“Thus, during the court session, it has been ascertained that Nevzlin had under his total control the security service of the oil company Yukos, and all questions, connected with its activities, were to be coordinated with him. That is why non accidental are veraciously established facts of representatives of the security service in preparing and organizing of extremely grievous rimes. Undeniable is Pichugin’s role in collection information on affected and its transmission, together with instructions, directly to executors.
The criminal group organized by Nevzlin, acted on the bases of a proved scheme, according to which information on affected and other data, as well as monetary means for preparation and remuneration foe committing crimes, were delivered to executors performers (Reshetnikov, Tsigelnik, Ovsyannikov, Shapiro, Korovnikov and others) via Pichugin, Gorin, Shapiro, Goritovsky. Actual performers of crimes had information on names, places of work, actual positions of organizers and middlemen, motives of committed crimes. However, all negotiations were held only by middlemen. Nevzlin didn’t communicate with direct executors as he had for that purpose Pichugin, Gorin, who, in their turn, created another chain of middlemen (Shapiro, Goritovsky) between themselves and executors.
Such a scheme organizer (ordering customer) – middleman – executor is similar for each contract crimes.
At the same time, it has to be pointed out that some middlemen and executors of the mentioned above crimes, didn’t meet and didn’t know about the existence of each other. Yet, their evidence on circumstances of committed crimes are consistent with each other, and that presupposes availability of a united source of information that they received. From evidence of Tsigelnik, Reshetnikov, Shapiro and other persons who committed crimes in the interests of the oil company Yukos and personally Nevzlin, follows that they had not and could not have a motive for committing the crimes against the affected, and that is completely corroborated by the collected proofs in this case.
Considering the evidence of the persons interrogated in connection with this case, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that Shapiro, Reshetnikov and Tsigelnik personally saw Nevzlin (but didn’t communicate with him) at the moment, when he together with Pichugin came to the hotel ‘Salyut’ in Moscow and gave instructions with regard to the murder of Rybin.
The witness Korovnikov identified Nevzlin as a person, the photo of whom had been shown to him personally by Gorin, together with collected compromising materials, explaining thereupon that threats for him had been coming from that person.
The witness Rozhkova directly pointed at Nevzlin as the person who had obtained from the personal file of Kostina, in presence of Pichugin and Shestopalov, and later on, the photo from the personal file of Kostina was provided to the executors of the attempted murder against her.
The witness Golubovich A.D. was present at the conversation between Nevzlin and Khodorkovsky, in the course of which Nevzlin promised to solve the problem with Rybin within two months, and after that there were two consequent attempted murders against Rybin.
The witness Mirimskaya O.M. was present when Puchugin presented information to his chiefs Shestopal, Nevzlin and Khodorkovsky on the murder of Petukhov.
The investigation has collected enough evidence of the repeated efforts of Nevzlin to put pressure on witnesses of this case.
For instance, from the evidence of the witness Dobrovinsky A.A. follows that Nevzlin repeatedly said to him personally over the telephone, as also transferred through authorized persons his demands to stop providing help to Rybin. He also utter threats to former employees of the oil company Yukos, in particular, to Golubovich and Mirimskaya, demanding that should not give evidence denouncing the involvement of some leaders of the oil company Yukos in committing crimes.
Evidence of persons convicted of criminal offences, as well as of the affected and witnesses were examined and evaluated during the preliminary investigation and the court session in their aggregate with other proofs. All mentioned above proofs have been considered by the court as admissible and veracious.
It is reliably ascertained that Nevzlin new about suspicions from the part of law enforcement bodies about his involvement in a series of extremely grievous crimes against life and health of citizens, he intentionally avoided coming to the investigator, and promptly left Russia in order to circumvent criminal responsibility for his actions, he also refused to be present at the court session on his case, although he had been informed about time and place of the hearings, and his statement of 26.03.2008, from the state Israel to the Moscow City Court, serves as a confirmation of it.
During the judicial investigation, upon a motion of the defense, to the materials of the criminal case was attached the Ruling of the Israelis Supreme Court of Justice of 14.05.2008 on claims of Nudelman and Eliezer Shimoni on revoking Israeli citizenship of Nevzlin L.B. and his extradition to Russia. As well a copy of the ruling of the Federal Tribunal of Switzerland on providing judicial help to Russian of 13.06.2007, according to which the demand for extradition of Nevzlin L.B. to Russia was denied.
The Court declares the provided documents as inadmissible on this criminal case, as the proofs have been received and the decisions on them were taken beyond the framework of the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and that is why they cannot have pre-judicial meaning for the given criminal case.
Also the court critically evaluates statements of Dubov V.M., Shakhnovsky V.S., Shestopalov L.I., Pavlyukov S.V., provided by the defense, in which they make claims about non-involvement of Nevzlin in the crimes imputed to him, as all the mentioned persons were summoned to court for interrogation in accordance with the procedure established by law, but they avoided coming to court sessions and giving evidence, they are concern parties and persons interested in certain outcome of the case, that is why the statements of the mentioned persons the Court except as a basis, the more so that these statements are totally refuted by the evidence adduced before.
Arguments of the defense of the defendant Nevzlin L.B. on insufficient evidence that he entered in criminal conspiracy with Pichugin and organized the murder of Gorin S.V. and Gorina O.M. with the purpose to hide the traces of crimes committed by him, the Court declares inconsistent, as these arguments ate totally refuted by the mentioned above proofs, in particular;
- by tectimony of Pichugin both during the preliminary investigation and in court, that he often communicated with Gorin S.V. and with his wife;
- by testimony of Peshkun, both during the preliminary investigation and in court, that Pichugin and his boss Nevzlin are implicated in organizing the murder of Gorin and his spouse;
- be testimony of the witness Smirnova O. that Pichugin through Gorin ordered some murders and the latter was solving the issues of Nevzlin;
- by testimony of the witness Korovnikov I, that Pichugin was trying to order him the murder of the Goring, but he refused; Gorin showed him some document compromising several leaders of the oil company Yukos, including a photo of Nevzlin, and was going to hand them over to law enforcement bodies;
- by testimony of the affected Dedova about connections between Gorin and Pichugin;
- by testimony of other witnesses about close connections of Gorin with Pichugin;
- by conclusions of the examinations confirming the death of the Gorins;
- as well as by the circumstanced mentioned above and supporting the possibility of disseminating by Gorin and his spouse of information on contract murders and attempted murders.
Assertions of the defense of the defendant Nevzlin L.B. that his criminal case has a political character, that this judicial hearings was the result of fact that political forces in Russian started an assault on the oil company Yukos and persons connected with it, that the current criminal case is politically motivated, as the background of motivation of this case – that the state authorities has, on the highest political level, to frame up a case against Nevzlin L.B. – the Court declares unsubstantiated, as these assertions are not confirmed by anything, on the contrary, they are refuted by the fact that this criminal case was launched, was investigated and considered in strict adherence to the demands of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Arguments of the defense that during the preliminary investigation and in court hearings were committed violations of the demands of the Criminal Procedure code of the Russian Federation, including violation of the right to defense, the Court declares unsubstantiated , as all the evidence of the culpability of the defendant mentioned in the Verdict, the Court admits as admissible, as they were obtained in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, moreover, the Court didn’t find violations of the criminal-procedural law, including the right of the defendant for defense, and didn’t admitted such violations.
Thus, by the provided evidence and analysis of their totality, the guilt of the defendant of committing of the above-mentioned crimes is completely established.
By the bodies of the preliminary investigation, the actions of Nevzlin L.B. have been characterized in accordance with Article 33, paragraph 3, subparagraphs ‘b’,’zh’, ‘z’; Article 105, paragraph 2; Article 33, paragraph 3, subparagraphs ‘a,b,e,zh, z; Article 105, paragraph 2,; Article 30, paragraph 3, Article 33, paragraph 3, subparagraphs ‘a,b,zh,z; Article 105, paragraph 2; Article 30, paragraph 3; Article 33, subparagraphs ‘b, zh, z’; Article 105, paragraph 2; Article 30, paragraph 3; Article 33, paragraph 3m subparagraphs ‘b’zh’z’; Article !05, paragraph 2; Article 30, paragraph 3; Article 33, paragraph 3, subparagraphs ‘b’e’zh’z’; Article 105, paragraph 2; Article 33, paragraph 3, subparagraphs ‘a,b,e,zh.z’; Article 105, paragraph 2; Article 30, paragraph 3; Article 33, paragraph 3, subparagraphs ‘a,b,e.zh.z’; Article 105, paragraph 2; Article 33, paragraph 3, subparagraphs ‘a,zh, z,k’; Article 105, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as in force of the Federal Law No 162 and Federal Law No 169 of 08.10.2003) i.e. on each separate episode of criminal activity.
However, on the basis of the Ruling of the Plenum of supreme Court of the Russian federation of 03.04.2008 No 4 ‘in connection with the provisions of the Article 17, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, murder of two or more persons, committed simultaneously or at different times, doesn’t form ab aggregate of crimes and should be qualified according to Article 105, paragraph 2, subparagraph ‘a’ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and, if applicable, also according to other subparagraphs of paragraph 2 of the mentioned Article, under condition that the defendant was not accused earlier of any of these murders’.
