Gusak Alexander Ivanovich FSB biography. Alexander Gusak says

Current page: 44 (book has 45 pages total) [available reading passage: 30 pages]

Should I defend my honor or bend over and wait for the next spit?

I met in the corridor the grinning head of the OK, who muttered through clenched teeth: “After all, I told you not to argue with Volokh, and he is preparing another trick against you. So they will be fired without a pension. Better go and ask him for an apology.” I could hardly restrain myself from grabbing Judas by the breasts, but his words overflowed my patience. In addition, the illegally imposed “reprimand” dealt a financial blow to the family, as they deprived me of my 13th salary, and, having taken me out of state, my salary was reduced by a third. My chest was squeezed with frustration from the unpunished triumph of evil and lawlessness. In the time of Tsar Peter I, it was possible to even challenge rogues to a duel, but in the current time of the reign of “liberals,” what to do? I went to consult with V.I. Ilyukhin. He spoke on the phone with some commander from the Military Court of the Moscow Garrison and said: “Alexander Mikhailovich. Your cause is right. Let's go to the old Arbat, where they are waiting for you, and sue Volokh. We need to put presumptuous bosses in their place.” My claim, which came to General Volokh, aroused his rage and indignation. He ran to consult the FSB DPU, where they worked out his line of defense and counterattack. Volokh’s assistant, Colonel V.I. Surkov, immediately concocted the necessary evidence about how the head of the ATC OU allegedly gave an order to Platonov that day to stay until 22.00 at a meeting, but he did not comply with it. It was impossible to look at Colonel Knutov without contempt, who came to me and said: “Mikhalych. Sorry old man. I’m already quitting my job and am about to get an apartment, and then Surkov (who is also a member of the housing commission of the management) called me and forced me to write an explanation about you, copying it from his certificates. 553
From the author. The colonel's real name has been changed.

He hinted that he could provide an apartment earlier. Conscience tortured me. Forgive me if you can". I answered him with our Russian tale: “God will forgive you, but in 1937, due to such slander, many people were killed by the Shvonders from the NKVD.” Literally a month later, the military assessors called and offered to talk about my case. At first, two uniformed officers looked with curiosity and wariness at Colonel Platonov, one of the first to lash out at the arbitrariness of his superiors, not in the army, where such cases are not uncommon, but in the very “bodies” called upon to protect the Law and security of the country. But after about twenty minutes of my story about serving in counterintelligence after the collapse of the USSR and attempts to resist three coups d'etat, their faces warmed. Expressing regret that they could not talk to me in a warmer atmosphere “over a glass of tea”, and not in court, they said: “We knew even before our conversation with you that General Volokh violated the Law by exceeding his official authority. Well, now they have definitely decided to protect you and cancel his illegal order (from the author - which he did not give) to remain on duty until 10 p.m. After all, according to the Charter, such an order could only be given by a commander in positions of district commander and higher. Therefore, we recommend that you add an additional clause to the claim for the recovery of moral damages from Volokh in the amount of 5 million rubles (50 thousand in today’s money). This will compensate for your financial losses due to the imposed penalty and deprivation of bonuses.” Well, and then the technical side. The management of the educational institution of the ATC, by decision of the military court, lifted the penalty as illegally imposed, and paid me my 13th salary retroactively. Having spat on all these troubles, he listened to the advice of General Trofimov and, having reported the revocation of the reprimand to the Training Center, in July 1996 he began teaching the special discipline “The fight of security agencies against manifestations of terrorism and organized crime” as a professor. Without giving up hope of returning to operational work, thanks to the efforts of the great powers still remaining in the Kremlin, I will first meet with a member of the powerful clan of the “family” Valentin Yumashev. The conversation was lively and productive. For about two hours, Yeltsin’s personal writer listened with surprise to my story about corruption in the law enforcement system, and the unpunished activities of the soima organized crime groups that threaten the Russian government. Having withstood some unpleasant smell emanating from the court EBN, who was making notes in his notebook, I got him to call Savostyanov and send me to him for a conversation. 554
From the author. A little later, this talkative writer will take away his wife Tatyana Dyachenko (Yeltsin’s daughter) from the aviation millionaire Okulov. For more information about Yumasheva (hippie), see: Korzhakov A.V. Decree. Op. pp. 181–182.

By that time, he, apparently from a call from the Washington “regional committee,” received the position of head of the personnel department under the President of the Russian Federation and oversaw all appointments of the top management of law enforcement agencies. 555
From the author. This decision contains all the inconsistency of the EBN. Earlier, when in December 1994 he removed General Savostyanov from his post, according to Korzhakov, he called him a “goat’s beard,” and two years later Yeltsin himself would launch into the holy of holies the “vegetable garden for selecting the country’s leading personnel.”

For about an hour of conversation I held back so as not to show my hatred of the Yankees. But apparently his counterpart knew the real Platonov, so with his insinuating voice, in response to my real proposals for creating a compact department to combat terrorism and organized crime, he diverted the topic of conversation to the side. I began to explain that, in principle, all our operational work is useless, since it is impossible to get rid of the corruption that has affected the entire law enforcement and judicial systems of the country. With difficulty, after listening to the liberal, I realized that this government and the created system of stealing from the state do not need the Platonovs and are only in the way.

As a conclusion

The further fate of the cohort of the 1st department of the FSB UBT

False presidential elections will be held and, even after losing them, Yeltsin will continue to “take the throne” again, and to Russia’s misfortune, to imitate the leadership of the country. 556
From the author. At this time, a popular joke will appear. Korzhakov came to Yeltsin following the election results and said: “I have two news. One is good and the other is bad.” EBN: “Start with the bad one.” Korzhakov: “Zyuganov received 53% of the votes.” EBN: “What good news can there be after this?” Laughing, Korzhakov responded: “You, Boris Nikolaevich, got 59% and won the elections!”

The day before, he will descend on Chechnya and, surrounded by a dense ring of special forces, will falsely declare that the war is almost over and the militants have been defeated. Already in August 1996, working off a sop from the EBN in the form of the position of Secretary of the Security Council, the formidable General A.I. Lebed, wearing a burka donated by Maskhadov, would betray thousands of dead Russian soldiers and sign the Khasavyurt Treaty. It turned out that according to him, Maskhadov and his crowd of bandits, uncontrollable by him, won in this shameful war. In Grozny, Major S.V. Romashin will die heroically, already wounded, covering the retreat of Alpha, and he will be posthumously awarded the title of Hero of Russia. Korzhakov will clumsily try to hit Chubais’ headquarters before the elections by carrying out the “copier box” operation. In it, Sergei Lisovsky, together with his partner, once again illegally took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Government House to pay art clackers. According to Litvinenko, preparations were also being made for the arrests of Berezovsky, Chubais, Kokh and Gusinsky. 557
From the author. For details see: Litvinenko A.V. Decree. Op. pp. 129–135.

The plans seemed good, but to implement them, the courtier did not turn to the people and the opposition, whom he was afraid of, but to the “Podolsk” and “Kurgan” bandits. He wanted to ban the Communist Party altogether. What kind of political system then did he want to establish? Apparently, a dictatorship with elements of state capitalism and racketeering oligarchs who continue to rob their own people, for whom whips and prisons will do. This time, the coup, conceived by the self-imagined commander Korzhakov, failed for another reason - it was not approved and supported by the Washington “regional committee”. 558
According to the author, entrenched in Russian power structures and actively working US CIA employees, apparently, also secretly participated in the resignation of Korzhakov and members of his clique. There was no reason for Korzhakov to launch them into the Kremlin earlier.

Having united, the previously warring oligarchs, through Tatyana Dyachenko, will convince Yeltsin to fire the all-powerful security guard who threatened his power. The facts of fraternization with EBN, like real bandits in the blood, will not help Korzhakov either (evident from the drunken case). Many members of their team will be sent into retirement along with General Barsukov. It is unknown whether they managed to destroy or hide the incriminating evidence collected on Chubais and the oligarchs.

If there is a “White Arrow”, then it is the URPO led by Khokholkov 559
From the author. Previously, this department was called the “Administration of Advanced Programs”, but compromised itself with illegal actions. General Lebed tried to implement Barsukov’s idea of ​​“black squadrons”, rushing around with the project of first creating the “National Guard” (as in the USA), and then the “Russian Legion”. The Minister of Internal Affairs, General Kulikov, will appear in the media to expose these plans, since the “Legion” was intended, among other things, for the physical elimination of political opponents. EBN will be afraid of Lebed’s increasing influence and will remove him from the post of Secretary of the Security Council. And URPO will be dissolved in a year.

Somewhere in August 1997, Gusak called and asked to come to the Lubyanka to attend the “khural” of the elders. By this point, General Volokh began to squeeze my employees with a series of confused and contradictory orders, creating an atmosphere of constant conflict. 560
From the author. A year later, this general will be sent into honorable exile as a representative of the FSB in one of the European countries, where he will also “distinguish himself” and be dismissed from the security agencies.

In the presence of Rodin and a couple of other old-timers of the department, Gusak will say: “Alexander Mikhailovich. The director of the FSB offered me the position of head of the 7th department in the created Directorate for the Development of Criminal Organizations (URPO), headed by General E. G. Khokholkov. Do you think I should agree?” After thinking a little, he answered him: “Sasha. Who Khokholkov is, you know as well as I do. The connection between “Gafur” and then Korzhakov and Lebed embodies their long-standing dream of extrajudicial reprisals against competitors under the guise of fighting organized crime. It would be possible to support their plans if they destroyed the leaders of the criminal world in the interests of the state. But when, on instructions from the leaders of some clans, they “wet” other criminal authorities in order to take over their criminal business for personal enrichment - this is state banditry. Well, the recently appointed director, General N.D. Kovalev, is specially sending you to this department as his “eyes and ears” to control Khokholkov. My advice to you. Refuse under a plausible pretext, as you are going to a satanic gathering.” Gusak responds: “You think I can’t handle it and don’t understand where I’m going? Of course, Khokholkov and his deputy Kamyshnikov will put a spoke in my wheels, but I can handle it!” He told Alexander Ivanovich harshly: “No. It will be different. First, they will create for you all the conditions for your developments, the implementation of which will begin to strengthen the significance and authority of URPO in the eyes of management. For each arrest of a major leader, they will not skimp on rewards, but will begin to notice the slightest violations or deviations of Gusak from legal norms. And they will, because “they cut down the forest and the chips fly.” In six months or a year they will begin to implement the main principle of the bandits. They will begin to gradually force Husak and his subordinates, blinded by awards, to carry out assignments and orders that flagrantly violate the law. Well, then, I don’t rule out that they will also be given tasks to physically eliminate people they don’t like. Moreover, they will definitely disguise this as a good cause of fighting crime. 561
For details on the methods of the URPO manual, see: Alex Goldfarb with the participation of Marina Litvinenko. SASHA, VOLODYA, BORIS... The story of a murder. Publishing house AGC/Grani, New York, USA, 2010. pp. 108–109 (386 pp.).

Not knowing the true intentions and succumbing to temptation, Gusak will fall on their hook along with his subordinates. Anything wrong and Khokholkov will hand you over to justice. Everything will end, at best, in court, but not for them, but for the executor of their oral orders, Gusak, or his death, as an unnecessary witness to the lawlessness going on in the URPO.” Alexander Ivanovich sadly replied: “That’s how it is, but I already gave my consent to Kovalev. Now it’s inconvenient to refuse.” With sympathy, he advised Gusak to at least get Kovalev’s permission to hire his best employees to URPO.

Eight months will pass and my predictions, unfortunately, will come true with an even more dramatic outcome. During this time, Gusak and Litvinenko only occasionally called back, reporting on successful operations and received orders and medals, not forgetting to invite them to “washing”. Suddenly, over the phone, Gusak asked to urgently drive up to Novokuznetskaya Street, where the 7th URPO department was stationed. The place is familiar to me from my work in the KGB Main Directorate for Combating Organized Crime. By a strange coincidence, Gusak was sitting in the same office as me (apparently we have the same fate). Nervously smoking a cigarette, he will say: “You were right. Yesterday, an unknown person called OS, introducing himself as a FAPSI general, and offered to meet. Having approached the department, he asked to go down to his car, where he stated: “Our department is “watching” with alarm the goings-on at the URPO, but I personally like you, so I want to warn you that the management of the department discussed the issue of your liquidation in connection with with refusal to carry out their criminal orders." Immediately, as a lawyer, I asked him a question: “Are you ready to confirm this in court, if necessary?” He answered with a grin: “I’m not crazy and thank you for warning me.” Gusak continued: “I wrote down the car number, but he did not give his last name. 562
From the author. After some time, through joint efforts, we will establish the name of this general.

It was possible to not give a damn about this warning, since at that time the FSB and FAPSI were at enmity, but two days before this conversation one of the URPO personnel officers approached me. He quit and, calling him outside, said: “Sasha. How can you work with such ghouls? I personally heard them say while drunk in the sauna that you need to be removed. Like, you know a lot. My advice to you. Quit quickly and before it’s too late.” At the same time, the HR department employee expressed his readiness during the investigation, if necessary, to confirm his words, declaring his hatred of the scoundrel managers.” Gusak, looking gloomily into my eyes, asked: “Alexander Mikhailovich. For the first time I don’t know what to do? I’ve never been afraid of bandits, but here it’s like “our own people” are planning such a thing.” At that moment, having learned about my arrival in Gusak’s office, my former subordinates literally burst into it. Friendly hugs and words of joy about the meeting were immediately replaced by the cry of Colonel Shubin: “We have such things unfolding that we don’t know whether we will remain alive?” Confusedly, they talked about how they received illegal orders to “line up” with the Chechen presidential candidate Umar Dzhabrailov and the former head of the investigative service department of the Moscow FSB, Lieutenant Colonel Mikhail Trepashkin. 563
From the author. At that time, Lieutenant Colonel Trepashkin was the deputy head of the investigative department of the Tax Police Department of the Russian Federation.

In the first case, the task was to take Dzhabrailov hostage or kill him if that didn’t work out, and in the second case, to “teach a lesson” to the presumptuous investigator, who was fired for arresting criminals who were transporting a shipment of weapons to Chechnya. As luck would have it, two FSB officers were among them. Seeing the obvious lawlessness, lawyer Trepashkin will sue the leadership of the FSB. When, fulfilling an order, albeit illegal, the department prepared to “capture” Dzhabrailov, Gusak asked the deputy head of the URPO, captain 1st rank A.P. Kamyshnikov: “What to do with his guard from among the police officers legally assigned to him in connection with incoming death threats? They can also put up armed resistance.” The manager’s answer speaks for itself: “You are professionals. It’s not for me to teach you. If they resist, then use weapons. You have experience. And if it doesn’t work out, and you yourself are captured, then it’s okay. In a year or two we will get you out of the colony.” The same picture with Trepashkin. The explanations for the order to “teach Trepashkin a lesson” due to the fact that he was allegedly engaged in racketeering with an FSB certificate, imposing tribute on vodka kiosks, did not in any way fit with his courage in Chechnya and the medal “For Courage” he received. And his colleagues spoke of him as a disinterested and honest investigator. After listening to the employees, he did not reproach Gusak for his prediction of these events, but gave him advice to act in two directions. Firstly, being military personnel, first of all, go as a whole group to Kovalev, who created their department, talking about what was happening and demanding that he take appropriate measures. Secondly, for his part, he promised to organize a meeting for them with the head of the State Duma Security Committee due to the need to restore order not only in the FSB, but also in the entire law enforcement system of the country. And with that we parted. On my recommendation, Gusak and his subordinates, almost the entire department, came to see General Kovalev. Then they will tell me how the Director, pale and confused by their information about the lawlessness in the URPO, will only say: “I will give the command to the personnel department and inspection to conduct an internal audit.” Gusak answered him: “We are telling you about the signs of crimes, and here the CSS must first work, and only then, if necessary, we can involve personnel.” After the conversation, leaving the office, according to the employees, Colonel Shubin will sternly tell Kovalev: “If you don’t take action, then we’ll contact the Prosecutor General’s Office.” Late in the evening, Gusak will receive a call from the Director of the FSB: “Are you still in the service? Come on up to me at Lubyanka." Entering his office, Lieutenant Colonel Gusak is stunned. General Khokholkov sat next to Kovalev, his eyes sparkling angrily. For a couple of hours, both generals pressed the courageous officer, alternating threats with flattering offers. Only long after midnight Gusak got to work and, having slept in the office, in the morning he will gather the department employees for a meeting. With an exhausted look and trying to fake a smile, he will tell them: “The director and General Khokholkov promised that I would live. Their main requirement is not to contact the prosecutor's office. So let's continue to work calmly. We will manage without the intervention of the prosecutor’s office.” That’s when the employees exploded with angry tirades like: “Have you thought about us? We supported you with our collective appeal to the Director, understanding the dangers threatening your and our lives. But now they will deal with us one by one, dismissing us without severance pay. We must all go to the end together, proving our case right up to the Prosecutor General's Office. After all, the Director betrayed you and us, and instead of connecting the CSS, he pawned us wholeheartedly to Khokholkov!” 564
From the author. Subsequently, in his numerous interviews, General Kovalev will pour out many buckets of dirt on Gusak and the employees of the department, distorting events and declaring that they themselves were being developed by the CSS. They say that the appeal to him was only an “attack” by the defending defendants. By doing this, he betrayed them for the second time, absolving himself of blame for the real crimes of the URPO and, apparently, fearing Khokholkov.

Suddenly, in Major Husak, that Alexander Ivanovich woke up, who fearlessly rushed even against superior enemy forces. With rage he will declare: “That’s it! Our cause is just and we will fight to the bitter end!” As Kovalev was warned, Lieutenant Colonel Gusak and employees of the 7th department contacted the Prosecutor General’s Office with a statement about illegal actions by the leadership of the URPO. After this, the GVP of Russia will initiate criminal case No. 29/00/0004-98 against Khokholkov, Makarychev and Kamyshnikov for abuse of official position and abuse of power. The head of this department, being an expert in his field, initially found an article of the Criminal Code that solved the problem “the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe.” The fact is that criminal liability can be brought under it only if harmful consequences occur. Now, if the employees of the 7th department carried out criminal orders and the targets of their attack were injured, then only then would the above-mentioned leaders be brought to criminal responsibility. In their situation, another article of the Criminal Code – “Incitement”, which does not require the occurrence of harmful consequences, had a future. While the investigation was ongoing, the overly principled employees of the 7th Department received a wave of harassment in the media and death threats from the leadership of the URPO. 565
From the author. In this criminal case, the author was examined and interrogated by the GVP investigator as a witness. They keep a copy of the protocol.

Taking this into account, apparently, at the instigation of Litvinenko through Berezovsky, Gusak, while filming, will tell Sergei Dorenko about all the illegal actions known to him in the URPO. By this time, V.I. Ilyukhin had found time and in the office of one of the security companies near the State Duma, I had a conversation with him from the department employees who had started a “revolt on the ship” of the URPO. Interrupting each other, the opera gave examples one better than the other about the facts of corruption and lawlessness going on in this department. Before this, having lost his friend and colleague General L. Ya. Rokhlin, who was killed on July 3 by unknown killers who had all the signs of involvement in the special services, Ilyukhin took their statement very seriously. The officers answered his questions, asked with knowledge of the matter, clearly and convincingly. At the end of the conversation, the employees handed over their appeal and statement to Viktor Ivanovich, who trusted them, to the Chairman of the Government E.M. Primakov and two copies to the State Duma, as well as to the First Deputy of the Presidential Administration E.V. Savostyanov. Ilyukhin, in turn, promised that he would summarize the information received with data on arbitrariness and violations of the law in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and other law enforcement agencies. After which he will prepare a certificate and, having approved it at the Security Committee, will bring up at a meeting of the State Duma the issue of creating a parliamentary commission to investigate the received and newly discovered facts of illegal activities in the special services and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

It should be noted that the spirit of unauthorized liquidations has long been hovering in the lower ranks - among employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB, who were stunned by the lawlessness of the top and the helplessness of fighting the mafia leaders with the help of the law. And the top - the leaders themselves either hinted or directly pushed the detectives to illegally exterminate criminals. For the top, it was clearing territories for their commercial structures, which they climbed into and “protected.” For the lower classes, at first it was just a simplification of the task, but both of them “tied together” on blood and a system was formed! This system has grown and, having turned into a way of life for security forces and government agencies, is still acting to the destruction of our state! Some really wanted and fought crime with similar measures, but as soon as they began to receive a lot of money for it, they quickly rotted and turned into the same bandits, only even worse, since they covered themselves with the government service (crusts) for selfish purposes.

A throw into the abyss, or Litvinenko's transition to serve the devil. An absurd press conference for the benefit of Bereza and Khokholok, but to the detriment of the employees of the 7th department of the URPO

A holy place is never empty, and after popular expectations about EBN’s defeat in the elections did not come true, apparently, Litvinenko made a choice for himself. His activities around Berezovsky, after I was removed to teaching, became unnecessary for the state and the state security leadership. The top of the country's security bloc was no longer busy with business, but with the fight for their seats and positions. In fact, having betrayed my employees who tried to break the vicious and criminal circle in the URPO, General Kovalev himself pushed Litvinenko to find himself a new employer and patron in the person of Berezovsky. Literally a couple of days after the conversation with Ilyukhin, late in the evening Litvinenko called home and asked to urgently meet. Arriving at about 11:30 pm, he, with shifty eyes and nervousness, offered to talk, but on the landing. Confused in his words, Litvinenko blurts out: “Urgently contact Ilyukhin and ask him not to do anything about our statement for two or three days. It will hurt the guys." I asked him: “What threatens them?” He responded: “I can’t say now, but soon you will find out for yourself.” I had to explain to Alexander Valterovich that it would take at least a month to implement Viktor Ivanovich’s plan and there was no need to even call. Without looking me in the eyes, Litvinenko happily said: “That’s great,” and said goodbye, rushing home. Apparently, having previously told Berezovsky about the meeting of his employees with V.I. Ilyukhin, Litvinenko received a scolding from the great intriguer, who in everything thinks only about his own benefit, and not about the fight against corruption. Why should the communist Ilyukhin give the initiative with facts concerning him personally, if he can use the purchased media to inflate a universal scandal? Therefore, being afraid to agree with me, on November 17, 1998, having hastily gathered unsuspecting employees for the company, including Lieutenant Colonel Trepashkin, Litvinenko dragged them to a press conference at Interfax. According to the officers, he will tell them: “Let’s eat and appear on television. Your job is to remain silent, and I will speak.” One of the employees tried to refuse, but Litvinenko used a well-known trick, asking: “What are you doing? Got scared? After all, he promised to go to the end!”, he persuaded him too. And then, instead of giving the floor to investigator Mikhail Trepashkin, Litvinenko will turn the inflammatory speeches of the URPO leadership into an allegedly given order to kill Berezovsky for the whole country. 566
From the author. Unfortunately, at this time A.I. Gusak went on vacation. His deputy Litvinenko, apparently remaining senior in the department behind the boss, used his official position to drag employees into the scandalous event. Gusak would not allow this.

But it’s the same as if employees of the 7th department were incited to kill Gaidar or Chubais. These individuals, if liquidated, would not receive sympathy from the common people for their criminal deeds. And it turned out that the Russians, and the majority of FSB and law enforcement officers, perceived Litvinenko’s words as the speeches of a former state security officer who was bought wholeheartedly by Berezovsky and his colleagues. Well, and the “Gafur” connection, General Khokholkov in the eyes of Russians became almost a folk hero. Like, there are still generals in Rus' who want, albeit through criminal means (and “Isn’t Birch a criminal?”), but to cleanse the country of thieves and plunderers. Colonel Shubin looked ridiculous in a balaclava mask, which can be understood because of the many operations carried out with his participation to capture notorious bandits. That same evening, in unison with the press conference, Channel 1 ORT (then the domain of BAB) began a series of programs by Sergei Dorenko like “URPO is a criminal organization” with the participation of Gusak, Litvinenko and Ponkin. Late at night, Gusak, who was then on vacation in his homeland, called from Donetsk. He will angrily declare: “My dad and I watched ORT and were shocked. Why is Litvinenko setting me up? After all, I gave a multi-hour interview to Dorenko, but with the condition that it be made public on television only in the event of death or an attempt on my life. And what kind of abomination did he organize at the press conference? Apparently “Birch” got the idea? He exposed me to the contempt of honest people who condemn Gusak for failure to comply with an allegedly received order that was not received. In fact, there was incitement on the part of Khokholkov and Kamyshnikov, thereby provoking and testing my readiness to carry out their illegal orders. And he really let the guys down. They will definitely be fired now!” He calmed Alexander Ivanovich as best he could, and the next day, having met with Litvinenko, he gave him a full beating, explaining the meanness and haste of his press conference. As it seemed to me then, he realized the error of his offense and, repenting, only asked: “What will happen now?” I briefly outlined a further and very gloomy prospect for him: “They will start persecuting you and the guys. They will look for clues about past operations and will definitely find witnesses, including criminals you previously arrested, who will give any false testimony against you. They will open a criminal case, send you to a pre-trial detention center, and then the court will sentence you to serve two or three years in prison.” And so it happened. After attacks by unknown persons on Litvinenko, whom he will in the latter case detain and hand over to the police (according to him, they turned out to be FSB employees), Alexander Valterovich and Lieutenant Colonel Gusak together with him will be arrested, and the rest of the employees will be fired. By order of E.M. Primakov, Dorenko’s broadcasts about URPO will also be stopped. Litvinenko investigators will begin to “sew up” a criminal case for allegedly extorting a carload of canned green peas from the entrepreneurs. Well, Gusak will be charged with several murders, including among them the militants eliminated during our joint operations in Grozny. Everything was sewn with such “white thread” that the court would acquit them for the first time. But by that time the bacillus of lawlessness and permissiveness would have already infected the special services to such an extent that the FSB special forces, right in the courtroom, without allowing the judge to finish reading the acquittal verdict, regardless of the guards, they would re-detain and arrest them. For visual intimidation, this scene of violence against the Law will be shown on television. In the future, A.I. Gusak will receive a four-year suspended sentence (and this is supposedly for the murders he committed?), and Litvinenko, while still under yet another investigation and a recognizance order not to leave the place, will manage to fool the detectives and go with his family to his patron who fled to London . The rest of the employees will, for the most part, quit and work at private security companies. A.I. Gusak will engage in advocacy, actively participating in the public life of our country. 567
From the author. Being from Donetsk, he provides all possible assistance to the besieged Ukrainian Armed Forces of the newly formed DPR. His son, Maxim, died heroically in October 2014 with a machine gun in his hands in the ranks of the army (militia) of this proud republic, having been ambushed by Ukrainian nationalists. Eternal memory to him!

By that time, having rapidly progressed from Borodin’s assistant, to Director of the FSB for about a year, and then to Prime Minister, V.V. Putin will become the President of the country. Security officials will, with bated breath, convey to each other his words at an extended meeting at the FSB: “Well, how did I carry out the operational infiltration into the leadership of Russia?” It seems to be just a remark, but it then gave rise to faith in the beginning of the restoration of our country’s independence from American dictatorship. The return of Crimea to Russia and the massive rise in patriotism and self-awareness of the Russian people give Putin powerful support for moving from words to deeds.

Former FSB officer Alexander Gusak, in a conversation with Sobesednik.ru, criticized the special services after the terrorist attack in St. Petersburg.

As a result of the terrorist attack that occurred on April 3 in the St. Petersburg metro, 14 people were killed and another 49 were injured. As Sobesednik.ru wrote, 22-year-old native of Kyrgyzstan Akbarzhon Jalilov, who lived in St. Petersburg for more than six years, was suspected of involvement in the crime. A student from Kazakhstan, Maxim Aryshev, also came under suspicion from the Russian special services.

Meanwhile, Kommersant, citing an anonymous source, reported that the special services knew about the impending terrorist attack, listened to the militants’ conversations, but did not find out the details of their plan. The operatives picked up the trail only after the explosion in the train carriage: they blocked the phones of the alleged terrorists and thereby, as the publication writes, prevented a second explosion.

The former head of the FSB anti-terrorist unit, Alexander Gusak, in an interview with Sobesednik.ru, assessed the actions of the special services:

I want to swear, honestly. As I did in my time: if you receive information that these are terrorists, and then some other events are taking place in your city, but nothing is clear to you, then you take a police squad, take a group of your employees and act preventively. It’s not like you raid an apartment, but you find out what kind of people are there. All sorts of versions about what the special services knew or didn’t know are all bullshit! Most likely, they didn't know because... well, that's criminal negligence.

- Would it be criminal negligence if they knew?

- If only they knew and did nothing. The most important thing for an employee is to prevent a crime. Moreover, this is associated with the murder of many absolutely innocent people. Especially at a sensitive facility.

What does “they knew and did not prevent” mean? No. Yesterday they threw out [in the media] a photo of a guy with a goatee. This shows that they didn’t know a damn thing because they were rushing here and there. This is hitting the tails. If only this guy had written on his turban that he was a martyr... This is all a serious omission in the work.

- Is this an isolated miscalculation or a systemic flaw?

Our country is actually at war. Our main focus is on Syria. We have about 30% of the population that belongs to this religion - Islam. We know that thousands of our compatriots are fighting there [in Syria]. Many people come here. When a country is at war, intelligence agencies should not sleep. It is necessary to respond to every signal - no matter whether the information is confirmed or not. It’s okay: when large-scale hostilities took place in Chechnya, preventive strikes were carried out in Moscow and other regions. There was a suspicious address - go ahead! Thus, terrorist attacks were prevented. There was no time to thoroughly study the situation then.

Here [before the terrorist attack in St. Petersburg] there were no preventive measures. If you know, then you still need to make some efforts to protect public safety - and in general along all lines. And here it’s like in a swamp. They show us pictures: these are the types of planes we have, how we fight, what kind of guard we have. And the struggle must be on an invisible front. A big reproach to the operatives.

There's a problem with the operatives. Many guys are quite smart, there are even romantics among them, but they go into purely law enforcement units. They simply slap their hands and are not allowed to work. And I can imagine what kind of operational unit this is, where they work only on orders. The initiative to stop it is being cut down, the leaders are afraid of misfires. But you must agree that it is better to try to stop and make a mistake than something like this.

Russian President Vladimir Putin at the scene of the tragedy Photo: Global Look Press

- According to preliminary data, the perpetrator of the terrorist attack was a native of Kyrgyzstan. A resident of Kazakhstan also came under suspicion. Do you agree with the statement that Central Asia is a breeding ground for terrorism?

- Not only Central Asia, but also the North Caucasus is shrouded in this. Radical Islamist movements have seriously permeated society. You can’t talk like that only about Central Asia. We have many people whose relatives are fighting.

- Why do these people fall under the influence of radical ideas?

This means that not everything is normal in our fatherland, in our kingdom. People commit such crimes because of dissatisfaction with what is happening in the country. Islamists also use propaganda; they promote life according to special canons. And people compare life there and here, where there is a gap between social strata. You see, terrorism is a combination of everything negative. The man went and blew it up, but it’s difficult to single out one motivating reason. The main thing is socio-economic phenomena that do not satisfy the majority of society. This is where it all comes from.

- What is the purpose of the terrorist attack in the St. Petersburg metro?

- The goals of terrorism are to intimidate, take revenge, and make oneself known. Remember what happened in Minsk. What was the purpose there? It’s just that a couple of idiots wanted to see what would happen to people.

- Is there a direct connection with Syria? Is this for Syria?

- There is a direct connection here. It's mostly because of what we do to their people there. After all, thousands of Russian citizens are fighting there.

- Do you think the heads of the special services who missed the terrorist attack should be punished?

We need to check. There is an operational structure that is responsible for transport safety: this is the FSB transport department for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region, and the linear subdivision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the metro, and the metro management. It is necessary to check all the structures that monitor order and draw conclusions. Questions should also be raised before the governor and the mayor, who have overall responsibility for maintaining law and order. Of course, there must be organizational conclusions. Verification is verification, but the very fact of the terrorist attack shows at what level the work was carried out.

- We talk vaguely about “organizational conclusions”. Should they be fired or what?

- It’s not easy to fire. There is an article in the Criminal Code about criminal negligence. If there are such things, then they must be held accountable, because they [violations] led to grave consequences. If I knew the names, I would name them.

Interesting article?

Alexander Gusak, former head of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation, reserve lieutenant colonel, sentenced in 2001 to three years of suspended imprisonment, and now a practicing lawyer, is an interesting person. The appearance is the spitting image of extreme intimidation. But, as it turned out, he is not without internal fluctuations. At first, he fought organized crime without fear or reproach and could not get enough of his best operative Litvinenko. Then, in front of a television camera, he exposed the criminal essence of the special service, together with Litvinenko he talked about the generals who were inciting them to kill Berezovsky. But soon he again became the faithful son of the Office and was already exposing the vile essence of the traitor Litvinenko.

And Mr. Husak is the same person who was contacted by “the people whom Litvinenko handed over to the British intelligence services.” Devoted, but apparently not yet in the clutches of the sinister counterintelligence MI5, they asked Gusak what they should do. To which the former fighter against banditry, and now a lawyer, gave them professional and, hopefully, free advice. Like, so and so, guys, Litvinenko’s actions fall under such and such an article. Now the sentence for this is 20 years, but in Soviet times they would have been strangled. So think for yourself. In other words, he gave his colleagues ideas about how to deal with the political emigrant.

Why did the exposed spies seek help from Mr. Husak? Difficult question. Let's assume it's out of desperation. However, be that as it may, Mr. Husak's revelation can be added to the Litvinenko murder case as a confession of incitement.

The retired security officer is, however, rescued by President Putin, who recently announced to the whole world that Litvinenko, being an operator in the fight against native crime, did not possess any secrets. So there was no point in killing him. So Alexander Husak’s version within the Russian Federation automatically becomes a heresy and has no official circulation.

Still, Alexander Ivanovich’s statement deserves some interest. Of course, from his 7th department of the URPO FSB, Lieutenant Colonel Gusak could not discern the secrets of the SVR or the GRU, much less sniff out anything about the residency in Britain (this also applies to Litvinenko). But although the FSB is officially focused only on work within the country, some of its divisions, for example, the department for combating international terrorism, can, in accordance with the law, operate abroad. So both Gusak and Litvinenko, in principle, could obtain relevant information from their subcontractors. There would be interest. Therefore, there is no point in giggling too much about the knowledge of the FSB lieutenant colonel. Whether intelligence officers devoted to Litvinenko exist in nature or whether we are dealing with another legend is another matter.

But the legend arose for a reason. She works to further the FSB's reputation as an all-powerful secret service with long, deft arms. And let the former employees take revenge on the traitor - as you know, there are no former security officers. What Vladimir Putin once reminded us of.

Vladimir Dark

ALEXANDER GUSAK SPEAKS
37(406)
Date: 11-09-2001
Lieutenant Colonel GUSAK Alexander Ivanovich was born on October 19, 1957 in the city of Donetsk. In 1985 he graduated from Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov, Faculty of Law. In 1987 - higher courses of the KGB of the USSR (Gorky), later - courses for the management staff of the Academy of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Defender of the ideals of the Soviet system, the party, the Motherland.
He was awarded the orders "Courage" and "For Military Merit", medals "For Distinction in Military Service", "70 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR", "For Courage".
- Alexander Ivanovich, today a special issue of Novaya Gazeta with excerpts from the book of your former subordinate Alexander Litvinenko “The FSB is Exploding Russia” is being distributed in millions of copies throughout Russia. Litvinenko himself is now a citizen of Great Britain, where he allegedly fled to escape reprisals. Many people compare the appearance of this book to a bomb exploding. In fact, the defector accused his former colleagues of waging a war against their own country, that it was the FSB who organized the bombings of houses in Moscow and unleashed the second Chechen war. The book is replete with the names of officers, office telephone numbers, and nicknames of “agents,” but you are one of the few who knew not only Litvinenko himself, but also his level of awareness. How do you evaluate this work?
- In your question, the phrase “his level of awareness” was very important for understanding and correctly assessing Litvinenko’s literary research. In the book, he continually tries to pass himself off as a super-competent specialist, knowledgeable about all aspects of the life and activities of the FSB. In fact, Litvineko was an ordinary ordinary operative. His job "ceiling" is the head of a small department in the department. That's all. He didn't rise any higher. As an "operator" he did not even have access to secret documents. At best, he could try to collect information from the private conversations of his colleagues, but this is not at all level. In Chechnya, he participated in only one operation, in Pervomaisky, where he showed cowardice and was sent to the operational headquarters. In the book, he pours out facts and data as if he had entire folders of operational developments and dossiers in front of him. But none of this simply happened. The entire volume of information provided by Litvinenko is just a compiled “ledger”, for the compilation of which a few office telephone directories, a dozen gossips and a file of the “Criminal Chronicle” over the past few years are enough.
By the way, in the text itself, perhaps the main references to which the author continually refers the reader are newspaper and magazine publications and television program releases.
Sorry, but for an intelligence officer conducting his own investigation, this is simply ridiculous.
Moreover, while reading this special issue, I constantly caught myself feeling that Litvineko himself, at best, acted as a consultant in some places. Not his style, not his language, not his manner of presentation. And not even his image and level of thinking. Litvinenko is an opera, and I know his way of thinking, his logic very well. The book was written by people who are absolutely far from operational thinking, but are “twisted” on ideology and journalism.
I am almost sure that Litvinenko is not the author of this book. And he put his signature under it to please his new owners. You have to live on something in England. Well, maybe also to take revenge on the service. He has five grudges...
Therefore, treating this book as a truly serious study is simply stupid.
- What kind of person is Litvineko, how would you characterize him?
- Let me start with the fact that he was assigned to my unit without my knowledge. So we had to work together and get used to it.
As a professional he was quite up to par. He loved operational work and knew how to work. But as a person, he's rubbish. He was literally bursting with pride. He simply did not value his comrades. For him, people were just pawns in his own game. And after a series of conflicts with colleagues, when it almost came to blows, I was even forced to get him transferred to another unit.
In his own interests, he could step over anyone and anything. He lived and lives only for himself. Therefore, the question of betrayal never arose for him. It is necessary to betray - he will betray. He once betrayed his service, betrayed his friends, betrayed me, and now he betrayed the country by putting his name under a cheap fake...
Recorded by V. SHURYGIN
READ THE MATERIAL “PERVOMAYSKY PARADE” ON PAGE. 5

“We will jail Berezovsky anyway” when his “Kremlin roof” comes off

Moscow Garrison Military Court in a closed court session in the premises of a military court consisting of:
Presiding Judge - Judge of the Moscow Garrison Military Court, Lieutenant Colonel of Justice E.V. Kravchenko, People's Assessors - Lieutenant-Commander E.V. Komissarov. and captain-lieutenant Sannikov A.B., with secretary Gnedenko T.A., with the participation of the state prosecutor - military prosecutor of the 6th department of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office, Colonel of Justice A.V. Besedin, defense lawyers E.P. Kavun, V. Svistunov. O., Marova M.A., representatives of the victims - lawyers Bakatina Yu.N. and Strelnikov B.V., considered a criminal case on charges of former servicemen of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation, reserve lieutenant colonels:

Husak Alexander Ivanovich, born on October 19, 1957 in the city of Donetsk, Ukrainian, with a higher education, married, with two dependent minor children, no previous convictions, served in military service from 1985 to December 1998, awarded the "Order of Courage", the order “For Military Merit”, medals “For Courage”, “For Distinction in Military Service 3rd Degree”, “70 Years of the USSR Armed Forces”, working as Deputy President of the Northern Construction Group company, living in Moscow at the address: Michurinsky Prospekt, building 25, building 2, apartment 165, for committing a crime under Article 286, Part 3, paragraphs "a", "b" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Litvienko Alexander Valterovich, born on December 4, 1962 in the city of Voronezh, Russian, with a higher education, married, with three dependent minor children, no previous convictions, served in military service from 1980 to January 1999, incl. as an officer - since 1985, awarded the medals "For Impeccable Service" 3rd degree, "For Distinction in Military Service" 1st degree, "For Distinction in Military Service" 3rd degree, "70 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR", working as an advisor to the Executive Secretariat CIS, living in the city of Moscow at the address: Dnepropetrovskaya street, building 14, apartment 14, for committing a crime under Art. 286, part 3, paragraph "a" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

During the judicial investigation, the military court found:

Preliminary investigation authorities Gusak A.I. and Litvinenko A.V. were accused of committing by them, as officials, actions that clearly went beyond the scope of their powers and entailed a significant violation of the morals and legitimate interests of citizens, committed with the use of violence and threats of its use, and Husak, in addition, with the use of weapons, in connection with whereby Gusak was charged with committing a crime under Article 286, part 3, paragraphs a, b of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and Litvinenko - Art. 286, part 3, paragraph a of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation .

According to the indictment in the case, the actions charged against Gusak and Litvinenko were committed by them under the following circumstances.

In the second half of December 1997, employees of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation received information about what was committed against citizens by Trokhin A.Ya. and Volobueva Yu.V. robbery and the possible involvement in it of an employee of the Moscow OMON Malyuga O.V., whose whereabouts could have been known to his acquaintance - citizen Polishchuk V.I., living in apartment 77 of building 55 on Mitinskaya Street in Moscow.

On the evening of December 23 of the same year, Gusak, in violation of the requirements of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Clause "h" of Article 13 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Federal Security Bodies of the Russian Federation", exceeding the official powers granted to him, without any legal grounds, decided to enter the apartment of citizen Polishchuk, conduct a search there and obtain written explanations from persons living in the apartment on issues of interest to him. .

To do this, he instructed his subordinates Litvinenko, Ponkin, Shebalin, Shcheglov, Shevchuk, Latyshonok and Bavdey to follow him to the Mitino municipal district of Moscow to conduct operational search activities.

At the same time, as stated in the indictment in the case, Gusak, with the aim of unhindered penetration into the apartment and psychological influence on citizens in order to obtain from them information of interest to him, illegally involved in this event five employees of the operational search department of the city police department armed with machine guns, equipped with body armor and helmets Moscow, providing them with deliberately false information about the presence of armed criminals at the specified address, introducing Litvinenko to the essence and purpose of the planned event, who, aware of the obvious illegality of these actions, agreed to participate in it.

At about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, an armed group led by Gusak, consisting of Litvinenko. Ponkin and five police officers burst into the apartment of citizen Polishchuk, against the will of the latter, as well as Polishchuk’s twelve-year-old son and citizen Kharchenko, who were in the apartment. At the same time, Gusak and the FSB officers acting under his leadership, without introducing themselves or presenting documents confirming their belonging to law enforcement agencies, without a corresponding order from the investigator and a search order, without witnesses, without drawing up a protocol, began to carry out an illegal search in the apartment, in during which persons unidentified during the investigation stole $1,000 from Polishchuk’s purse.

The police officers, realizing that they had been misled by Gusak about the presence of armed criminals in the apartment, left the premises a few minutes later, and Gusak and Litvinenko, continuing to illegally remain in the citizens’ residential premises, demanded that Kharchenko and Polishchuk provide information about the whereabouts of Malyuga.

At the same time, Litvinenko expressed his demands in a rude and obscene form, and if he refused to provide this information, he threatened to take Kharchenko naked into the forest, handcuff him to a tree and leave him there until the MORNING. In addition, while seeking the necessary information from Kharchenko, Litvinenko beat the latter, punching him 7-8 times on the body, causing him bodily harm in the form of abrasions and bruises that did not cause short-term health problems, and did this in the presence of Gusak.

In order to conceal his illegal actions, Litvinenko, leaving Polishchuk’s apartment at about 2 o’clock on December 24, 1997, made threats to Kharchenko and Polishchuk if they filed complaints about his actions.

At the court hearing, the victims brought civil claims against the defendants Gusak and Litvinenko:

Polishchuk V.I. - on the recovery in her favor from the defendants of 1,000 US dollars stolen from her in ruble equivalent and 50,000 rubles in compensation for moral damage caused to her;

Kharchenko V.V. - to recover from the defendants in his favor 50,000 rubles in compensation for moral damage caused to him.

As can be seen from the indictment in the case, the charges against Gusak and Litvinenko were based on:

Testimony of the victims Polishchuk and Kharchenko, witnesses Shiferman, and the adult son of the victim - Dmitry Polishchuk. Golombosh, Malyugi L.V., Tarasova, Chervyakov, Svyatosnyuk, Manilov, Ponknna, Shebalin, Shevchuk, Latyshonka, Shcheglova, Bavdey, Kamyshnnkov, as well as data obtained during the investigative experiment with the participation of Kharchenko;

Telephone message from the doctor at the emergency room of clinic No. 79, dated December 26, 1997, about Kharchenko’s visit there;

Conclusion of a forensic medical expert;

Data obtained during the inspection of the scene of the incident - Polishchuk’s apartment;

Resolution to initiate criminal proceedings against Malyuga and Khudoley.

Taking into account the nature of the charge brought against the defendants, the determining factors for the conclusions about the involvement of Gusak and Litvinenko in the commission of the actions described in the indictment and their proper qualification were, in the opinion of the court, the conclusions of the preliminary investigation authorities about:

The purpose and time of arrival at the Polishchuk apartment of a group of employees of the FSB of the Russian Federation and the Oro of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow:

The circumstances of the entry of the arriving persons into Polishchuk’s apartment;

The nature of the actions and the time of stay of the mentioned persons in Polishchuk’s apartment;

Consequences of Gusak and Litvinenko’s visit to Polishchuk’s apartment for the people living there.

In accordance with Article 20, 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, the preliminary investigation authorities were obliged to take all measures provided for by law for a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the circumstances of the case, and then properly evaluate this evidence in its entirety, taking into account that no evidence has predetermined strength.

According to the indictment in the case regarding these circumstances, in addition to the victims Polishchuk and Kharchenko, as well as Gusak and Litvinenko themselves, a number of persons were questioned as witnesses, both those who were in the apartment together with the defendants, and those who were eyewitnesses of the entry into the apartment and departure from it.

Meanwhile, at the court hearing it was indisputably established that the BASIS of the conclusions of the preliminary investigation authorities about the proof of the commission of the described illegal actions by Gusak and Litvinenko was in fact based on the testimony of Polishchuk and Kharchenko about the circumstances of the incident, since, as stated in the indictment, these testimonies are consistent with other materials affairs.

In particular, as can be seen from Polishchuk’s statement addressed to the head of the Mitino police department and the prosecutor of the North-Eastern District of Moscow, at about XX o’clock on December 23, 1997, unknown persons called her apartment, where she lived with her minor son Dmitry and citizen Kharchenko, identified themselves as police officers and demanded to be let into the apartment, after which they began to break down first the door leading to the elevator hall, and then the door of her apartment. Frightened by this, her son Dmitry ran naked onto the balcony and wanted to jump off it, after which she was forced to open the door of the apartment, into which people in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns and three people in civilian clothes immediately burst into it. At the same time, she was “rudely pushed” into one of the rooms, and Kharchenko, threatening him with a machine gun, was taken to the kitchen, after which they began to demand from her information about the home address of her friend Malyuga Oleg, threatening, if she refused, to take Kharchenko to the forest and leave him undressed . When Polishchuk asked her to introduce herself, the arrivals stated that they were police officers, but they categorically refused to present any documents confirming this, after which “some of the officers began to rummage” through the things that were in the apartment.

At the same time, as can be seen from the aforementioned statements of Polishchuk dated December 26, 1997 and January 19, 1998, the persons who arrived at her apartment from 10 p.m. on December 23 to 2 a.m. on December 24, 1997 put “mental pressure” on her and Kharchenko, forcing her write an explanation indicating Malyuga’s home address, and only after they left the apartment did she learn from Kharchenko that he had been beaten in the kitchen, and on the morning of December 24, 1997, she discovered the loss of $1,000 from her bag in the hallway of the apartment.

During interrogation as a victim on March 4, 1999, Polishchuk, giving generally testimony about the circumstances of the incident similar to the content of her previously submitted statements dated December 26, 1997 and January 19, 1998, nevertheless testified that at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997 , when people unknown to her tried to knock down the door of her apartment and introduced themselves as police officers, she asked her son Dmitry to hide in the closet, and after she opened the door, one of the people in camouflage uniforms who burst into the apartment hit Kharchenko in the leg with the butt of a machine gun, after which he was “pushed into the kitchen.” At the same time, Polishchuk explained that she saw her son standing naked on the balcony of the apartment, from which she concluded that the child was so frightened that he could “jump from the balcony.” While in the living room with her son, she heard obscene language coming from the kitchen, where Kharchenko was at that time, which stopped only after Gusak, in response to her remark on this matter, went to the kitchen and then returned to the room . Along with this, Polishchuk testified on March 4, 1999 that before “her eyes,” Litvinenko hit Kharchenko hard in the chest area with his fist,” stopping these actions only on the instructions of Gusak, who saw what was happening. In addition, Polishchuk explained that the threats to take out It was Litvinenko who spoke to Kharchenko in the forest, and before leaving the apartment he suggested that she and Kharchenko should not go anywhere with statements about what had happened. Believing that bandits had “visited” her house, she, Polishchuk, immediately called Malyuga’s apartment on the phone and told him wife about what happened.

In addition, during the aforementioned interrogation, Polishchuk stated that at the end of 1998, she saw “practically all the people who arrived at her apartment” on television programs, and, in particular, on Sergei Dorenko’s program, when she “identified them” and learned their names, in connection with which, in the interrogation protocol, she testified about the actions of the defendants, confidently naming their names.

Being interrogated during the judicial investigation, Polishchuk testified that at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, when she was in her apartment with Kharchenko and her son Dmitry, the doorbell rang. Leaving the apartment, she saw several people in civilian clothes standing behind the glass door of the elevator hall, who answered her question “police” and demanded to open the door. Since the arrivals did not present any documents, she, Polishchuk, suggested that they wait until she contacted the local police department by phone and clarified the purpose and reasons for the police officers’ visit to her in the evening, however, while in her apartment at the telephone , heard one of the arrivals “knocking down the hall door with strong blows,” which, as she and Kharchenko later discovered, was damaged by this. Through the closed door of her apartment, she heard her neighbor Shiferman come out of her apartment and open the door leading to the elevator hall, after which the arrivals began to “knock down the door” of her, Polishchuk, apartment, striking it so hard that the wall fell off plaster, in connection with which she was forced to open the door, into which, against her will, people dressed in camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns, as well as several people dressed in civilian clothes, among whom were Gusak, Litvinenko and Ponknn, burst in. At the same time, Polishchuk stated that she did not notice any insignia on the camouflage uniforms of the people who broke into her apartment on December 23, 1997, and therefore, during the entire time these people were in the apartment, taking into account their behavior, she believed that they are not law enforcement officers, although she understood that “bandits” in camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns cannot move around the city in this form.

In addition, she, Polishchuk, saw how Kharchenko was “pushed with the butt of a machine gun” into the kitchen, and one of those who arrived immediately began to demand that she and Kharchenko provide any information about her friend Malyuga Oleg, refusing her request to present documents certifying their belonging to law enforcement agencies. Then Gusak invited her and Kharchenko, who was in the kitchen, to write an explanation about the circumstances and nature of their acquaintance with Malyuga, his address and home telephone number, and from Kharchenko, in addition, he demanded to write also that he allegedly was an eyewitness to Malyuga’s participation in the attack to the company where Kharchenko worked and took part in the beating of its employees.

Despite the fact that, when leaving the apartment at about 2 o’clock on December 24, 1997, one of the arrivals asked her and Kharchenko not to report what had happened anywhere, she, Polishuk, immediately after that called Malyuga’s wife home and told her about what had happened. that unknown armed people were looking for her husband, but she submitted a statement to the internal affairs bodies about the attack on her apartment only on December 26, 1997, without giving the court any convincing explanations about the reasons for this.

Along with this, Polishchuk testified that she was not an eyewitness to Kharchenko’s blows, but only saw how “Litvinenko swung at him,” and she made the conclusion that a search was carried out in the apartment only due to the fact that in the morning on On the table, she discovered her passport and $1,000 missing from a lady’s bag, although she did not see any of the arrivals inspect the things in the apartment or the contents of the furniture. Kharchenko himself told her about the beating of Litvinenko, showing the bruises on his chest and saying that while beating him, they forced him to write in an explanation about Malyuga’s involvement in the attack on the company in which Kharchenko worked, although this was not true.

In addition, Polishchuk stated in court that she identified Litvinenko and Ponknia not while watching television programs at the end of 1998, but in the spring of that year from photographs that were presented to her and Kharchenko by an employee of the Internal Security Directorate of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate in the presence of an employee of the Internal Security Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation, however, no protocol was drawn up, and no witnesses were present.

At the same time, Polishchuk was unable to provide any explanations about the reasons for the mentioned inconsistencies in her testimony during the preliminary and judicial investigation at the court hearing, explaining this only by forgetfulness due to the remoteness of the events.

According to Kharchenko’s statement dated January 19, 1998, addressed to the prosecutor of the North-Eastern District of Moscow, at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, unknown persons called to the apartment where he lived with citizen Polishchuk and her minor son Dmitry, who identified themselves as police officers and demanded to be let in them into the apartment, after which they began to break down first the door leading to the elevator hall, and then the door of the apartment itself. At the same time, Polishchuk suggested that Dima hide in the closet, but he “didn’t understand anything and rushed around the rooms.” Since the blows on the door were strong, Polishchuk was forced to open it, after which several people in camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns, and several people in civilian clothes immediately burst into the apartment, and one of the people in uniform hit him in the leg with the butt of a machine gun and put the barrel of a machine gun to his head, after which he, Kharchenko, was taken to the kitchen, where the arrivals, using obscene language, began to strike him in the chest, demanding, under threat of physical harm, “to tell them what he didn’t know,” to tell him his last name acquaintances from the riot police, and also tell him everything he knows about Oleg Malyuga, threatening, if he refuses, to take him to the forest and leave him there undressed. At the same time, the persons who arrived at the apartment did not present any identification documents, “rummaged through things and documents without any reason,” and left the apartment only at about 2 o’clock on December 24, 1997, forcing him to write an explanation about the circumstances attacks on the company "SK Kometa", where he, Kharchenko, worked as a manager.

As can be seen from the above-mentioned statement by Kharchenko, he wanted to contact the police “on the fact of a bandit attack” on Polishchuk’s apartment, but did not do this until December 26, 1997, “fearing for his life and the lives of his loved ones.”

From the protocol of Kharchenko’s oral statement dated January 28, 1998, it is clear that on the specified day the latter made a statement about the attack committed on Polishchuk’s apartment on December 23, 1997, explaining that the people who broke into the apartment “rummaged through things” that were in the apartment, as a result of which Money in the amount of $1,000 disappeared from Polishchuk’s bag.

During the interrogation as a victim on March 9, 1999, Kharchenko testified about the circumstances of the incident, which were generally similar to the content of the mentioned statements, showing that at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, one of the people in camouflage uniforms who broke into the apartment hit him with the butt of a machine gun on the leg and " pushed" him into the kitchen, where Litvinenko, swearing obscenely, dealt him "many - 7-8 blows to the chest and hands with his fists in the presence of a tall man who looked like a Tatar," who, however, did not beat him, Kharchenko.

At the same time, Litvinenko demanded that he, Kharchenko, write in his explanation that he allegedly saw Malyuga take part in the attack on the SK Kometa company and beat the employees there, threatening if this demand was not met to “take him out.” into the forest, naked, handcuffed to a tree and left there to die until the morning.” Perceiving these threats as real, he, Kharchenko, fearing for his life, was forced to comply with Litvinenko’s demands.

In addition, during the aforementioned interrogation, Kharchenko stated that at the end of 1998, “he saw almost all the people who arrived at Polishchuk’s apartment on television programs, and, in particular, on Sergei Dorenko’s program, when he “identified them” and learned their names, in connection with which, in the interrogation report, he testified about the actions of the defendants, confidently naming their names.

Being interrogated during the judicial investigation, Kharchenko testified that at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, a group of people who identified themselves as police officers, but did not present documents, began to knock down first the door of the elevator hall, and then the door of the apartment where he lived with Polishchuk and her son Dmitry, demanding to open the door, which Polishchuk was forced to do, as plaster fell from the wall from strong blows to the door. After that, people dressed in camouflage uniforms without insignia, armed with machine guns, as well as several people dressed in civilian clothes, among whom were Gusak, Litvinenko, Ponkin and Svyatosnyuk, burst into the apartment; one of the people dressed in uniform hit him in the leg with the butt of a machine gun. , and, putting the barrel of a machine gun to his head, pushed him into the kitchen, where Gusak, Litvinenko, Svyatosnyuk and two other people armed with machine guns then entered. At the same time, he, Kharchenko, was seated at the table, and Litvinenko and Svyatoshnyuk, who sat next to him on both sides, in the presence of Ponkin and one of the people dressed in camouflage uniforms, began to beat him, punching him in the chest and on the arms, demanding to write an explanation about the involvement of his friend Malyuga in the attack on the company where he, Kharchenko, worked. Taking into account the threat expressed by Litvinenko to him to take him to the forest and leave him there, handcuffed to a tree, and also being suppressed by the unlawful actions of Litvinenko and Svyatoshnyuk, he, Kharchenko, was forced to comply with Litvinenko’s demands, indicating in his explanation untrue information regarding the involvement Malyugi to attack the SK Kometa company, believing that all the people who arrived at Polishchuk’s apartment were not law enforcement officers, but “bandits.” At about 2 o'clock on December 24, 1997, the mentioned persons from Polishchuk's apartment warned him and Polishchuk not to inform anyone about their visit, but Polishchuk immediately called Malyuga's home on the phone and informed his wife about what had happened.

On the evening of December 25, 1997, as Kharchenko explained to the court, their friend Morunov, who works as a doctor, came into Polishchuk’s apartment, examined the bruises on his chest as a result of the beating and advised him to take an x-ray to detect possible fractures of the chest bones, but he did not make this recommendation. fulfilled, in connection with which he, Kharchenko, in the evening of the next day went to the Shchukinskaya metro station located nearby, i.e. in another area of ​​the city, a trauma center, where he was examined by the doctor on duty, and Polishchuk that same evening submitted a statement to the Mitino police department about an attack on her apartment on December 23, 1997.

Besides. Kharchenko testified that, contrary to his own statements during the preliminary investigation in the case, he did not see how any of the strangers who were in Polishchuk’s apartment on December 23, 1997 examined his or Polishchuk’s personal belongings and pieces of furniture, and the conclusion was that , that a search was carried out in the apartment, he did only on the basis of Dmitry Polishchuk’s story about the movements of armed people through the rooms of the apartment, the discovery of 1000 US dollars missing from Polishchuk’s handbag, and also the fact that on the night of December 23, 1997 he saw it in Litvinenko’s hands, Kharchenko and Polishchuk passports and their notebook.

Along with this, Kharchenko stated in court that he identified Litvinenko and Ponkin not while watching television programs at the end of 1998, as indicated in the protocol of his own interrogation dated March 9, 1999, but in the spring of 1998 from photographs that were presented to him and Polishchuk as an employee of the Internal Security Department of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate in the presence of an employee of the Internal Security Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation.

However, as expressly stated in the indictment in the case, on the basis of Polishchuk’s statement, a criminal case regarding the attack on her apartment was opened on January 30, 1998, and the said “crime remained unsolved until the broadcast of a story on television with the participation of GUSAK and Litvinenko, whom Polishchuk and Kharchenko were identified as the perpetrators of the attack on their apartment."

At the same time, any convincing explanations about the reasons for the mentioned inconsistencies in his testimony during the preliminary and judicial investigation regarding his statement “about the search” in Polishchuk’s apartment and the statement during the interrogation on March 9, 1999 that on December 23, 1997 his beat only Litvinenko, Kharchenko did not bring it up at the trial, explaining only that during the preliminary investigation Svyatoshnyuk was not presented to him for identification, and therefore, in agreement with the investigator of the military prosecutor’s office, he did not insist on indicating in the protocol of the said interrogation that he had been beaten, except Litvinenko, other persons, and Svyatosnyuk was seen and recognized for the first time after the incident only in the premises of the military court.

At the same time, as can be seen from the resolution of the investigator of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office dated May 31, 1999, which was not canceled in accordance with the established procedure.

“Ponkin, Chervyakov, Svyatoshnyuk, Manilov and 2-3 unidentified employees of the Moscow Municipal Department of Internal Affairs... did not take any active actions against the residents of the Polishchuk apartment,” and therefore the criminal case against the mentioned persons was terminated by the said resolution on the grounds paragraph 2 of article 5 of the PC of the RSFSR, i.e. for lack of corpus delicti.

In addition, from the photocopy of the written explanation personally executed by the victim, which was taken from Kharchenko in Polishchuk’s apartment on December 23, 1997, examined at the court hearing, it is clear that the said document does not contain any information indicating Milyuga’s involvement in the attack on the SK Kometa company “is not available at all, although during the preliminary and judicial investigation, Kharchenko consistently stated that this information was obtained from him by Litvinenko as a result of the use of violence against him by the latter and Svyatosnyuk on December 23, 1997.

Kharchenko himself was unable to give any explanations on this matter at the court hearing.

According to the telephone message examined at the court hearing by employees of clinic No. 79 of the Khoroshevsky district of the city of Moscow, registered at the Mitino police station on December 27, 1997, Kharchenko at 21:52 on December 26, 1997 went to the trauma center of the named medical institution with a statement about beating him " at 3 a.m. on December 24, 1997 by police officers."

As can be seen from the certificate of the chief physician of clinic No. 126, located in Moscow on Y. Rainisa Street, building 4, building 5, throughout 1997, medical care for trauma patients living in the Mitino microdistrict was provided at the trauma center of the said clinic around the clock.

Meanwhile, Kharchenko explained the reason for going to the emergency room for examination only three days after the incident only as “being busy with work,” and going to the clinic not at his place of residence, but to a medical institution located in a different area of ​​Moscow - due to his ignorance of the location of the nearest to the house of the Polishchuk trauma center.

As for the entry in the telephone message from the words of Kharchenko himself about his beating not by unknown persons, as he and Polishchuk consistently indicated in their statements to various authorities and during interrogations until March 1999, when they were interrogated by an investigator of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office, but police officers, Kharchenko did not give any explanations on this matter, citing the remoteness of the events.

Son Polishchuk, questioned at the court hearing at the request of the victim. IN AND. - Dmitry Polishchuk, born in 1985, testified that at about 10 p.m. on December 23, 1997, unknown persons first rang the doorbell of the apartment where he lived with his mother and Kharchenko, after which they began to knock strongly and loudly, first on the door of the elevator hall, and then at the door of the apartment, in connection with which he only went out to the balcony at his mother’s suggestion to hide, but did not intend to jump from the balcony. After that, he saw how people armed with machine guns, dressed in camouflage uniforms, as well as several people in civilian clothes, among whom were Gusak and Litvinenko, burst into the apartment, and immediately began asking his mother and Kharchenko about the whereabouts of Malyuga Oleg. At the same time, Gusak entered the living room and invited him to go to his room, citing the need to talk with his mother, and Kharchenko was in the kitchen at that time. Along with this, Dmitry Polishchuk stated that during the entire time strangers were in their apartment, he was in his room; he did not see the latter’s movements around the apartment or their inspection of personal belongings or the contents of furnishings.

In addition, witness Polishchuk testified in court that after the EVENT he heard Kharchenko complaining to his mother about pain in the chest, however, he did not see any blows being struck by Kharchenko on the night of December 23-24, 1997, and he did not see the names of Gusak and Litvinenko found out when he accidentally saw them on a television program at the end of 1998.

Witnesses Golombosh, Malyuga L.V., and Tarasova, whose testimony was referred to in the indictment in the case as evidence confirming the guilt of the defendants in the crime, were not eyewitnesses to the events that took place in the Polishchuk apartment on December 23, 1997, and therefore During the preliminary investigation and at the court hearing, the line testified about the circumstances of the incident, according to the victims.

In particular, witness Malyuga L.V. - wife of the convicted Malyuga O.V. - testified in court that at about 2 o’clock on December 24, 1997, her friend Polishchuk, who was in an extremely agitated state, called her on the phone and told her how a few hours ago armed people burst into her apartment and searched the apartment to find weapons and drugs , demanded from her and Kharchenko information about the whereabouts of her, Malyuga, husband. In addition, Polishchuk told her that out of fear, her son Dmitry ran out onto the balcony, and she herself, being in one of the rooms of the apartment, heard Kharchenko being beaten in the kitchen.

Witness Golombosh, having been interrogated during the preliminary investigation in the case only once - on April 8, 1999 - testified that on December 26, 1997, he, having returned to Moscow after vacation, learned from his wife Malyuga about the attack on Polishchuk’s apartment, after which Polishchuk herself told him about how on December 23, 1997, armed people burst into her apartment, searched the apartment and beat her roommate Kharchenko, demanding information about the whereabouts of Malyuga Oleg.

At the same time, as can be seen from the protocol of the mentioned interrogation, Golombosh did not testify about any details of the attack; questions about his awareness of the circumstances of the incident known to him from the words of Polishchuk or Kharchenko were not clarified by the named witness.

At the same time, Golombosh, interrogated during the judicial investigation, testified in court that he was and is on friendly terms with the Polishchuk and Malyugi families, and therefore on December 26, 1997, he learned from Polishchuk and Kharchenko about the details of the events in their apartment on the night of 23 to December 24, 1997. At the same time, Golombosh told the court that Kharchenko and Polishchuk told him how, at about 23-24 hours on December 23, 1997, armed people in camouflage uniforms and civilian clothes burst into their apartment, trying to first break down the door, without the consent of Polishchuk and Kharchenko, in total about 8 people, after which, without presenting documents, they began to demand that Kharchenko and Polishchuk testify against Malyuga, put a machine gun to Kharchenko’s head, threatened, if their demand was not met, to take Kharchenko into the forest and leave him there, and Polishchuk’s son Dmitry, frightened by this, ran out onto the balcony and wanted to jump down out of fear. At the same time, several of the people who arrived at the apartment went to their rooms and began to look for something, and at that time Kharchenko was beaten in the kitchen. Kharchenko told him, Golombos, that two people beat him, and one of them, “armed with a machine gun, kicked Kharchenko, and the second helped him.” In addition, Polishchuk and Kharchenko told him, Golombos, that one of the people who broke into the apartment stole $1,000 from them.

Malyuga Lyudmila, as Golombosh testified, told him that at about 2 o'clock on December 24, 1997, Polishchuk, who was in an extremely agitated state, called her at home and reported an attack on her apartment, during which armed people were seeking information about the whereabouts of her husband Oleg .

Along with this, Golombosh stated that he, his wife, Malyuga’s wife Lyudmila and their mutual friend, doctor Morunov, strongly advised Kharchenko and Polishchuk to file a statement about the incident with the police, which the latter did on December 26, 1997.

Witness Tarasova testified in court that at about 8 pm on one day in the second half of December 1997, her friend Polishchuk called her home on the phone, reporting an attack on her apartment, during which “people working in the authorities broke into the apartment and demanded a large sum of money,” after which her partner Kharchenko was detained at the Sviblovo police station and wanted to be interrogated.

In response to Polishchuk’s request to help her with advice, she, Tarasova, gave her the phone numbers of several of her familiar lawyers, suggesting that she contact them to provide Kharchenko with legal assistance.

Questioned at the court hearing at the request of the victim Polishchuk, witness Kalinkin, the general director of SK Kometa CJSC, which was attacked on December 16, 1997, testified that on the night of December 23-24, 1997, an employee called his home on the phone his company Kharchenko, who informed him about an attack on the apartment of his cohabitant Polishchuk, during which armed people who burst in beat him, hitting him in the chest with a machine gun, searched the apartment, interrogated him for two hours, threatening to take him to the forest and leave him there in in the event that he does not give the testimony they need about the Moscow riot police officer Malyuga.

Despite the inconsistency and contradictory evidence of the victims about the circumstances of the incident, as well as the presence of significant, in the opinion of the court, contradictions in the testimony of those witnesses who knew about this only from the words of the victims themselves, only the testimony of Gusak and Litvinenko by the preliminary investigation authorities were regarded as contradictory and conditioned by their intention to avoid criminal liability.

At the same time, during the preliminary and judicial investigation, both Gusak and Litvinenko consistently denied the fact of committing the acts accused of them, and their testimony did not contradict the testimony about the circumstances of the incident given by witnesses Ponkin, Svyatoshnyuk, Manilov, Chervyakov, Shebalin, Latyshonok, Shevchuk and Shiferman .

Thus, defendant Gusak, during the preliminary and judicial investigation, testified that in December 1997, employees of the department he headed were actively working to implement incoming information, which gave reason to believe that employees of the internal affairs bodies of the city of Moscow, including departments, were involved in the commission of a number of serious crimes Moscow OMON and RUOP. At the same time, he, Gusak, received operational information about a robbery attack on the office of SK Kometa CJSC committed in mid-December 1997, involving extortion of large sums of money, kidnapping of people and causing them bodily harm, about the possible involvement of a riot police officer in the commission of this crime named “Oleg”, as well as the presence in apartment 77 of building 55 on Mitinskaya Street in Moscow of citizens aware of the identity and whereabouts of “Oleg”, himself suspected of committing a crime or a person who is an employee of the mentioned company, but involved in the attack on her office.

Since every event carried out by the employees of the department, including those related to the identification of persons involved in committing crimes, required the involvement of police officers, he, Gusak, turned to the employees of the operational search department of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate with a request for assistance in the planned actions , after which on the evening of December 23, 1997, in official vehicles, employees of the department he headed and several employees of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate went to the Mitino microdistrict. Along the way, taking into account the established practice of interaction with law enforcement agencies, the duty officer of the local police department was notified about the upcoming visit to the mentioned house on Mitinskaya Street, who was presented with the relevant identification documents of the department employees. Upon arrival at about 7 p.m. on December 23, 1997, at the said house, as testified by Husak. Some of the employees, on his instructions, remained at the house, and some, including himself, took the elevator to the desired apartment and rang the bell of the door separating the elevator hall and the entrance doors of the apartments located on the floor of the building.. At the same time, she left her apartment and approached to the door of a previously unknown citizen Polishchuk, he, Gusak, announced his affiliation with the police, but she did not open the door, saying that she needed to call the local police department by phone to confirm the validity of the arrival of police officers to her. Since Polishchuk did not appear for a long time, one of the police officers who arrived with him rang the bell of a neighboring apartment, from which a woman came out and immediately opened the door of the elevator hall. After this, Polishchuk herself opened the door of her apartment, he and the officers who arrived with him, without any objections from Polishchuk, entered the apartment, reintroducing themselves as police officers. Moreover, he, Gusak, showed Polishchuk his ID as a MUR employee, and then invited Kharchenko, who was in the apartment, to go with them to the police station to give an explanation about the robbery attack on SK Kometa. Due to the fact that the man who was in the apartment, i.e. Kharchenko turned out to be not the wanted “Oleg”, and Kharchenko and Polishchuk immediately agreed to tell everything they knew about their friend OMON officer Malyuga Oleg, he, Gusak, at the request of Polishchuk and Kharchenko themselves, decided to take away their explanations not in the department police, but directly in the apartment, which was done. Having stayed in Polishchuk’s apartment for no more than 1 hour, he himself and the EMPLOYEES who arrived with him left the apartment, having previously addressed Kharchenko and Polishchuk with a request not to inform anyone about their visit, since this could negatively affect further work to expose and detain persons involved in the crime crime.

Along with this, Husak stated that neither he himself nor the employees of the department he headed who arrived with him, incl. and Litvinenko, nor the employees of the Oro GUVD of the city of Moscow did not try to knock down the doors of the elevator hall and Polishchuk’s apartment, did not strike them, Polishchuk entered the apartment with her consent, while in the apartment they treated its residents correctly, there was no violence against Kharchenko were used, there was no inspection or search of personal belongings, premises and furniture of the apartment, no obscene language was used towards those present, etc. Moreover, they did not confiscate any property of the residents from the apartment, incl. and money in foreign currency.

In addition, Gusak explained that when turning to the leadership of the Moscow Municipal Department of Internal Affairs with a request to allocate employees for their participation in a trip to Mitino to check operational information, he did not express a proposal to equip them with camouflage uniforms, automatic weapons or other special equipment, and some of the mentioned The employees were dressed and armed in this way only in connection with a planned long-term large-scale operation in the city at that time aimed at suppressing crimes and detaining those responsible for their commission.

The defendant Litvinenko, during the preliminary investigation and at the trial, consistently denied his guilt in committing any unlawful actions in the Polishchuk apartment, showed the court that at the end of the working day on December 23, 1997, he, on the instructions of his immediate superior Gusak, together with other employees 7 URPO department of the FSB of the Russian Federation and employees of the Oro of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate went to the Mitino microdistrict, where, according to Gusak, in one of the apartments of the residential building there could be persons involved in the commission of a serious crime or having information about them. At the same time, as Litvinenko explained, there are no specific tasks and goals regarding the nature of the proposed actions, incl. about the possibility of conducting a search in the mentioned apartment, obtaining any specific information from the persons living there, the possible (if necessary) use of weapons, etc.. Gusak did not raise this question either with him or with other subordinates.

Along with this, Litvinenko explained that he himself and other specified officers of the FSB of the Russian Federation and the Moscow Police Department of the Moscow City Police Department entered Polishchuk’s apartment with her consent, they did not try to knock down the doors of the elevator hall and the apartment, they did not hit the doors, he himself was with Kharchenko and Polishchuk did not select explanations, did not use violence against Kharchenko and did not see other employees beating him, searching or searching personal belongings of persons. living in the apartment, did not produce the personal property of these persons, incl. and money in foreign currency, did not seize or steal.

In addition, Litvinenko testified that only as a result of the information received on December 23, 19997 from Kharchenko and Polishchuk, he, together with employees of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate, established the identity of riot police officer Malyuga, who, according to operational information, could have been involved in the attack on SK Kometa "What is he talking about, Litvinenko. On December 26, 1997, he reported to the head of the Sviblovo Department of Internal Affairs, "after the initiation of a criminal case on the fact of the MENTIONED attack, he, Litvinenko, by a resolution of the Deputy Ostankino Interdistrict Prosecutor of the City of Moscow, was included in the investigative and operational group in this case, in connection with which he took part in preparing the detention of Malyuga, who was subsequently found guilty by the court of a number of serious crimes committed by him during the attack on SK Kometa, and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment.

As for the motives for the testimony of the victims Polishchuk and Kharchenko about his, Litvinenko’s, involvement in the commission of the actions described in the indictment, the defendant stated that Polishchuk herself. in his opinion, she had grounds for slandering him, since she was on friendly terms with the Malyugi family, just like the witness Golombosh interrogated in the case. In particular, Litvinenko explained that on the evening of December 26, 1997, in the premises of the Sviblovo police station, where victims, witnesses and suspects in the criminal case of an attack on SK Kometa were being interrogated, Polishchuk, who was also there, in the presence of his colleague Ponkin, expressed he, Litvinenko, addressed a threat to bring him to criminal liability on the basis of her statement about the theft of money from her on December 23, 1997 in the event that Malyuga is sentenced to imprisonment.

Litvinenko's testimony regarding his submission of the aforementioned report and his inclusion in the operational investigative group in the case of the attack on SK Kometa is confirmed by copies of the relevant documents examined at the court hearing.

Witness Ponkin testified at the court hearing that at the end of the working day on December 23, 1997, i.e. at 7 p.m., he, Gusak, Litvinenko and a number of employees of the department in which he served, together with employees of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate, actually went to the Mitino microdistrict to check operational information about the crime committed. At the same time, as Ponkin explained, he and the mentioned employees who arrived there entered Polishchuk’s apartment with Polishchuk’s permission, no blows were struck on the doors of the apartment and the elevator hall, explanations from Kharchenko and Polishchuk were taken directly from Polishchuk’s apartment only at their request, since initially Kharchenko was asked to go to the police station to give an explanation. Explanation, as Ponknn explained, Kharchenko actually wrote in the kitchen of the apartment in his presence, but neither Litvinenko nor any of the other FSB of the Russian Federation and ORO officers who arrived at Polishchuk’s apartment beat him, and no search or examination of Kharchenko’s and Polishchuk’s belongings was carried out in the apartment , no one used weapons against the residents of the apartment and made no threats to use them, as well as other threats against Kharchenko or Polishchuk.

Along with this, Ponkin explained that on the evening of December 26, 1997, in the premises of the Sviblovo police department, he heard Polishchuk actually threatening Litvinenko with bringing him to criminal responsibility for allegedly stealing $1,000 from her if Malyuga was convicted

Witnesses Svyatoshnyuk and Manilov - employees of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate - testified in court that at 19:00 on December 23, 1997, they, together with Gusak, Litvinenko and others, with employees of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation, went to the Mitino microdistrict to check the available operational information about the possible location at the address available to FSB officers of persons involved in the commission of a crime or who had any information about it. At the same time, as Svyatoshnyuk and Manilov explained, they themselves and the arriving FSB officers entered Polishchuk’s apartment with Polishchuk’s permission; none of them struck the doors of the apartment or the elevator hall. Immediately upon arrival at the apartment, Gusak showed Polishchuk his official identification, introducing himself as an employee of the CRIMINAL Investigation Department, and Kharchenko, who was in the apartment, offered to go to the police station to give an explanation, however, at the request of POLISCHUK and Kharchenko, Gusak decided to take away the explanation from them directly in the apartment, which Kharchenko then wrote in the kitchen. However, neither Litvinenko nor any of the other FSB officers of the Russian Federation and ORO Kharchenko who arrived at Polishchuk’s apartment beat up Kharchenko and Polishchuk’s belongings in the apartment, they did not use weapons against the residents of the apartment and did not express threats to use them, and as well as other threats against Kharchenko or Polishchuk.

Along with this, Svyatoshnyuk and M. Shilov explained that they themselves and other ORO officers did not enter the kitchen of the apartment where Kharchenko was with one of the FSB officers at all, remaining in the apartment corridor and the elevator hall, and in the apartment itself they and FSB officers stayed for no more than 40 MINUTES, after which they all left FROM THERE together, and already at 22:00 of the same DAY they, in the same composition, took part in the detention of a criminal on the territory of another administrative district of the city of Moscow.

In addition, as Svyatoshnyuk and Manilov showed, the employees of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate, with the exception of Svyatoshnyuk, were indeed dressed in camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns, and on the uniforms of each of them there were distinctive signs of the established pattern: on the front of the jackets there were chevrons with the inscription " Police", a similar inscription in large letters on the back of the jackets, side chevrons on the sleeves of the jackets with the inscription "Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia". At the same time, Svyatoshnyuk and Manilov testified that immediately before leaving with employees of the FSB of the Russian Federation to the Mitino microdistrict, employees of the Oro of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow were not equipped specifically for this with uniforms, automatic weapons and other special equipment, since, as a rule, they had previously traveled to conduct similar events in civilian clothes. As for the presence of such uniforms and weapons on the evening of December 23, 1997, then, as witnesses explained, this was only due to the participation in December 1997 of all employees of the operational search department in the city-wide planned operation "Whirlwind", in connection with with which the mentioned employees were similarly equipped and armed almost every day.

From the testimony of witness Chervyakov, read out at the court hearing, given by him during the preliminary investigation in the case, it is clear that at the end of December 1997, he, Svyatoshnyuk, Manilov and several other employees of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate actually, at the request of Gusak, went to the Mitino microdistrict to providing assistance to employees of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation in checking operational information. At the same time, as can be seen from the protocol of the mentioned interrogation, Chervyakov testified that neither he nor the other persons who arrived there took illegal actions when entering Polishchuk’s apartment, did not carry out a search or search in the apartment, did not commit violence against the residents of the apartment, and, therefore, no more weapons were used.

Witnesses Shebalin, Latyshonok and Bavdey - former employees of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation - testified that at 19:00 on December 23, 1997, they, together with Gusak, Litvinenko and several employees of the operational search department of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate, went to the Mitino microdistrict to check the operational information that Gusak had on the serious crime committed, and along the way they stopped at the Mitino police station, where Gusak and Bavdey informed the duty officer about their upcoming visit to the house on Mitinskaya Street. At the same time, these witnesses explained that they themselves did not enter the apartment of the house on Mitinskaya Street, since, on Gusak’s instructions, they remained at the entrance, arrived at the house no later than 19:30, and left there together with the employees of the Oro of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate after 30 - 40 minutes.

Witness Shiferman, a neighbor of Polishchuk, explained to the court that at about 7 p.m. on December 23, 1997, the doorbell of her apartment rang several times, after which she went to the door leading to the elevator hall, where she saw several people who introduced themselves as police officers and asked her to open the door , which she did. After this, the arrivals asked her for permission to go to Polishchuk’s apartment, and for her to return to her apartment.

Along with this, Shiferman stated that before she, at the request of the police officers, opened the door of the elevator hall, one of the latter actually “shaked the door”, but did not inflict any blows on the door, and the door itself was not damaged from this. Moreover, as Shiferman explained, the arrivals addressed her very politely, and after she left for her apartment, she did not hear any noise, including knocks on the door of Polishchuk’s apartment. 30-40 minutes later, when she, Shiferman, left her apartment, the door to Polishchuk’s apartment was closed, no sounds were coming from there, there was no one near Polishuk’s apartment or in the elevator hall.

Shiferman gave similar testimony, as can be seen from the witness interrogation protocol, during the preliminary investigation in the case.

An analysis of the content of the testimonies of the victims and the mentioned witnesses, given by them during the preliminary and judicial investigation, indicates that these testimonies in terms of describing the time of arrival of employees of the FSB of the Russian Federation and the ORO of the City Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow to the Polishchuk apartment, the time of their stay in the apartment, as well as actions of the mentioned persons immediately before their entry into the apartment and in the apartment itself are contradictory to each other.

At the same time, the preliminary investigation authorities, concluding and proving the guilt of Gusak and Litvinenko in committing the acts incriminated by them, not only did not evaluate these contradictory testimonies, but also assessed the testimonies of witnesses Ponkin, Svyatosnyuk, Manilov, Chervyakov, Shebalin, Latyshonok and Shiferman, as confirming the circumstances of the incident described in the indictment in the case.

Taking into account the above, the military court comes to the conclusion that it is impossible, on the basis of the evidence collected in the case and examined at the court hearing, to draw an indisputable conclusion about the underlying circumstances of the events that took place in the Polishchuk apartment on December 23, 1997, which is fundamental for the correct resolution of the issue of validity charges brought against Gusak and Litvinenko.

At the same time, the military court believes that neither the testimony of the victims nor the testimony of the witnesses interrogated in the case, taking into account their inconsistency with each other, can be confirmed or refuted by other evidence in the case.

In particular, as can be seen from the forensic expert’s report, Kharchenko had bruises on the left front surface of his chest and an abrasion on his left elbow joint. These bodily injuries, according to the expert's conclusions, could have occurred on the night of December 23-24, 1997 from the impact of blunt hard objects, and relate to injuries that did not cause harm to health, since they did not entail a short-term health disorder for the victim.

The mentioned expert study, as can be seen from the conclusion, was carried out on the basis of an examination by the expert not of the victim Kharchenko himself, but of his outpatient card, presented by the trauma center of clinic No. 79 in Moscow, according to which on the anterior surface of Kharchenko’s chest at 21:50 on December 26, 1997 years, i.e. when he went to the specified medical institution, purple bruises were discovered.

When assessing the conclusion of a forensic expert, the military court takes into account that, in accordance with the current criminal procedural legislation, the expert’s conclusion does not have any advantages over other evidence in the case, is subject to mandatory assessment and can be used as the basis for a court decision only if it is consistent other evidence. At the same time. other evidence in the case, relating not only to the presence, but also to the circumstances of infliction of the mentioned bodily injuries to Kharchenko, is contradictory.

The inspection of her apartment, carried out on May 18, 1999 with the participation of the victim Polishchuk, as a scene of an incident, the protocol of which is referred to as evidence in the case in the indictment, does not contain data confirming the statements of Kharchenko, V. I. Polishchuk, and Dmitry Polishchuk about damage to the door elevator hall and the door of the Polishchuk apartment.

As for the references in the indictment in the case, as evidence of the validity of the charges brought against Gusak and Litvinenko, to the testimony of witnesses Kamyshnikov, Shcheglov, Khalinen, Kaznin, Busygin, Volobuev, Sidorov, the convicted Malyugi, a certificate from the Moscow Hydrometeorological Center about weather conditions on the night of December 24 1997, a resolution to initiate a criminal case against Malyuga and Khudoley, materials from the Internal Security Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation and materials from the internal investigation, photocopies of statements from Polishchuk and Kharchenko dated December 23, 1997, then, in the opinion of the court, contained in the interrogation reports of these witnesses and in the mentioned documents the information does not contain any information that allows one to draw a correct conclusion about the circumstances of the incident.

In addition, according to the indictment in the case, while qualifying what the defendants did as an abuse of power, the preliminary investigation authorities charged Husak with the fact that he “entered Polishchuk’s apartment using violence and threats of violence, as well as weapons,” and also in “illegal receipt from Polishchuk and Kharchenko of information of interest to him using violent actions and threats of their use.” Along with this, Gusak and Litvinenko were charged with conducting an illegal search in Polishchuk’s apartment.

At the same time, as was indisputably established in court, the victims Polishchuk and Kharchenko, in their statements to law enforcement agencies about the attack on Polishchuk’s apartment on December 23, 1997, during interrogations at the preliminary investigation and at the court hearing, did not state that Gusak or those who arrived with According to him, on December 23, 1997, when entering their apartment, they used weapons, violence or threats of violence against any of its residents, that Husak himself used violence against Polishchuk or Kharchenko when taking explanations from them, as well as that directly Gusak or Litvinenko, while in the apartment, carried out a search or examination of their personal belongings and property, and this circumstance was not indicated by any of the witnesses interrogated in the case. At the same time, as can be seen from the corresponding resolution of the investigator of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office dated May 31, 1999, other persons who arrived at Polishchuk's apartment along with Gusak and Litvinenko, the criminal case against whom in this regard was terminated due to lack of action in their actions, did not carry out these actions. corpus delicti.

In addition, by the above-mentioned resolution of the investigator, due to the lack of corpus delicti, the criminal case regarding the theft of 1000 US dollars from Polishchuk and Kharchenko was discontinued not only in relation to Litvinenko, Ponkin, Chervyakov, Svyatoshnyuk, Manilov and 2-3 unidentified employees of the Moscow Municipal Department of Internal Affairs, but and in relation to Gusak, however, despite this, he was charged with the fact that “as a result of his illegal search in the apartment, citizens Polishchuk and Kharchenko were caused material damage in the amount of 1,000 US dollars (equivalent to 5,947,000 non-denominated rubles at the exchange rate Central Bank of the Russian Federation). At the same time, a description of the method and circumstances of Gusak causing such damage, as well as references to evidence of its infliction, are missing in the indictment.

Along with this, as can be seen from the indictment in the case, the preliminary investigation authorities concluded that Gusak “on December 23, 1997 decided to enter the apartment of citizen Polishchuk and conduct a search there...”, for which purpose “with the aim of unhindered entry into the apartment and psychological impact on citizens, in order to obtain from them the information he was interested in, he illegally attracted five employees of the operational search department of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate to this event, armed with machine guns, equipped with bulletproof vests and helmets, giving them knowingly false information about the presence of armed criminals at the specified address." .

At the same time, during the preliminary and judicial investigation, the indicated conclusion about the purpose of a group of employees of the FSB of the Russian Federation and the Moscow Department of Internal Affairs to go to the apartment of the victim Polishchuk, about the purpose of Gusak’s involvement of employees of the operational investigative department for this purpose, was not confirmed. At the same time, the court takes into account that during the preliminary and judicial investigation, Husak’s testimony was not refuted in any way that the purpose of going to the address known to him was the need to check operational information about the possible presence there of persons who have information about the circumstances of a serious crime committed, and to attract participation in this departure of employees subordinate to him and employees of the Oro GUVD of the city of Moscow was due to information he received from the same source about the possible presence at the mentioned address of a person directly involved in the attack on JSC SK Kometa, who could be armed. As for Gusak’s powers to involve employees of the Moscow Central Internal Affairs Directorate in events carried out by FSB officers, as well as the grounds for such actions by the defendant, the case materials do not contain any documents regulating the rights and obligations of officials of the FSB of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation when planning and producing joint events. At the same time, witnesses Svyatoshnyuk and Manilov testified in court that until December 1997, they themselves and their colleagues repeatedly together with officers of the FSB of the Russian Federation, incl. and the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation, in carrying out activities to solve crimes, detain persons suspected of committing various crimes, seize weapons, narcotic substances, etc.

Moreover, the aforementioned conclusions of the preliminary investigation bodies do not correspond to the fact that, as was indisputably established at the court hearing, taking into account the information received from Kharchenko and Polishchuk, riot police officer O. V. Malyuga was detained as a suspect in committing a crime, and then According to the verdict of the Ostankino Intermunicipal Court of the North-East Administrative District of Moscow dated March 4, 1999, which entered into legal force, he was found guilty of committing a number of serious crimes during the attack on the office of SK Kometa CJSC and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 9 years.

Assessing the testimony at the court hearing of witness Kamyshnikov, who stated that operational work to identify persons suspected of committing robberies, kidnappings, causing bodily harm to them and extorting large sums of money was not within the competence of the FSB of the Russian Federation, the military court takes into account that Kamyshnikov himself confirmed to the COURT the fact that as of December 1997, Gusak, as the head of the 7th department of the URPO FSB of the Russian Federation, and his subordinates did not have job descriptions defining the range of their official duties and powers. Along with this, the court takes into account that, according to Kamyshnikov’s testimony in court, the decision to take explanations from citizens about the circumstances of the crimes committed was within the competence of Gusak, as the head of the department, and did not require additional approval from higher command.

As for the instructions in the indictment in the case of Gusak and Litvinenko’s concealment from law enforcement agencies of the fact of their entry into the home and the unauthorized search carried out in Polishchuk’s apartment, then. in the opinion of the court, these circumstances were subject to the necessary assessment when qualifying the actions of the defendants only if there was indisputable proof that they committed the mentioned illegal actions. At the same time, the court takes into account the fact that Kamyshnikov, as the deputy head of the FSB of the Russian Federation, as he himself testified in court, was aware of the participation of Gusak himself and a number of employees subordinate to him in the work on the criminal case regarding the attack on the JSC "SK Kometa", however, until law enforcement agencies identified Gusak, Litvinenko and others as having been in Polishchuk's apartment on December 23, 1997. and the defendants were charged in the spring of 1999, an official investigation into the circumstances of their work in this case was not carried out by competent officials, disciplinary liability for actions related to the implementation of measures in cases not within the competence of the FSB of the Russian Federation, as well as for “concealing “Neither Gusak nor Litvinenko were involved from law enforcement agencies regarding the nature and essence of these events.

Taking into account the above, and taking into account the fact that the above evidence, on which the preliminary investigation authorities based the charge brought against Gusak and Litvinenko, are, in the opinion of the court, questionable due to their contradiction to each other, and the possibilities of obtaining reliable evidence have been exhausted, the military court comes to the conclusion that the guilt of the DEFENDANTS Husak has not been proven in committing a crime under Art. 286, part 3, paragraphs “a”, “b” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and Litvinenko - in committing a crime under Art. 286, part 3, paragraph "a" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Having discussed the grounds for civil claims brought by the victims Polishchuk and Kharchenko against the defendants, the military court believes that their claims cannot be satisfied, since Gusak and Litvinenko are guilty of committing the illegal actions accused of them, as well as of causing damage to the victims as a result of these actions, in the judicial not proven at the meeting.

Based on the above, guided by Articles 300-303, 309, 310, 316, 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, the military court sentenced:

Gusak Alexander Ivanovich on charges brought against him of committing a crime under Art. 286, part 3, paragraph "a", "b" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and Litvinenko Alexandra Valterovich on the charge brought against him of committing a crime under Article 286, part 3, paragraph "a" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, was acquitted for lack of evidence their participation in the commission of a crime.

Preventive measure for A.I. Gusak - a written undertaking not to leave the place, and Litvinenko A.V. - detention - cancel.

Litvinenko A.V. be released from custody immediately in the courtroom.

In accordance with Art. 310 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR Polishchuk V.I. and Kharchenko V.V. in satisfaction of their claims against A.I. Gusak. and Litvinenko A.V. civil claims:

Polishchuk - for the recovery in her favor, jointly and severally from Gusak and Litvinenko, of 1,000 US dollars in ruble equivalent to compensate for the material damage caused to her, and 50,000 rubles to compensate for the moral damage caused to her;

Kharchenko - about the recovery of 50,000 rubles in his favor, jointly with Gusak and Litvinenko, in compensation for moral damage caused to him, to refuse.

The verdict can be appealed and protested in cassation to the Moscow District Military Court through the Moscow Garrison Military Court within seven days from the moment of its proclamation.
Authentic with proper signatures true

The presiding judge of the Moscow Garrison Military Court, Lieutenant Colonel of Justice
E. Kravchenko

To the director
Federal Security Service
Russian Federation
Mr. Putin V.V.

Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich!

In mid-February 1995, officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation arrived at the Reception House of LogoVAZ JSC at the address: Moscow, Novokuznetskaya Street, building 40 in a beige VAZ-2109 car with state number 03-70 MMH, who took part in solving the assassination attempt. me, which happened in June 1994: Deputy Head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the 6th District Department of Internal Affairs of Moscow, Police Major Kozhanov Sergei Lvovich (work phone: 233-54-72), employee of the 6th District Department of Internal Affairs Nikolay Konyaev (work phone: 233 -26-92) and the head of the 4th department of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate, police captain Igor Viktorovich Zinoviev (work phone: 200-66-24), who brought with them a member of an organized criminal group in the city of Omsk, previously convicted of murder Plekhanov Nikolai Alexandrovich, corner nickname "Cat". During a personal meeting Kozhanov S.L. told me that Plekhanov N.A. is one of the organizers and perpetrators of the assassination attempt on me, committed on June 7, 1994 by exploding a car in front of the Reception House of LogoVAZ JSC. Kozhanov S.L. He also told me that Plekhanov knew the customers and the motives for this crime, after which he recommended that I talk with Plekhanov and accept his conditions (Plekhanov asked for 500 thousand US dollars for the information). Besides. Kozhanov explained that it would be almost impossible to solve this crime, because cool "mafia", everything was bought, he is not allowed to work, is removed from the investigation of this case and that the head of the Moscow police, Lieutenant General Pankratov, was bought by the financial group "Most" and the fact that he managed to find Plekhanov and bring him to me - this is success at work. After that, Kozhanov introduced me to Plekhanov, who said that the assassination attempt on me was ordered by Alexander Grigorievich Ziberev (deputy director of AvtoVAZ Kadannikov). The main organizer was the criminal authority Kozubenko (nickname “Kozuben”), a close connection with thief in law V. Ivankov (nickname “Yaponchik”). The motive for the assassination attempt is the competition that I allegedly created in the automobile market. Plekhanov also indicated that another attempt on me or someone from my close circle is currently being prepared and has already been paid for, the motive of which is either the auto business or my work on television. Plekhanov also said that he took part in a meeting of “thieves”, where the issue of dividing the auto business and television was decided. As proof of this, Plekhanov offered me to buy from him for 500 thousand US dollars tapes with recordings of conversations between Ziberev and Kozubenko, where they talk about the above-mentioned crime. Moreover, 250 thousand US dollars are needed as a deposit, and 250 thousand US dollars - after providing the cassettes. Plekhanov explained that Kozubenko has enormous connections in the city of Omsk, and is closely acquainted with Nosovets and his wife (director of local television). Kozubenko has been working with Ziberev since the early 80s, when they worked together on car thefts in Tolyatti (Plekhanov was in prison for the murder of one of his accomplices). On February 28, 1995, I gave Plekhanov and Kozhany 100 thousand US dollars.

Based on these facts, I wrote a statement about the illegal actions of police officers in the FSB of Russia. The statement was accepted by investigator V. Pavlenok, to whom I also handed over video and audio recordings of the moment of transferring money to the above-listed police officers and negotiations with them for inclusion in the materials. To date, I have not received a response to my application and I do not know the decision that was made on it in accordance with Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia. At the same time, as I know, part of the bills that I handed over to the police under the above circumstances were found during searches in the apartments of S. Kozhanov, N. Konyaev and N. Plekhanov. Despite this, the listed police officers continued his service in the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs in senior positions, and Kozhanov received the rank of lieutenant colonel.

The money fraudulently received from me by the police and Plekhanov has not been returned to me to date. The tapes they promised with recordings of conversations of those who ordered the attempt on my life were not presented.

On March 1, 1995, the murder of ORT director V. Listyev was committed. As far as I know, two hours after the incident, the headquarters for solving the crime received a fax, from which it followed that I was considered the main suspect.

On March 3, 1995, the head of the 6th department of the RUOP of the city of Moscow, Valery Valentinovich Kazakov (work phone: 237-03-14), arrived at the Reception House of LogoVAZ JSC, accompanied by machine gunners and a group of NTV television crews to conduct a search and bring me to interrogation with the investigator in the Listyev murder case.

One of the investigators said that “We will put Berezovsky in jail anyway” when his “Kremlin roof” comes off. At the same time, I would like to note that they tried to take me for interrogation to the 6th District Department of Internal Affairs of Moscow, one of the leaders of which was S.L. Kozhanov. Suspecting a possible provocation in the actions of the employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and the fact that I had previously written a statement against them to the FSB of Russia, I turned to the officers of the FSB of Russia, who had previously participated in documenting the illegal activities of the mentioned police officers (Gusak, Litvinenko), with a request to protect me as an applicant. This is what they did with the sanction of management.

I also know that on the day of the attempt on my life, after the explosion, Ziberev held a meeting where he stated that I had allegedly been removed from business at LogoVAZ. One of the witnesses, a participant in the said meeting, was Gaft M.G., who tragically died in 1995.

Taking into account the above, as well as publications and statements in the media that employees of the FSB of Russia, who refused to carry out the illegal order of their leadership to physically eliminate me, previously protected me for money (which is slander), and the fact that some of them are currently dismissed from service, I ask for your instructions:

1. Give me an official response to my statement regarding the fraudulent receipt of 100 thousand US dollars from me by the above-mentioned police officers in February 1995.

2. Conduct an official investigation into the fact of slanderous statements against the Russian FSB officers who protected me as an applicant with the sanction of management in March 1995, in particular the statement that they were my bodyguards and received money from me for this.

Sincerely, Corresponding Member of the RAS Berezovsky B.A.
" " December 1998.