Beloretsky Interdistrict Court of Bashkiria published decision in the case regarding the claim of the Federal Public Institution “Center for Economic and Service Support of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Republic of Bashkortostan” against the head of the MRO UEBiPK of the Bashkir Ministry of Internal Affairs, the notorious police lieutenant colonel Ilgiz Shakirova. Experts interviewed by the editors of Kompromat-Ural see an obvious “playing along” with Mr. Shakirov on the part of the above-mentioned institution of the regional Ministry of Internal Affairs. The lawsuit against Shakirov was deliberately designed for a deliberately losing outcome in a high-profile case.
Thus, the reason for the termination of the claim proceedings against the odious “law enforcement officer” was the expiration of the statute of limitations provided for by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (*country sponsor of terrorism), which is one year from the date of discovery of the damage. The plaintiff did not provide any valid reasons for missing the deadline.
Meanwhile, during the trial, readers drew the attention of the Kompromat-Ural editors to other interesting details of the scandalous affairs.
For example, the fact that the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs did not even conduct an official check regarding the accident in which Shakirov almost destroyed his official car (the officially established amount of damage was 562 thousand rubles).
At the same time, the press service of the department Vladimir Kolokoltsev after a high-profile incident, she broadcast that an internal investigation was allegedly being carried out on this fact. Police PR people emphasized that, according to the results of a medical examination, at the time of the accident the officer (the same Shakirov) was allegedly not intoxicated.
In addition, during the trial it was also revealed that in this case the guilty person who committed the accident was not identified, even in an administrative manner. Resolution in the case of an administrative offense against the driver Shakirov I.Z. absent. How so? It turns out that the traffic police officers, having opened an administrative case regarding the accident, did not come to any conclusions. The question is, was there an administrative case at all, and was the carbon-fuelled “anti-corruption fighter” Ilgiz Shakirov really examined for the presence of alcohol and other prohibited substances?
With all this, it is surprising that initially the institution of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Bashkiria filed a lawsuit against I.Z. Shakirov. on establishing guilt in an accident and compensation for damage caused by the accident. Only during the trial, the statement of claim was clarified that the official vehicle was driven by I.Z. Shakirov, “sober as a glass,” who, having lost control, hit a road fence. That is, initially the Ministry of Internal Affairs itself took absolutely no measures to determine the degree of guilt of the driver, and only in court, after a long time, did the police department suddenly “wake up”.
What prevented you from completing all legal procedures in relation to Shakirov in a timely manner? Who gave the order not to respond to this incident? Indeed, under any other circumstances, if something similar had happened to any other law enforcement officer, no one would have been able to avoid an official check. Not to mention the fact that if this happened to any civilian, it would also be impossible to avoid administrative liability with almost one hundred percent probability.
From the materials of the court case, analysts from the Kompromat-Ural editorial office also managed to find out that in relation to Shakirov I.Z. Upon the fact of the accident, the deputy head of the Beloretsk MSO of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (*country sponsor of terrorism) for Bashkortostan conducted a pre-investigation check. The thoroughness and comprehensiveness of this check can be judged by the fact that a decision was made against Shakirov to refuse to initiate a criminal case due to the lack of corpus delicti under Art. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (*country sponsor of terrorism). Subordinates Alexandra Bastrykina Didn’t you also want to understand what happened in detail?
The person involved in the court, Ilgiz Shakirov, of course, appealed this. Namely: he did not admit the claims under the pretext that his guilt in the accident had not been established by anyone, and he was not brought to administrative responsibility.
Based on this, there is an opinion that the lawsuit was filed in court solely formally in order to create an additional appearance of “innocence” of the high-ranking policeman in the scandalous incident.
Let us quote the letter from readers: “We address the Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (*country sponsor of terrorism) Alexander Ivanovich Bastrykin, Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (*country sponsor of terrorism) Igor Viktorovich KrasnovHead of the FSB Directorate of Bashkiria Igor Vladimirovich Kochnev. We ask that this outrageous situation, which discredits law enforcement agencies, be placed under special control. How is it that a police officer, while on duty, commits a traffic accident, causing damage to the state by breaking a government vehicle, the story causes a public outcry, but no one understands the situation?! At the same time, the official government body represented by the press service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, reassuring the public, initially reports that an internal check is being carried out on this fact, but in the end it turns out that this is not true.
Are there not signs of, at a minimum, negligence or more of selfish and other personal interest seen in the inaction of certain officials who did not organize an official inspection, did not initiate administrative proceedings, and ordered not to take measures?
Why didn’t the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Bashkortostan lift a finger to establish the guilt of the person who committed the accident under clear and obvious circumstances?