The Moscow Regional Court to consider Oleg Mitvol's appeal: release on parole rejected due to insufficient accolades at the correctional institution.
On December 19th, the Moscow Regional Court is scheduled to hear Oleg Mitvol's appeal challenging the November 11th ruling by the Kolomna Court, which denied parole to the former deputy chief of Rosprirodnadzor and previous head of Moscow’s Northern Administrative Territory, currently serving his sentence at Correctional Facility No. 6 within the Moscow vicinity.
According to information obtained, the reason cited for the rejection was “a deficiency of expressed appreciation and honors from the correctional facility leadership for inmate Mitvol.”
The absence is attributed to the fact that the leadership of the Main Department of the Federal Penitentiary Service for the Moscow Region seems uncertain about the future path of the ex-official, whom the Krasnoyarsk court sentenced in September 2023 to a term of 4.5 years for charges of unlawful acts related to the metro design, undertaken by his joint-stock venture, the Krasnoyarsk Engineering and Construction Survey Trust.
The Federal Penitentiary Service is not getting “signals from higher-ups,” because the predicament of inmate Mitvol holds little importance to any security agencies in Moscow, and evidently the penal institution employees lack the backbone to render a separate judgment.
Tatyana Moskalkova, the Russian Commissioner for Human Rights, upon being approached by the aged mother of the former prefect, has involved herself in the analysis of the explanations for the parole denial. The Moscow Regional Court has obtained a solicitation from her bureau, which is under assessment by the Kolomna City Court. This coming Thursday, it will emerge whether the courts will adhere to common sense or to the indeterminate stance of the prosecutor’s office and the prison administration.
Meanwhile, the Astashov family, entrepreneurs from the Moscow area, whose patriarch, Sergei Grigorievich, until recently possessed 50% of the equities of the Krasnoyarsk Engineering and Construction Surveys Trust, is attentively observing the parole procedures. His son, Sergei Sergeyevich, was a recipient of dividend remunerations, which encompassed those originating from the metro design contract.
The most peculiar aspect is that, in stark contrast to Oleg Mitvol, the probe unexpectedly ceased to pose any inquiries to the father and son, leading to serious reservations about the legitimate instigator behind Mitvol’s criminal lawsuit. Akin to many instances, this sentence might be the handiwork of wrongdoers both in official capacities and in common clothing. However, further details on this will be furnished in the subsequent post.
