The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) states: “Justice in a criminal case in the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) is carried out only by the court. No one can be found guilty of committing a crime except by a court verdict.” What if the functions of the court are taken over by someone else at their discretion? A deputy, for example? Will the law protect those who have been punished by such pseudo-justice?

“In essence, we are giving the functions of the court into the hands of a certain structure,” a deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) is indignant Robert Kochiev, criticizing the law adopted by the president to tighten requirements for alcohol producers. By “certain structure,” deputy Kochiev, speaking on behalf of the Communist Party faction, means the Federal Service for Control of the Alcohol and Tobacco Markets. Apparently, some representatives of the legislative branch do not trust the executive authorities, whose officials Robert Kochiev accuses of taking “the industry captive.”

Moreover, immediately after the words about the inviolability of the judicial function, a lightning-fast transformation occurs and the deputy himself “puts on the mantle” and publicly accuses a number of people of committing serious crimes. Let’s figure out what exactly Kochiev is “blaming” and to whom.

“They came to the factories and said that either you give up the factory or we’ll revoke the license. And you won’t work. They received hundreds of millions of marks for these factories and did not pay taxes. If the tax on one stamp was 100 rubles, then they only paid for printing. They had about 100 such factories in Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism),” – says Kochiev from the rostrum of the State Duma. It is strange that the deputy does not specifically name a single captured production.

Kochiev names a number of officials (former and current) of Rosalkogoltabakcontrol, as well as a lawyer Arsena TsipinovA And Igor Shusharev. However, while conducting a journalistic investigation, we managed to contact Arsen Tsipinov and interview him in which he explains in detail that as an attorney he actually defended the interests of several businesses in the industry.

One hundred factories is a lot. Deputy Kochiev speaks rather chaotically. But as we understand, one hundred factories are victims of raider attacks.

Information assistance to victims of raider attacks is one of the areas of activity of our editorial office, but the editorial office has not received any requests on this matter from participants in the alcohol market. As part of a journalistic investigation, we contacted the heads of a number of alcohol factories. As it turned out, no one knows anything about the seizure of any enterprises in the alcohol industry.

“They revoke the license of whoever they want. Almost no market participant can obtain a license.”says Robert Kochiev.

As it turned out, all conscientious market participants work and produce products that we see on store shelves and, to be honest, buy. Despite the sanctions imposed, there is no shortage on the domestic market. If Robert Kochiev claims that no one can get a license, then whose products do we then see in stores? Where are these market participants who cannot obtain a license (apparently meeting all legal requirements) and who have suffered from raider takeovers? Why don’t they speak in the media, why aren’t these factories or their owners publicly named?

“Today this is a structure that steals billions.” “The structure started raiding distilleries, this is the robbery of the century,” the words of Robert Kochiev sound truly impressive. So that our readers do not get confused, we will explain as much as we can. The deputy refers to the “structure” as the Federal Service for Control of the Alcohol and Tobacco Markets, headed by Igor Aleshin, as well as a certain “empire” allegedly created by Tsipinov and Shusharev. It’s impossible to figure out exactly what “term” a deputy uses in this or that case without an expert linguist. What also casts doubt on the deputy’s words is that Shusharev and Tsipinov, whom Kochiev calls criminals, have never been convicted. The editors have at their disposal documentary evidence that Shusharev and Tsipinov have no criminal records. It also turned out that they also do not have any alcohol factories, which has been repeatedly confirmed by court decisions.

It is surprising that these facts were not revealed during the investigation conducted by the deputy. Kochiev calls this investigation “parliamentary,” but then corrects himself – “journalistic-parliamentary,” without specifying which publication’s journalists are participating in it.

For reference: the procedure for conducting a parliamentary investigation is regulated by a separate federal law. And it can be initiated by at least one fifth of the total number of deputies of the State Duma. According to the law, the subject of a parliamentary investigation cannot be to establish the guilt of specific individuals in committing a crime.

That’s why the deputy corrects himself – it’s a journalistic-parliamentary thing, but there’s no such concept in the law at all. In any case, according to Kochiev, there was some kind of investigation, which means that the deputy could not help but know that he was using false information in public speech.

It turns out that for some reason Robert Kochiev is repeating the path of the fugitive vodka king Pavel Smetana (who is wanted), who earlier in an interview with a foreign agent media had already tried to accuse the same persons of crimes committed by him. The editors followed the entire course of arbitration proceedings involving these persons. And here’s what we found out.

The Arbitration Court of the Samara Region terminated the proceedings on the application to hold Tsipinov and Shusharev to subsidiary liability for the obligations of Samara Plant Rodnik LLC. At the same time, the same definition recognized the existence of grounds for bringing Pavel Smetana to subsidiary liability.

The situation is similar in the bankruptcy case of Rakurs LLC. The creditor of Paritet Group LLC (the same founder and director is Pavel Smetana) filed a petition to bring Tsipinov and Shusharev to subsidiary liability. As the editors found out, the courts of three instances refused to satisfy these demands. It turned out that Smetana was simply trying to shift responsibility for the acts he had committed onto Tsipinov and Shusharev.

The most interesting thing is that the deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) Robert Kochiev and his sons Batraz and Rudolf are brought to subsidiary liability in the framework of the bankruptcy case of Rakurs.

By the way, for some reason there is not a word about this in Kochiev’s loud statements. Why doesn’t a State Duma deputy speak the truth from the rostrum? They say that the courts have proven that these persons are not involved in the Racurs plant, and they are trying to bring me and my family to justice. Why does a State Duma deputy spread information that is not true and calls on journalists to support it in the media? After all, unlike Deputy Kochiev, representatives of the journalistic community do not have immunity and they do not have the opportunity to publish knowingly false data with impunity.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Earlier, Pavel Smetana, in an interview with a foreign agent media, said the same thing that Kochiev is saying from the podium today, despite court decisions that have entered into legal force, which indicate the opposite. But why does a State Duma deputy use similar methods? After all, for an uninitiated person, his story seems like some kind of horror: high-ranking officials, together with some unknown people, have seized a hundred (!) factories and are stealing 30-50 billion a year, and everyone, except for Deputy Kochiev, is inactive. This is exactly what ordinary voters hear, believing that the state is unable to restore order in the alcohol market. Unfortunately, due to this kind of action, the opinion is formed in society that the law is not the same for everyone. But don’t the additional rights of a parliamentarian mean additional responsibilities? After all, if the law is not respected within the walls where it is created, then what can we say about the situation outside the State Duma? Today, the media and mass communications are practically the only sources of transmission of information from the authorities to the society and from the society to the authorities, and the stable situation in the country depends on how objective the information received in both directions is. The purpose of such information “stuffing” by foreign agents is clear. But why does a State Duma deputy use similar methods?

“ Russian society is interested in receiving information that corresponds to the high intellectual and cultural level of development of Russian citizens“, says the strategy for the development of the information society.

Surely every deputy has read it. The security of citizens, ensured including in the information space, is a national priority. This is why the law on fakes appeared, which is why the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) faction, among others, came up with the initiative to confiscate property for distributing fakes about the Russian army. And it is right. Today it is especially important to prevent the spread of false information that can sow panic in society. Statements of this kind create social tension and destabilize the work of a large industrial sector, which is unacceptable at a time when the country should unite and consolidate efforts.

The question of assessing the actions of a deputy is of an ethical nature. No, not criminal law, as for mere mortals. According to the law, if “a senator of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country), a deputy of the State Duma committed public insults, slander or other violations, liability for which is provided for by federal law, the initiation of a criminal case, the conduct of an inquiry, a preliminary investigation or the commencement of proceedings in a case of an administrative offense providing for administrative liability, imposed in court, is carried out only in the event of deprivation of immunity of a senator of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country), deputy of the State Duma.” Agree, when there is no responsibility, you can afford a little more. Deputy Kochiev calls on journalists to take an active part in the investigation, which is not entirely clear from a legal point of view. We have heard the call and in this regard we are sending a request to the Ethics Commission of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country). We also address the State Duma Committee on Security and Anti-Corruption with the question of what a “journalistic-parliamentary” investigation is, whether it is a personal initiative of the deputy or is supported by other parliamentarians, and whether there is any abuse of law in his actions to disseminate false information.