About the Case: Evgeny Vladimirovich Dekterev, the deputy head of the operational department of the Federal Correctional Facility №. 6 “Gorelovo”, was found guilty by the first-instance court. Dekterev is requesting the appellate court to requalify the case as fraud using his official position or to reduce the length of his sentence.
The St. Petersburg City Court heard the appeal on 26 April, the case is being considered by the judicial board, with Natalia Alexandrovna Nikishkina presiding.
At the appointed time of the hearing, 14:40, the case scheduled for 14:00 is being considered, then the one scheduled for 13:40, resulting in a delay of 53 minutes.
During the hearing, Dekterev participates via video conferencing from the pretrial detention center, while attorney Balkova and the prosecutor from the Prosecution Department of St. Petersburg, Ogiev, are present in the courtroom. The court verifies the presence, establishes Dekterev’s identity, and reads the rights to all participants in the proceedings. There are no motions or recusals from anyone. Dekterev confirms that he was duly notified of the hearing and received a copy of the lawyer’s complaint against the verdict.
The Judge Nikishkina presents the case.
By the verdict of the Nevsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated January 13, 2022, Dekterev was found guilty of committing 7 crimes – receiving bribes as a public official through an intermediary in the form of a large sum of money for official toleration. For each of the listed crimes, which are provided for in clause “v” of Article 290, Paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with the application of Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a sentence of 4 years of imprisonment was imposed. Taking into account the totality of the crimes based on Part 3 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partially adding the sentences, a final sentence of 7 years of imprisonment was imposed with serving time in a strict-regime colony and deprivation of the right to hold positions in internal service related to the exercise of authority representation in state bodies, services, and institutions for a period of 2 years. In accordance with Article 48 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Dekterev was also deprived of his special rank as a major in the internal service. A measure of restraint in the form of detention in the courtroom was chosen after the verdict was announced. The time spent by Dekterev under house arrest from March 30, 2020, to January 6, 2022, was credited, with 2 days of house arrest counting as 1 day of imprisonment.
The first-instance court considered the case in the general procedure, and Dekterev fully admitted his guilt, did not dispute the factual circumstances, and expressed remorse for his actions.
An appeal and an addendum have been filed by the attorney Balkov.
In light of the court’s findings being inconsistent with the actual circumstances of the case, the misapplication of criminal law, and the perceived injustice, the appellant requests the annulment of the verdict and a remand of the case to the first instance court for a new trial with a different panel of judges. Additionally, the appellant simultaneously requests a requalification of Decterev’s actions under Part 3 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, imposing a penalty not involving actual imprisonment, and applying the provisions of Article 73 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In the event that the appellate court disagrees with the arguments presented, the appellant seeks a reduction of the imposed sentence to a term of up to 5 years of imprisonment.
In support of the arguments presented in the appeal, it is pointed out that the court incorrectly qualified Decterev’s actions. It is evident that Decterev deceived and misled individuals who were paying for the improvement of the detention conditions for their relatives in Correctional Facility № 6 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. Therefore, his actions contain elements of the offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely, fraud committed on a large scale by an official using their official position. Decterev committed a legally punishable offense while performing his duties as the deputy head of the operational department and the head of the operational department at Correctional Facility №. 6. However, the job descriptions provided to the court and examined as evidence do not specify any rights and responsibilities related to facilitating favorable detention conditions for inmates. This was confirmed by the testimonies of witnesses Peigolaynen and Kiselev, who are the head and deputy head of Correctional Facility № 6. With reference to paragraph 7 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On the judicial practice in cases of bribery and other corruption offences,” it is considered that Decterev’s actions do not constitute the elements of bribery, as in his position he only exercised control and supervisory functions over his direct subordinates.
The verdict is unjust and overly severe. Decterev has a dependent minor child and a spouse who is on maternity leave to care for the child, as well as an elderly mother whom he provides financial support to. Decterev has fully admitted his guilt, has no prior criminal record, and is positively characterized by colleagues at work and his spouse. The court has also failed to consider his health condition, including several chronic illnesses. In the event of Decterev’s imprisonment, these illnesses will worsen and lead to more serious consequences.
Objections to the appeal were filed by Antonov, Deputy Prosecutor of the Nevsky District. He believes that the appeal’s arguments are aimed at reassessing the evidence in the case, which has been properly assessed, and that there is no basis for this. The court correctly classified Dekterev’s actions. The judgment is lawful, fair and well-founded. Requests to dismiss the appeal, and leave the verdict without change.
Balkova’s defense attorney explains that the contradictory requirements of the appeal and the addendum to appeal, both on cancellation and modification of the sentence, are caused by the fact that at the time of filing the initial appeal he had neither the verdict nor the agreed position with Dekterev. He asks to consider as final demands those specified in the additional appeal: to change the verdict in case of reclassification of Dekterev’s actions or to reduce the amount of punishment imposed if the qualification remains the same.
The prosecutor states that he does not agree with the arguments of the appeal.
The court raises the issue of re-examination of evidence. The participants in the trial confirm that it is not necessary.
The court decides to conclude the judicial investigation without re-examining the evidence and proceed to the stage of arguments.
The first to speak is counsel Balkovoy. Based on the case materials and the appeal complaints, the witnesses – who were essentially Dekterev’s superiors at SIZO № 6 – explained that Dekterev, as the head of the operational department, could not perform the actions attributed to him because he lacked the necessary authority. This is also confirmed by the job descriptions that the investigation itself provided in the case materials. Taking into account the job descriptions and the testimonies of the SIZO № 6 management, it is argued that the court incorrectly classified Dekterev’s actions. Yes, Dekterev admitted guilt and the factual actions, but this does not constitute the elements of bribery, and instead, it falls under the elements of the crime defined in Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Furthermore, at the time of the sentencing, no preventive measure was in effect for Dekterev; it had expired on January 6, 2022. Nevertheless, Dekterev voluntarily came to court, which also reflects positively on him because everyone understands that he could have gone into hiding if he wished. The arguments presented in the appeal complaints are supported, and the request for reclassification of the charges and a change in the verdict or a reduction in the sentence to 5 years of imprisonment is reiterated.
Dekterev declines to participate in the arguments and wishes to speak in his last words.
Then the prosecutor speaks, believes that the verdict is lawful and meets the requirements of part 4 of article 7 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. The court determined the qualification of Dekterev’s criminal actions correctly, there are no grounds for requalification of his actions to Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Dekterev was convicted for receiving a bribe for negligence in performing official duties, which corresponded to his official duties and powers. The court of first instance verified the version of the defense in full. Supports the objections of the state prosecutor, who also spoke in this part. The imposed punishment is considered not excessively severe, fair, commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offense, and Dekterev’s personal circumstances. There are no grounds for granting the appeal.
The defense attorney Balkovoy responds regarding “negligence in performing official duties,” stating that Dekterev is charged with specific actions outlined in the indictment and listed in the complaint. According to his job instructions, he could not have committed these specific actions.
Decterev proceeds to his last words.
Dekterev: Honorable court, when making your decision, I kindly request you to consider that, as the prosecutor mentioned, it’s about “neglect of duty.” However, I don’t quite understand what this means. According to the verdict and the charges, I allegedly contributed to receiving additional food. But in the case materials, it is not reflected in any way – by what means, when, and with who? It’s just an abstract phrase. “Facilitated using the shower outside the designated times according to the internal schedule of the institution.” Well, look, I’m currently in a cell, and we have a sink. In the mornings, we wash ourselves, and there are no rules about when, at what time, and how often someone can wash. It’s not regulated or defined in any way. I can wash for 5 minutes, or I can wash once a month. The same thing happened in Gorelovo: someone wanted to wash every day, someone didn’t. “Facilitated watching television programs on the television in the cell.” Well, sorry, but by what means? I’ve been in SIZO № 1 for three months now, and we also have a television in the cell. So let’s judge anyone who facilitated me in watching these television programs. If there’s a television, they watch it; if there’s no television, they don’t watch it. “Facilitated not involving in cleaning the cell.” Cleaning in the cell is assigned not by the deputy head of the operational department or the head of the operational department but by the so-called cell leaders according to the queue. And if someone doesn’t clean, then other employees are already involved, and they bring this person to disciplinary responsibility. “Facilitated not applying disciplinary measures in connection with possible violations of internal regulations.” But nowhere in the verdict is there a word about this: by what means did I facilitate this? Did I give someone instructions? There is not a single word about this. Also, I kindly ask you to consider, when making your decision, that I have a positive service record. I have a minor child, a wife who is on maternity leave, and an elderly mother whom I provide for. Over the years of working in the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN), I have developed several chronic illnesses that require constant treatment and monitoring. I can say from personal experience that obtaining medical help in these institutions is quite problematic.
The judicial panel adjourns to make a decision, returns after 3 minutes, and announces the introductory and resolutive part of the appellate ruling: to uphold the resolution of the Nevsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated January 13, 2022, without any changes, and to dismiss the appeal complaint.
