Lutset Boris Romanovich Biography

The decision of the Moscow City Court of September 26, Radin A., in accordance with Part, contains decisions on the extent of suppression against the convict, calculating the deadline for serving sentences, and material evidence. Having heard the report of the judge of the G. Turkina, being, in view of the position held, depending on him and realizing the possibility of influence on the size of annual bonus, with the conditions put forward by him agreed.

After that, in order to realize his criminal intent, using his official position and the authority granted to him to make proposals to the head of the structural unit on the promotion of employees of the structural unit, at the exact unidentified time, but no later than May 16, he prepared the form of evaluating individual working results for the year for the goals of the annual bonus of his deputy B, on the basis of which, in accordance with the order of the organization from continuing The execution of his criminal intent aimed at illegally receiving money for the performance of actions in the interests of the giver at the accurate unidentified time, being in the premises of a cafe located on the 2nd floor of an office building at the above address, he demanded from his subordinate to transfer to him by cash, the equivalent half of the annual premium paid to the work for the work for the work of the work year.

After that, realizing his criminal intent, aimed at illegally obtaining money, he informed C. that for performing actions in his interests and contributing to determining him a higher labor contribution set by the employee as a percentage of annual wages, he must transfer him a third of his annual premium after receiving it. C, being, in view of the position held, depending on it and fearing the creation of the latest difficulties in work, agreed with the conditions put forward by him.

After that, in order to realize his criminal intent, using his official position and the authority granted to make proposals to the head of the structural unit on the promotion of employees of the structural unit, at exactly the unidentified time, but no later than May 16, he prepared the form of evaluating individual working results for the year for the purpose of annual premiuming his deputy c, on the basis of which, in accordance with the order of the organization from then, continuing to act, continuing to act, continuing to act.

In pursuance of his criminal intent aimed at illegally receiving money for the performance of actions in the interests of the giver, on June 03 at the exact unidentified time, being in the room of the cafe located on the 2nd floor of the office building at the above address, he demanded that the subordinate cash be transferred to him by cash funds, equivalent to a third part of the annual premium paid to that annual premium based on the results of the work.

for a year. At the same time, in the course of the conversation, he, continuing his criminal actions and inclining the cash to him, assured the latter in the upcoming positive prospects for work and his intention to contribute to his professional successes and achievements in his position. According to the agreement reached, at about 08 hours 40 minutes on June 22, he met with Tsy, the crimes were committed under the circumstances of the court in the court verdict.

Lutset did not plead guilty. In the appeal, the lawyer Sorokin O. The sentenced punishment is excessively strict and imposed without taking into account and correctly studying the characteristics of the personality of Lutceta draws attention to the illegality of the refusal to satisfy the petitions fired by the party, including repeated to the demand for evidence, which could affect the consideration of the case on the merits, and also confirmed the innocence of the lousse, asks for the sentence of the court, reduce the punishment of imprisonment assigned to Lutzet and apply Art.

In an additional appeal, the lawyer Sorokin O. points out that for the entire period of preliminary and judicial investigation, evidence was not produced undeniably that Lutset acted from selfish motives, as well as not obtained information, that Lutzet acted for personal material enrichment. He believes that Lutzet had no intent to commit a commercial bribery, which, along with other data, indicates the absence of a crime in his actions.

Throughout the investigation and trial, Lutset indicated that he never demanded that money for contributing to the accrual of the prize following the results of the work for the year, the conversation was only about transferring part of the amount to charity, to which the latter agreed without any pressure. The case file does not have information that Lutset threatened Bobkov by the fact that otherwise, Bobkov could completely lose the bonus.Bobkov himself confirmed these circumstances, explaining that there was no complaints about Lutzet, no harm to him by the actions of Lucet was caused.

It draws attention to that the objective side of this composition is characterized by actions directly prohibited by law or contradicting it. There is no prohibition on the direction of the received funds for charity. At the same time, there is no evidence in the materials of the criminal case confirming the actual transfer of funds with bean luts. The entire accusation was built on the testimony of the only witness B.

indicates that, according to the episode with chi, besides Lutcet, there was no intent to make a commercial bribery, the wording of “tsus for work for work” should be excluded from the accusation, since Ts Lutzet did not give such promises, all the more he did not threaten him with any problems if the latter did not give him a part of the money from the received from the received from the received Prizes.

Pays attention to the presence of contradictions in the testimony of C, which should be interpreted by the court in favor of the defendant. He believes that the court was unreasonably critical of the conclusion of a specialist who studied the transcript of the conversation, which indicates that the court sided with the prosecution, not wanting to take into account the position of defense.

He believes that this wording is absurd, since at the hearing it was found that none of the questioned leaders of the company remembers the facts of non -payment of the bonus. From the testimonies of Lutceta it follows that he never demanded from the money to contribute to the accrual of the prize following the results of work for the year, the conversation was only about transferring part of the amount to charity, to which the latter agreed without any pressure to it.

There is no information in the case file that Lutset threatened the fact that otherwise, C could completely lose the bonus. At the same time, he received the money from Ts at the insistence of the latter, since he actively bowed him to receive money. He would transfer these money to the children's fund if the money were real, and not in the form of a “doll” or returned C. believes that in terms of the intention to use the money received from C to charity, the testimonies of the defendant Lutceta, which acted by analogy with Bobkov, and not the testimony of the witness of the CST, are more reliable.

The defense notes the fact of the preliminary investigation incomplete due to the lack of confrontation between Lutcet and C, despite the inconsistency of the testimony of C. At the same time, all the accusation of Lutceta on the episode of Ts is actually based on non -confirmed testimony of C, which confirmed that during each meeting with Lutceta, when discussing the transfer of money, it was about the loan agreement.

Indicates that it was C. who was against the loan agreement, as I initially wanted to provoke Lutceta to transfer funds without any confirmation. From the testimony of witnesses A and AS, who participated as witnesses, it follows that Lutset, when detained, explained that he received money from c debt, this circumstance is also confirmed by the transcript of the conversation in the car.

In such circumstances, in Lutcet’s actions there are no signs of a crime under Art. According to the author of the complaint, the analysis of the documents available in the case, the protocols of investigative actions, as well as the testimony in court suggests that all the agreements on the transfer of funds by B and C were voluntary. It indicates that the court was violated by the principle of adversariality of the parties and the rights of the protection to the presentation of evidence, which indicates a clear accusatory slope during the consideration of the criminal case.

During the trial, the security party filed 7 petitions, including repeated ones, about the demand for evidence that could affect the case on the merits, as well as the appointment of a phonoscopic examination, which would confirm the innocence of Lutset, however, the court refused to satisfy these applications, thereby the court actually deprived Lutset’s right to establish objective truth and the establishment of objective truth and the establishment of objective truth and all objective circumstances in the case.

It draws attention to the fact that all the documents available in the case, as well as the testimonies of witnesses, essentially contain only the positive characteristics of the Lucet. He believes that the punishment imposed by Lutzet is unfair and excessively harsh. The court unreasonably indicated the absence of the grounds for the application of Art.

Given the data on the personality of Lutceta, as well as that the crimes of which he is accused did not result in any consequences for society and the state, but only touched on the relationship of two persons, that Lutset did not pose a danger to society, the court did not need to send him to the colony to serve real imprisonment. The defense also does not agree with the size of the appointed fine, considers it excessively harsh and unfair.It indicates that even if Lutzet’s recognition was guilty of committing crimes incriminated to him, despite the defense of the defense of the defense, indicating the absence of a crime, the sentence must meet not only the requirements of justice and legality, but also be humane in relation to a person and his personality.

He asks the court verdict to change and reduce the punishment imprisoned by Latzet in the form of imprisonment, apply the provisions of Art. In addition to the previously submitted appeal and additional appeals, lawyer Sorokin O. In an appeal, lawyer Danilov I. In violation of the part of Lutceta, a young child, who is on maternity leave, and a sick father, he is the only breadwinner of his family.

He asks the court verdict to cancel and pronounce a new sentence. In an appeal, the convicted Lutzet expresses disagreement with the court sentence, considers it illegal, unreasonable and subject to cancellation, since the conclusions of the court set forth in the sentence do not correspond to the actual circumstances established in the court session. It draws attention to that the verdict is distorted, both the testimony of witnesses B and C, and his own, and part of his testimony is not reflected at all.

So, from the testimony of the witness B at the hearing it follows that there is no connection between the transfer of funds and the possibility of charging or not charging premiums. The witness in his testimony in court about any problems in the service, in case of no transfer of funds, did not talk. It indicates that the court did not give an appropriate assessment of the testimony of witnesses with, g, and, but only it is indicated that these witnesses gave him a positive characteristic.

The absence of a proper assessment of the testimony of witnesses, as well as the distortion of their testimony, entailed the issuance of an unjust decision. He believes that the court has significantly violated the requirements of criminal procedure legislation. Also, the court, in violation of the requirements of the law, did not take into account the conclusions of the specialist regarding the audio record, despite the fact that it is not challenged by anyone, is complete, professional and gives comprehensive answers to key questions related to the qualifications of the actions of the witness and the accused.

He believes that the court has incorrectly applied the criminal law. So, the verdict has not been established and there is no indication of who is harmful to these actions. At the same time, the court did not obtain evidence refuting his intention to transfer funds to charity. Indicates that during the court session the subjective side of the crime was not established, which excludes the presence of criminal liability.

The wording of the court "On the creation of CO in the future of favorable conditions for work" in itself cannot have relations with commercial bribery, and the promises of specific actions in the interests of C in court have not been established. It is noteworthy that in the presence of the mitigating and the absence of aggravating circumstances listed in the sentence, the imposition of punishment in the form of real imprisonment and the imposition of additional types of punishment is unfair and excessively harsh.

The conditional sentence of punishment would comply with the principles and rules for the sentence. He asks the court verdict to cancel and pronounce an acquittal. In an additional appeal, the convicted Lutzet expresses disagreement with the sentence of the court, considers it unlawful, unfounded, unfair and subject to cancellation, since the court’s findings set forth in the sentence do not correspond to the actual circumstances established at the hearing, the court committed significant violations of the criminal procedure legislation, the criminal law is incorrectly applied.

It is noteworthy that at the time of the act and sentenced the sentence, the disposition of Part. The sign of the objective side of the crime expressed in contributing to the indicated action of the bonus imputed by the court was introduced by the Federal Law N from indicates that the preliminary and judicial investigation was carried out formally, without establishing all the actual circumstances specified in Art.

It is noteworthy that he did not act in the interests of B and C, his interest was directly in improving the status and significance of tax policy management as part of the tax department. At the same time, due to his authority, he could not make decisions on the payment or non -payment of bonuses, depending on the behavior of the persons who transferred the money to him.

These circumstances are confirmed by the testimony of witnesses C and P and the case file. He believes that the court verdict was actually rewritten from the indictment, does not meet the requirements of criminal procedure legislation and principles enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and the punishment assigned is unfair due to its excessive severity, does not correspond to the purpose of the punishment established by Art.Given all the mitigating circumstances, data about his personality, the presence of a young child on dependent, relatives in need of his care, care and material support, including age and state of health, considers it possible to appoint him a punishment not related to imprisonment, which would comply with the law and the principle of justice and ensure the achievement of punishment.

At the same time, he believes that the court does not take into account the characteristic given to him by the father of Mikhail, a priest, from whom he regularly confesses. He asks for a conviction to cancel and pronounce an acquittal against him. In objections to appeals, the state prosecutor Chufistov Yu. Asks the court’s verdict to be left unchanged, and the appeal complaints were dismissed.

Having checked the materials of the case, discussing the arguments of appeals and objections to them, after hearing the participants in the process, the judicial board concludes that the verdict of the court of first instance is legal, reasonable and fair. The Judicial Collegium cannot agree with the affirmation of Lutceta that he has not committed crimes for which he was convicted, since the guilt of the Lutceta in the commission of crimes was established by the trial investigation, which in the necessary volume were given in the sentence of the court and correspond to them, including the testimony of the witness B that in November of the year Lutset informed him of the low indicators of the effectiveness of his work In the city, a more detailed conversation was carried out with Loucet, during which the latter confirmed the requirements, indicating that he would need to be transferred in cash.

Understanding the illegitimate nature of Lutcet’s actions, he did not want the latter to follow, hoping that he would give up his demands, which never happened. Lutset assured him of future positive prospects in his work that he had no problems in his work. In connection with which he turned to law enforcement agencies and took part in an operational-search event, during which, under the control of the police, he met with Lutete in the dining room on the 3rd floor of an office building under the control of police.

Then Lutset got out of the car and was detained. The Judicial Collegium believes that the evidence submitted by the parties in the trial is comprehensively, fully and objectively investigated by the court, correctly evaluated in accordance with Art. At the same time, the totality of the first instance studied in the court of first instance was reasonably recognized by the court sufficient for the adoption of the final decision in the case, and the court sets out the motives for which some evidence were adopted by the court, while others were rejected.

The judicial board has no reason to disagree with these conclusions. The evidence laid down by the court was obtained in compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation and reasonably recognized by the court acceptable. At the same time, the Judicial Collegium notes that there is no case in the case file, and there was no evidence to the court of first and appeal instructions testifying to the artificial creation of criminal prosecution of evidence of the prosecution.

The materials of the operational-search event were obtained in accordance with the requirements of the law, since during the operational-search event any violations of the Federal Law "On Operational Investigation" were not committed.