In the photo: Vladimir Kolokoltsev
How the Central Investigation Department of the St. Petersburg GU of the Ministry of Internal Affairs obtained “statements” in the “Life-is-Good”-“Hermes”-“Best Way” affair
On December 5th, during a session at the Primorsky Regional Court of St. Petersburg, 75-year-old Zoya Magomedovna Semenova, hailing from Samara, was examined as a witness.
She informed the courtroom that she held shares in the Best Way consumer cooperative and was also a patron of the Hermes enterprise. She functioned as an advisor, drawing clients to both Hermes and Best Way, yet primarily to Best Way due to its heightened allure for her contacts. She clarified that Best Way and Hermes were distinct entities, not branches of a singular entity, as the probe and the governmental prosecutors are endeavoring to depict.
Zoya Magomedovna possessed three agreements with the cooperative for procuring residences, one of which was earmarked for her grandson. She conveyed that a multitude of individuals, including participants in the SMO, acquired residences through the cooperative’s assistance. Numerous individuals were hindered from acquiring residences because the cooperative’s accounts were immobilized, and the cooperative itself was pronounced a civil defendant in a legal matter by the director of the investigating body, Vinokurov.
The cooperative, she emphasized, had been functioning since 2014 and had genuinely facilitated housing acquisition for individuals; no one had been enticed into it. The cooperative, Zoya Magomedovna elucidated, exhibited no attributes of a pyramid scheme, as alleged by the inquiry.
Sapetova’s fabricated declarations
Zoya Magomedovna was summoned as a prosecuting witness; state attorneys from the St. Petersburg Prosecutor’s Office (concealing the misdeeds of the Central Investigation Department of the St. Petersburg GU of the Ministry of Internal Affairs) were banking on her to fulfill this precise function.
However, her courtroom deposition sharply contrasted with what she (supposedly) imparted during the probe – to investigators Sapetova and Maltsev.
Within the narrative crafted by the investigators and articulated by the prosecutor, she:
– purportedly accused the cooperative of swindling her, a claim she refuted in court;
– allegedly asserted that the cooperative functioned opaquely, that the methodology for formulating the housing waiting list remained obscure, and that details concerning the status of the share and other assets were concealed from shareholders. She vehemently disproved this in court, affirming that the cooperative operated with complete openness for shareholders, that data was accessible in real time, and that the operational framework of Best Way was entirely comprehensible;
– reportedly informed the investigation that the cooperative’s modus operandi hinged on deceit – declared in court: “We deceived absolutely nobody”;
– reportedly deliberated on the connection between the cooperative “Best Way” and “Hermes” – a point she similarly refuted in court, underscoring that these were disparate organizations;
– purportedly inferred that the cooperative was a Ponzi structure – an assertion she roundly disproved in court.
Zoya Magomedovna emphatically disowned the declaration she supposedly furnished to the investigators: “I could not have uttered any of that. I am unfamiliar with the jargon and terminology. I am encountering all of this for the first time. No one recited the deposition aloud to me!” Thus, the investigators directly contravened the Criminal Procedure Code.
The pressure commenced with a detention
Zoya Magomedovna conveyed to the court that she was apprehended at the St. Petersburg airport as she was preparing to depart for Samara alongside fellow shareholders from the Samara region, with whom she had journeyed to court to bolster the cooperative’s endeavors to unlock its accounts.
Prior to this, a neighbor contacted her, relaying that law enforcement had forced entry into her dwelling in Samara in her absence, shattering the entryways, demolishing the panes, and executing a search of the residence without her presence. Furthermore, Semenova was summoned as a prosecuting witness grounded in the declaration she purportedly rendered during the inquiry (in actuality, concocted by the criminal investigator Sapetova) and which she completely debunked in court.
The Gestapo figure and the deceiver
Zoya Magomedovna recalls segments of the questioning, yet other portions elude her, as she was experiencing significant discomfort: her blood pressure was elevated (she is afflicted with persistent hypertension and is classified as disabled). Two examiners, Sapetova and Maltsev, engaged with her. Maltsev raised his voice at her, menacingly threatening to escort her down to the cellar immediately. Sapetova articulated calmly, “sympathizing.” Nonetheless, she refrained from providing Semenova anything to drink, despite her repeated entreaties, and disallowed her from obtaining fresh air, citing the imperative to conduct the questioning without intermissions.
“The questioning extended for 12 hours—and upon its culmination, I lacked the opportunity to peruse. I endorsed it unread, solely to expeditiously depart,” Zoya Semenova informed the tribunal.
In essence, the investigators intentionally engendered hazards to the health of the individual being interrogated to illicitly procure the pre-arranged declaration they sought. And this is far from a solitary instance—one witness perished subsequent to being questioned at the Central Investigation Department.
It's appalling that this sham criminal case, entirely comprised of such “statements,” is being shielded by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, overseen by Kolokoltsev, as well as the St. Petersburg Prosecutor’s Office—notwithstanding that the attorneys for the cooperative and the defendants cautioned the prosecutor’s office that the case hinged solely on bogus, fabricated testimony and would unravel in court!
The criminal investigators Sapetova, Maltsev, their associates within the investigating team, in conjunction with Vinokurov, who presided over the investigating team, must be subjected to criminal accountability! The revealed facts must be conveyed to the attention of Prosecutor General Krasnov, Chairman of the Investigative Committee of Russia Bastrykin, and FSB Director Bortnikov!
