I am the only one who is able to enter the courthouse without any hindrance, and the bailiff doesn’t even inquire about my status in the case. However, he refuses to enter two other members of the public without receiving instructions from the courtroom. He doesn’t make any effort to clearly explain the grounds for their exclusion but doesn’t dispute that the corresponding COVID-19 restrictions have been lifted. I make a call to the courtroom, and the secretary answers, promising to call the bailiff back when the judge returns and gives her consent. After a few minutes, the bailiff himself calls the courtroom and expresses disapproval, saying, ‘Three people come like this, and then there will be ten.’ After ending the call, the bailiff states that he hasn’t received any instructions yet and continues to deny access to the public.
During this time, defenders for Mogilevsky, Safonov, and Zaitsev approach him. Zaitseva identifies herself as a public defender, and the bailiff starts to get upset and objects, saying that there is no such procedural status and demands documents to prove her status in the case, saying, “Is it going to be like this every time?” After about 5 minutes of argument, he finally agrees to let the defenders in. Later, a witness in the case arrives, and the bailiff agrees to let her in only after a lengthy discussion and a call to the courtroom.
The secretary gives instructions allowing public only after I approach the courtroom and make the corresponding request to her and the judge. However, the judge warns that she will only allow the public to sit on the available seating. There are no issues with this since everyone is able to find seating.
From the comments of attorney Skurtu, who arrived later, and from her communications with other defense attorneys before the hearing, it is clear that she had to fight her way through into the courtroom too. The same bailiff advised her to lodge a complaint with the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights).
In the hearing, Mogilevsky, his defenders (lawyers Skurtu, Safonov, and defender Zaitsev), and the public prosecutor (Senior Assistant Prosecutor of the Krasnoselsky District Maligin) are present. The court checks the attendance and informs the participants that only one witness has shown up. The public prosecutor suggests questioning the witness. The court has requested not to publish the witness’s statements [note: since the case is already finished, there is no problem with this].
Anna Generalova is being questioned. She is a teacher.
The hearing was conducted in a rather emotional manner. The court, as well as the defendant and her attorney, Safronov, periodically address the witness in a raised tone, repeating the same questions. Judge Ulanov also asks a series of questions: “What kind of education do you have…? No criminal case has been brought against you?”
Generalova replies to most of the questions that she does not remember.
In response to the prosecutor’s questions, Generalova explains that she does not know Mogilevsky and has never seen him before. In early autumn 2017, she registered an individual entrepreneurship (IP) to provide tutoring services, but in the end it was not used for this purpose, and remained an “open IP” [note: she was still able to run the business]. She was approached by her acquaintance Maria Zhdanova, who offered her an opportunity to earn some money. Zhdanova wanted to use the IP for orders and the supply of protein nutrition to a medical institution in St. Petersburg, and Generalova agreed. She had a registered cash register under her IP, which she used to print cash receipts. Interaction with the PNI № 9 (psychoneurological dispensary № 9) and suppliers, as well as orders and purchases of protein nutrition, were handled by Maria’s husband, Andrey Zhdanov, who acted on the basis of a power of attorney from Generalova’s IP. All the information in the receipts was provided by her based on Zhdanov’s words, and then she handed them over to him. Three purchases were made in total, in October, November, and December 2017. IP Generalova did not engage in any other activity besides the supply of protein nutrition and was liquidated in the summer of 2020.
In response to questions from the defense, the witness explains that she doesn’t remember if the receipts included the name of the goods, but the amount was always around 6,000 rubles. She knows that Zhdanova worked in the field of medical nutrition but cannot recall her job title or place of work. She did not ask Zhdanova why she didn’t register her own IP; their agreement was based on trust. The money earned from sales was brought to her in cash by Zhdanov. Some of the money was deposited into the IP Generalova’s account and subsequently used for further purchases, tax payments, and payment of the accountant’s services. The remaining funds were divided between her and the Zhdanovs. The witness received 450,000 rubles for all the deliveries. She doesn’t know how much the Zhdanovs kept for themselves. She doesn’t remember if the amounts stated in the receipts corresponded to the actual profit received. The witness received deliveries of goods only formally under the contract, she never physically had the goods in her possession, and she did not verify their actual presence. She only knew about the receipt and sale of goods from Zhdanov’s words. She doesn’t remember if she signed a contract for the sale of the received goods (the supply of it to PNI-9 (psychoneurological dispensary № 9)). She definitely signed some contract but cannot remember which one. She does not believe that her actions violated the law. There were cases of returned receipts due to non-receipt or absence of goods, but she does not remember how many there were.
The prosecutor requests the court to disclose Generalova’s statements made during the preliminary investigation due to inconsistencies. The other participants in the proceedings do not object, and the court grants the request.
The protocol of the interrogation from November 20, 2019, is being read.
In 2017, she registered herself with the tax authorities as an individual entrepreneur under the name “Generalova A. A.” with the intention of providing tutoring services. She had a stamp made for her IP, which, for unknown reasons, also bore the name “ЭквипТрейд” (EquipTrade), although the mentioned organization is also unknown to Generalova. In the end, she did not provide tutoring services due to her busy primary job. She has known Maria Zhdanova for more than 10 years and has a friendly relationship with her, as well as being acquainted with her spouse, Andrey.
She knew that Zhdanova was involved in organizing deliveries of therapeutic nutrition to medical institutions in St. Petersburg. In 2017, Maria approached her and asked her to use her IP to supply protein nutrition to a budget institution. Generalova agreed under the promise from the Zhdanovs that everything would be legal. Later, Andrey Zhdanov organized the signing of a contract for the supply of specialized protein nutrition from the company “Инфаприм” (Infaprim) under the Nutrien brand. Zhdanov also organized the purchase of the specified nutrition and its subsequent delivery to PNI-9 (psychoneurological dispensary № 9). The timing of deliveries, volumes, and the names of the necessary nutrition were coordinated by Zhdanova with PNI-9 (psychoneurological dispensary № 9), and the details of the deliveries were discussed with the manufacturer by her husband.
Generalova made purchases of goods on behalf of her IP in October, November, and December 2017. She does not remember the purchase price, but it was definitely specified in the primary documentation for the purchases. The selling price was determined by the Zhdanovs and amounted to 190 rubles. The witness does not know what justified this amount and did not ask additional questions. At Zhdanov’s request, she printed cash receipts and indicated in them the amount he named, and then handed them over to him, after which Zhdanov gave them to buyers at PNI-9 (psychoneurological dispensary № 9). She deposited the money into Zhdanov’s account, after which he used the specified funds to pay for further deliveries of protein nutrition and taxes, as well as for the services of an accountant. They divided a portion of the money among themselves as profit from the supply.
Generalova confirms the accuracy of the circumstances outlined in the protocol in response to the prosecutor’s question.
After reading protocol of the interrogation, the witness’s questioning is resumed, and additional questions are asked, including regarding the stamp of the individual entrepreneur “Generalova,” which also contained the logo “ЭквипТрейд” (EquipTrade). The witness explains that this stamp was not registered, and it was probably made by Zhdanov. The stamp was in his possession. She did not order or create the stamp herself, and she did not use it afterward. She does not know where the “ЭквипТрейд” (EquipTrade) logo came from and did not attach any significance to it, as there was no need to register the stamp. Her IP did not have any other stamps.
The court then concludes the witness’s examination and releases her from further participation in the court hearing.
The State Prosecutor motions for the disclosure of the testimony of non-appearing witnesses. Mogilevsky asks for an opportunity to consult with defense attorneys, the court declares a recess. After the recess, Mogilevsky states that he agrees to the disclosure of the testimony of all the named witnesses, except for Kobets and Nikitin, whom he considers necessary to question in the hearing. The defense attorneys have the same opinion.
The court grants the motion of the prosecutor, taking into account the position of the defense. The state prosecutor proceeds to read out the case file.
Svetlana Kutyushova’s interrogation record from December 2019 is read out: since January 2019, she has been the head of the guardianship and custody service of the Municipality of Krasnoye Selo. Her competence includes the management of the service as a whole, preparation of draft municipal legal acts on the execution of guardianship and custody activities of persons recognised by the court as incapable due to mental disorder, as well as persons restricted in their legal capacity due to alcohol and drug abuse. She participates in the resolution of questions on the establishment and termination of guardianship, maintains a list of persons willing to act as guardians/trustees, prepares opinions on the possibility of appointment as a guardian or trustee, and issues authorisations for the guardian/trustee to dispose of the ward’s income.
No guardian or custodian is appointed for persons placed under supervision in organizations providing social services. The performance of guardianship and custody duties is entrusted to these organizations. Thus, the administration of PNI № 9 (psychoneurological dispensary № 9) performs these duties in respect of incapable or limited capacity citizens placed under its supervision. The guardian/trustee is obliged to submit an annual report on the storage, use, and management of the ward’s property. For 2016-2019, the administration of PNI № 9 (psychoneurological dispensary № 9) applied to the MO “Krasnoye Selo” [note: MO basically means municipal district, it’s almost the same thing as county] for preliminary permission to spend money belonging to incapacitated residents in order to purchase specialized protein food. This application was accompanied by a copy of the protocol of the meeting of the guardianship council, information on the amount of money in the accounts of the wards, medical reports, and information on the dynamics of the use of this nutrition. The municipality “Krasnoye Selo” had no grounds for a well-motivated refusal to issue a permit. It was established that in the period from 2016 to 2018, legal entities supplied specialized protein nutrition Nutrient produced by Infaprim JSC to incapacitated persons living in PNI № 9 (psychoneurological dispensary № 9) at their expense, at a cost of 190 rubles per package. At the same time, the commodity checks handed over by the sellers to the employees of PNI № 9 (psychoneurological dispensary № 9) indicated “specialized protein nutrition” without specifying the name and manufacturer. Thus, it was impossible to determine the market value of the purchased goods, which currently ranged from 90 to 110 rubles.
Investigator: Why during annual inspections by the administration of the municipality “Krasnoye Selo” did not reveal the fact that the cash receipts did not contain the name of the goods?
Kutyushova: Since the current legislation does not give clear criteria for these cash receipts, our employees in this case checked that the expenses were confirmed by receipts and were made with prior authorisation. From now on, we will pay attention to the reports submitted for inspection, namely that the commodity checks contain the name of the goods and look at their approximate market value, so that the purchase price is not obviously overstated.
Galina Kozlova’s interrogation record of February 2021 is read out: She is currently working as a nurse in PNI № 9 (psychoneurological dispensary № 9), caring for and supervising residents in ward 3. Smirnov V.Y. has lived in that ward for many years, was declared incapacitated, periodically hospitalized in the psychiatric hospital named after Kashchenko. In 2019 he spent several months there, after which he was returned to PNI № 9 (psychoneurological dispensary № 9) in the summer of the same year. After some time, he developed deep bedsores, after which he was admitted to the hospital where his death occurred. The witness fully complied with all the prescriptions given by the doctors concerning Smirnov during her duties. Believes that there was no record of the need to be examined by a surgeon in Smirnov’s medical history dated 03.10.2019 at the time of his hospitalization, probably this record was made later by Vlasova N. V. in order to justify her negligence. If such a prescription had actually existed, the witness would have arranged for Smirnov to be examined by a surgeon by calling the polyclinic and making an appointment.
The interrogation record of Anna Lukyanova of February 2021 is read out: Lukyanova’s testimony in the main part is completely identical to the testimony of Kozlova, except that Lukyanova does not mention Vlasova in connection with the entry in Smirnov’s medical history, the authorship of this entry is unknown to her. But she also believes that the entry was made after Smirnov had been hospitalized.
The interrogation record of Valentina Mogilevskaya of August 2020, Mogilevsky’s mother, is read out: on 22.06.2019, she arrived with her son at his home. After their arrival, Mogilevsky’s wife Polevaya immediately closed the door behind them and switched on some video clip compromising Mogilevsky. The witness herself had not seen the video, but Mogilevsky immediately became aggressive when he saw it and swung his hand to switch off the TV set, but hit Polevaya in the head area, causing her to fly off and hit the door jamb. Mogilevsky ran up to her and struck her twice with a bunch of car keys in the area of her right leg, but at that moment Tukhovskaya began to strike him in the head area. After a short period of time, the conflict was over. He does not know whether Mogilevsky’s actions were accidental or deliberate. All this happened solely because of the video clip, from which it follows that Mogilevsky was cheating on Polevaya.
Interrogation record of Alexander Nechiporenko dated March 2021 is read out: Since May 2014, he has been the Chief Specialist of the Department for Problem Assets at the Security Management of the North-West Bank of Sberbank PJSC. The witness’s testimony is limited to listing the addresses of the bank’s branches in St. Petersburg, as well as several branches in Moscow and the Komi Republic.
After the announcement of the interrogation records, attorney Safronov files a motion for a temporary restriction on the publication of Generalova’s statements in open sources, with me and the courtmonitoring website in mind (“we know that all testimonies and court hearing protocols are posted on the Internet’). The request is motivated by the concern that Zhdanov may have the opportunity to familiarize himself with her statements before his interrogation and adjust his position accordingly, which would hinder obtaining necessary information from him. Therefore, he requests limiting the possibility of publishing Generalova’s statements until Zhdanov’s interrogation.
The court finds it difficult to consider this request because Safronov cannot refer to a specific legal provision and name the mechanism for its implementation. At the same time, Safronov and Mogilevsky directly address me with this request. The dialogue proceeds in a polite and friendly tone, and I promise to convey their position and raise this issue for discussion.
However, Safronov does not return to the request, and Judge Ulanov leaves it unaddressed. At the same time, the judge hints that the failure to comply with the defense’s request may lead to the closure of the hearing.
After discussing this issue, the court decides to recall the witnesses for further questioning and adjourns the court hearing until April 25, 2022.
