns into radioactive ashes”, and that if he had to participate in the NWO, then he would have done it on the side of Ukraine.

39-year-old Artur Smolyaninov began his acting career in 1998 with the leading role of the teenager Tolyasik in the film “Who, if not us”, in 2005 the actor became widely known for the role of Fierce in the film “9th Company” by Fyodor Bondarchuk. In the future, Mr. Smolyaninov starred in dozens of box office Russian films, including “Yolki”, “White Guard”, “I” and others. In autumn, a scandal erupted with the showing of the series “Monastery” with the participation of Artur Smolyaninov, who had already left the Russian Federation by that time, as well as the director of the series Alexander Molochnikov. Court in October fined Mr. Smolyaninov for 30 thousand rubles. for discrediting the army of the Russian Federation (Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). In an interview with Kirill Martynov in January, Artur Smolyaninov said that he now works in Latvia.

Many Russian politicians were publicly outraged by Artur Smolyaninov’s statements. State Duma deputy Sultan Khamzaev was the first to speak, declaring the need to “cancel contracts for all state orders” of Mr. Smolyaninov. “I believe that this fugitive artist should repeat the path of Nevzorov (journalist Alexander Nevzorov is included in the register of foreign agents.— “b”) with a criminal case. For my part, I will appeal to the Investigative Committee with a request to initiate a criminal case against this traitor,” said Sultan Khamzaev. He was supported by his colleague Yevgeny Popov, who saw in “the conditional case of the conditional Smolyaninovs a violation of the rights and freedoms of other citizens of the country.” Deputy Popov proposed, in particular, to annul the actor’s passport (the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not allow deprivation of citizenship).

The head of the Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, published on Sunday evening messagein which, without directly naming the actor, he proposed using “special wartime laws” against “traitors who defected to the enemy.”

Chairman of the Duma Control Committee Oleg Morozov, who had already been participating in a public Telegram discussion with Senator Andrei Klishas about depriving Russian citizenship of those who left the Russian Federation for 24 hours, also spoke about Smolyaninov’s case. Recall that on January 7 and 8, senators and deputies publicly argued about sanctions against Russians who left (see “Kommersant” dated January 9). Mr. Morozov offered to deprive him of citizenship, Senator Klishas retorted that it was impossible to violate the Basic Law.

In this regard, the State Duma also spoke about the need to amend the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. “In particular, under Art. 280.3 “Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the armed forces in order to protect the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens” to increase the period during which a convicted person is prohibited from holding certain positions or engaging in certain types of activities, – suggested the head of the committee on culture, Elena Yampolskaya. three years. In my opinion, not enough. For culture, teaching, the media, and other socially important areas, the ban should be extended.”

The statements of the actor were commented in the Kremlin. “The Kremlin does not think anything good about the words of this actor. But in this case, it is more important what our relevant departments think about his words, ”Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Monday.

Kommersant failed to contact Mr. Smolyaninov through his manager. There was no public reaction of the actor to what was happening at the time of the preparation of the material.

The inquiry of Kommersant about the qualification of Mr. Smolyaninov’s “statements” and the conduct of a pre-investigation check in the TFR was not answered.

It should be noted that the last time the head of the ICR publicly instructed to check someone’s statements in October 2022. Then, according to the press service of the department, it was about the Ukrainian blogger Maxim Kushnirenko, “encouraging the killing of Russian servicemen.” The test results were not published.

Vadim Klyuvgant, a partner at the Pen & Paper Bar Association, at the request of Kommersant to explain the mechanism of instructions in the TFR system, noted that these are included in the “powers of the head of the investigative body.”

A pre-investigation check with an oral order to initiate a criminal case is not necessary, the expert explained.

“The question of whether to make such instructions public and, if so, to what extent, is not regulated by law,” Vadim Klyuvgant pointed out. “Therefore, it is impossible to reliably judge the content of the instruction from a press release. Any decision of the investigator, including the decision to initiate a criminal case, must be legal, justified and motivated (part 4 of article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). If these requirements are not met, such a procedural decision may be appealed to the prosecutor or to the court by any person whose interests it affects.

Maria Starikova