On January 18, 2023, in the open part of the EPSR, the text of the verdict announced two months ago on charges of spreading criminal influence (part 3 of article 255-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and drug trafficking (part 1, 2 of article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) was published A 60-year-old native of the city of Tbilisi, Kamo Egiazarov, who is known in the status of the so-called “thief in law” nicknamed “Kamo Moscow”, writes Detective-Info.
The corresponding verdict previously noted, Judge Olga Pavlenko recognized Egiazarov’s guilt in drug trafficking (sentencing him to 6 years in prison) and acquitted the worthy of the charges under the “profile article” of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, citing lack of evidence. criminal offense (part 1 of article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).
Accepting the corresponding verdict, the minister of Themis argued it with the following conclusions:
– reproaches against Yegiazarov, saying that having arrived at the beginning of 2020 in Chernihiv PTPI, he assumed full informal power on the territory of the institution and developed generally defined rules of conduct in accordance with the “thieves’ laws”, the prosecution was not brought. They say that the prosecutor did not establish when exactly and under what circumstances “Kamo Moskovsky” allegedly “assumed full informal power” in the deportation center, nor was it possible to prove – using what methods / measures the worthy person ensured compliance with the so-called “concepts”.
“It has not been established whether any norms and rules established by Egiazarov applied to all persons who nwere in PTPI and how, taking into account the language, ethnic and cultural barrier, how the new way of PTPI was explained to foreigners from Asian or African countries. It should be noted that thieves in law are a specific phenomenon for the USSR (later also for the countries of the post-Soviet space) in the criminal world, which has no analogues in world criminal practice, formed in the 1930s and is characterized by the presence of a strict code of criminal traditions, as well as an exceptional level of secrecy and secrecy. Citizens of various countries of South and East Asia, North and Central Africa were kept in Chernihiv PTPI, so it is not clear how these so-called “thieves’ laws” by Egiazarov or persons who, according to the prosecution, were appointed by them to carry out the established he rules, “implemented” in the way of life of all these foreign citizens, how to fulfill the obligations of the shafts. At the same time, neither the prosecution itself nor the materials of the case contain data on whether these rules were followed by foreign citizens who were in PTPI and in what way it was expressed. The prosecution also did not disclose what kind of “thieves’ laws” they are, by whom they are established, in which document they are recorded, whether these laws have unification in the form in which they are the same and binding on all “thieves in law” without exception. The court was not provided with any sets of rules or norms, which the prosecution calls “thieves’ laws”– Olga Pavlenko stated.
– reproaches of law enforcement officers that “Kamo Moskovsky” appointed proxies who enjoyed authority among other persons who were held in the Chernihiv PTPI were not confirmed without a doubt.
“The court did not establish exactly when, how the appointment of the thief in law’s proxies took place, the case materials do not contain any data on such persons and their powers or the role or forms of communication among the persons held in the PTPI. At the same time, the very fact of involving trusted persons in the circle of their contacts does not indicate that these persons were involved in criminal activity, and therefore cannot be considered the spread of criminal influence. , cooking, in the absence of complaints from such persons, and therefore, in the absence of coercion, cannot be considered the spread of criminal influence, since it does not contain the above necessary signs“, – noted in this regard in the text of the verdict.
– the claims that the thief in law provided strict control over the execution of the rules and duties determined by him by the persons held in the Chernihiv PTPI and outside it were not supported by evidence.
– the prosecution did not prove how Kamo Egiazarov ensured the flow of narcotic drugs to the Chernihiv depcenter.
“The examined evidence did not confirm the existence of a scheme for the supply of narcotic drugs to the PTPI, the prosecution did not disclose the essence of the scheme in question, it was not proved that it was the accused who organized any scheme. From the evidence collected and examined by the court, it was established that the accused could receive drugs with food. In addition, it was established that other persons who were in PTP could also receive drugsAnd, ”the court’s decision emphasizes in this regard.
– claims that Kamo Moskovsky made a decision on the need to issue narcotic drugs to prisoners, according to the court, “are covered by the usual composition of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since during the consideration it was not established that it made special decisions on the need to issue one or another to another person of narcotic drugs.
– part of the accusation that Kamo Egiazarov resolved disputes that arose between persons from the point of view of unwritten criminal “laws” and “according to concepts”, acting in such cases as a “justice of the peace” was confirmed by the case when Kamo Arshakovich informed a person from the circle their friends about the need to return someone else’s phone to the owner.
Kamo Egiazarov, aka Kamo Moskovsky, acquitted
“But again, in this case, the person to whom he ordered to return the phone was part of the circle of contacts of the accused (according to the video recordings recorded during undercover investigative actions), in addition, the case materials do not contain data or the returned phone, and there is no information about a possible system of punishments if it was determined by the accused and whether and how it was applied“, – the text of the verdict emphasizes.
Taking into account the above incidents, the court concluded that all the allegations of the prosecution that the accused assumed certain functions when he was placed in the PTPI are assumptions that are not supported by any evidence, these allegations are not specified. Consequently, the requirements regarding the specificity and validity of the accusation have not been met.”
“The fact of Kamo Egiazarov’s spread of criminal influence remains unproven, since the pre-trial investigation body practically does not determine the limits for the spread of this influence by the accused, the circle of persons subjected to this influence is not indicated, and therefore it is not established, if they are involved in the commission of criminal offenses, the motives for their actions, that is the subjective awareness of each person who took part in criminal activity, acting under the influence of the accused, was not established, – the decision of Judge Pavlenko notes. – Considering all of the above, the court concluded that the prosecutor did not provide sufficient and admissible evidence confirming beyond a reasonable doubt the commission “Kamo Moskovsky” of the criminal offense incriminated to him under Part 3 of Article 255-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, that is, his guilt on this charge has not been proven“.