Embezzlement from the budget of the All-Russian conference by the ex-head of the Constitutional Court of Tuva was estimated at 3 years in a penal colony

The Abakan City Court of Khakassia issued a verdict in the case against the ex-judge of the Constitutional Court of Tuva and former court employees.

The preliminary investigation body accused Ayas Saaya of misappropriation, that is, theft of someone else’s property entrusted to the guilty person, committed by a person using his official position, on an especially large scale (part 4 of article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), Ondar M-B.O., Chikashov E.N. and Ondar S.Kh., are accused of complicity in misappropriation, that is, the theft of someone else’s property entrusted to the guilty person, committed by a person using his official position, on an especially large scale and using a knowingly forged document (part 5 of article 33, part 4 article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and part 3 article 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 420-FZ of 07.12.2011)).

The criminal case, in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, is under the jurisdiction of the Kyzyl City Court.

Based on the decision of the Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated July 27, 2022, the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal case was changed with the case being sent for consideration to the Abakan City Court.

The Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction motivated its conclusion by the fact that the accused Saaya in a certain period of time held the positions of a judge and chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, was a member of the Council of Judges and the Qualification Board of Judges of Tuva. The wife of the accused Chikashov was a judge of the Kyzyl city court, and was also the deputy chairman of the qualification board of the court and a member of the examination committee for taking the qualification exam for the position of a judge.

In 2014, an all-Russian scientific and practical conference was planned in Kyzyl, among the organizers of which was the local Constitutional Court. Saaya drew up a budget request, and the court headed by him received 2,264,300 rubles from the Republican Ministry of Finance. by bank transfer.

Then the judge instructed the head of the financial department, Ondar, to cash out part of this money and transfer it to him for safekeeping. What he did: 1,962,100 rubles. ended up at Saaya. To pay for the expenses associated with the accommodation of the conference participants, the judge periodically gave Ondar the amounts he requested. As a result, the event cost a little less than 370,000 rubles, and the remaining unspent money remained with the chairman of the Constitutional Court.

Having the intent to embezzle this money, at the end of 2014, Saaya instructed Ondar in the annual report on the execution of the court’s budget to present deliberately false information about the full expenditure of funds, Osin read loudly. – In order to conceal the theft in 2015, on the instructions of Saay, Ondar prepared fictitious receipts for cash receipts for allegedly purchasing 25 gift Tuvan knives with silver handles from an individual entrepreneur in the amount of 885,000 rubles.

Approximately in the same way, documents were concocted for the purchase of two dozen gift boxes made of wood, as well as expensive wrapping materials for 710,466 rubles. With the help of fictitious advance reports approved by the judge, it was demonstrated that all the money that he had actually taken for himself had been spent.

In December 2018, 19rusinfo.ru reported, the then head of Tuva signed a decree disbanding the Constitutional Court of Tuva.

“I consider it nonsense any dependency when you can earn income without working. That is why I intend to initiate a bill in the near future to remove such an institution as the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Tuva from the power structure. We spend about 30 million rubles a year on it, “Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court has not considered a single case for several years in a row. It did not even allow itself to initiate any socially significant case. I believe that it is pointless to keep such an institution in conditions of lack of money.”— written by Kara-ool.

“Defendants Ondar M-B.O., Chikashov E.N., Ondar S.Kh. regarding the funds received from the budget for the conference, made at the direction of Saay A.P., under his pressure, Chikashov E.N., Ondar S.Kh. it was believed that in fact the funds received by the Constitutional Court of the Republic for the conference were spent for the intended purpose.

Carefully examining and evaluating the total evidence presented by the parties, the court concluded that the guilt of Saaya A.P. that he, acting deliberately, out of selfish motives, using his official position, by misappropriation, stole funds belonging to the budget of the Republic of Tuva on an especially large scale, access to which he had by virtue of official powers of the head of the main manager of budgetary funds (the Constitutional Court of Tuva) . At the same time, taking into account the established circumstances on the availability of objectively confirmed data on the spending of money by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Tajikistan on the conference and information on actual spending, the court corrected the amount of the stolen money and determined it in the amount of 1,338,241.41 rubles.

During the trial, the grounds for the recognition of Ondar M-B.Oh., Chikashov E.N. and Ondar S.Kh-o. guilty of committing a crime, responsibility for which is provided for by Part 5 of Article 33, Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, has not been established, since in the appropriation of Saaya A.P. they did not contribute to the budgetary funds in a particularly large amount allocated for the scientific and practical conference.

The totality of the examined evidence establishes that the actions of the defendants were not committed within the framework of the implementation of intent to assist Saaya A.P. in the criminal misappropriation of budgetary funds and their withdrawal from the owner, which is mandatory when complicity in theft, they committed actions related to the concealment of the already committed Saay A.P. crimes.

At the same time, there are grounds for qualifying the actions of Ondar C.Kh.-o, Chikashova E.N., Ondara M-B.Oh. under part 3 of article 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court did not have, since in the framework of the present case, similar actions of the defendants were qualified by the preliminary investigation body under this article and the criminal prosecution of the defendants was terminated during the trial on non-rehabilitating grounds, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Other actions, allowing to attract Ondar S.Kh-o., Chikashova E.N., Ondar M-B.O. to criminal liability under part 5 of article 33, part 4 of article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the prosecution did not incriminate them. As a result, the court acquitted the defendants.

When appointing the type and amount of punishment to the circumstances, mitigating the defendant Saaya A.P. punishment, the court considers that he has a minor child, that the defendant has serious chronic diseases and his state of health in connection with this, partial compensation for the damage caused by theft in the amount of 900,000 rubles.

Taking into account the circumstances of the case, all the data on the identity of the defendant Saaya A.P., despite the presence of mitigating and absence of aggravating circumstances, the court sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of 3 years in a general regime correctional colony with a fine of 800,000 rubles . Prior to the entry into force of the verdict, elected in relation to Saaya A.P. preventive measure in the form of detention, left unchanged.

The civil claim of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation was satisfied, with Saaya A.P. collected in favor of the budget of the Republic of Tyva 438,241 rubles 41 kopecks.

The verdict has not entered into force and can be appealed on appeal,” the Abakan City Court said in a statement.