The military court refused to accept the challenge
Lawyers present new arguments to stop criminal prosecution of the accused in the "REvil case"
Lawyers of the defendants accused of links with the REvil hack group insist that there is no reason for criminal prosecution of their clients. At the last hearing, they stated that the materials of the investigation that became the basis for initiating the case, including the expert examination, were compiled with violations. Law enforcement agencies, in their opinion, not only made a number of gross procedural errors, but also did not take the necessary measures for a full-fledged investigation. For example, they did not interrogate bank card holders from among American citizens, whose funds were allegedly encroached upon by their principals. Defenders believe that this makes the victims nothing more than an abstraction, and the trial continues for more than two years. However, the military prosecutor's office and the court were not convinced by these arguments.
The other day, the St. Petersburg Garrison Military Court held a regular hearing on the " REvil case "(the hacker group Ransomware Evil, also known as Sodinokibi), where the stage of presenting evidence by the defense came. Last time, the lawyers of young people accused of dropping filed several petitions, which, among other things, contain a demand to stop criminal proceedings, because at the stage of preliminary investigation, according to the defenders, the FSB and the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia violated the norms of legislation regulating the procedure for initiating criminal proceedings.
The lawyers believe that the law enforcement officers did not properly draw up a report on the detection of signs of a crime, which initially became the reason for initiating a case on illegal circulation of payment funds.
"The fact that the case file contains a document called "report" does not mean that it is a legitimate procedural document drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, the results of operational search activities were transmitted, and after studying these materials, the FSB investigator was supposed to draw up a report on the detection of signs of a crime, but he did not do so. In the absence of such grounds, the decision to initiate a criminal case, even if you do something about it, is illegal," lawyer Denis Brudov told the court, noting that this argument was never refuted by the state prosecution.
At the end of October last year, eight defendants appeared in court: senior reserve ensign Artem Zayets, Alexey Malozemov, Andrey Bessonov, Mikhail Golovachuk, Roman Muromsky, Dmitry Korotaev, Daniil Puzyrevsky and Ruslan Khansvyarov. They are accused of illegal activity with financial resources (Part 2 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and the last two are also charged with developing and distributing malware (Part 2 of Article 273 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). All of them have been in custody since the beginning of 2022. The arrests of alleged REvil members, who are described in the Western press as pro-Russian cybercriminals, were carried out in several regions of the Russian Federation at the request of the United States. After their detention, the FSB stated that the hack group was liquidated, but the defendants themselves denied their involvement in it.
The defenders also asked the court to question the owners of electronic payment devices, which are mainly American citizens in the case, but this was refused. The military justice officer drew the court's attention to the fact that the case does not go through damage and no claims were filed from the victims, and such claims from the defense, in his opinion, are aimed at delaying the process. In response, lawyer Brudov explained that this need is due to the fact that if it suddenly turns out that bank accounts were blocked at the time of the alleged crime, then they cannot be considered payment instruments.
"Were these cards valid at all or not at that time? They have an expiration date, but a person could block the card if the data, for example, got to the scammers, and then what? This information can only be verified by interrogating victims or requesting this information from the issuing bank. This was not done. We have doubts that these cards could have been used. And how, if there are doubts, can the case be continued? We are not asking for evidence of the defendants ' guilt. We are in favor of an objective investigation, " the lawyer complained.
In another request, the defense stated that the first examination of the criminal case was conducted in JSC "United Credit Card Company" (COCC, United Card Services), which, in their opinion, did not have the appropriate license. After revealing this fact, lawyer Yulia Kanunnikova pointed out, at the stage of familiarizing the defense party with the case materials (Article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), the investigator "in an accelerated mode" appointed a similar examination to the experts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. "When appointing and conducting the second expert examination, significant violations were committed that cast doubt on the conclusions set out in it," Ms. Kanunnikova stressed.
Lawyer Vladislav Dreeris, who took the floor, explained that the methodology used in this examination itself is questionable, as is the qualification of specialists.
Senior defense group Alexander Kanishchev added that if the name of the unit is "expert department", it does not follow that it is such. "I go to a barber, and he is also an expert barber, but this does not mean that he is an expert in our case," the lawyer cited the analogy.
The lawyers filed a motion to summon experts from the police department for questioning at the court session, but the representative of the military prosecutor's office opposed this, as he considered that the expert's opinion was drawn up correctly and there were no grounds to distrust him. Judge Anatoly Movchan supported his position. After the defense submitted additional arguments justifying the need to summon experts to the hearing, the court adjourned on this issue until the next meeting.
• Source: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6636183
Lawyers present new arguments to stop criminal prosecution of the accused in the "REvil case"
Lawyers of the defendants accused of links with the REvil hack group insist that there is no reason for criminal prosecution of their clients. At the last hearing, they stated that the materials of the investigation that became the basis for initiating the case, including the expert examination, were compiled with violations. Law enforcement agencies, in their opinion, not only made a number of gross procedural errors, but also did not take the necessary measures for a full-fledged investigation. For example, they did not interrogate bank card holders from among American citizens, whose funds were allegedly encroached upon by their principals. Defenders believe that this makes the victims nothing more than an abstraction, and the trial continues for more than two years. However, the military prosecutor's office and the court were not convinced by these arguments.
The other day, the St. Petersburg Garrison Military Court held a regular hearing on the " REvil case "(the hacker group Ransomware Evil, also known as Sodinokibi), where the stage of presenting evidence by the defense came. Last time, the lawyers of young people accused of dropping filed several petitions, which, among other things, contain a demand to stop criminal proceedings, because at the stage of preliminary investigation, according to the defenders, the FSB and the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia violated the norms of legislation regulating the procedure for initiating criminal proceedings.
The lawyers believe that the law enforcement officers did not properly draw up a report on the detection of signs of a crime, which initially became the reason for initiating a case on illegal circulation of payment funds.
"The fact that the case file contains a document called "report" does not mean that it is a legitimate procedural document drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, the results of operational search activities were transmitted, and after studying these materials, the FSB investigator was supposed to draw up a report on the detection of signs of a crime, but he did not do so. In the absence of such grounds, the decision to initiate a criminal case, even if you do something about it, is illegal," lawyer Denis Brudov told the court, noting that this argument was never refuted by the state prosecution.
At the end of October last year, eight defendants appeared in court: senior reserve ensign Artem Zayets, Alexey Malozemov, Andrey Bessonov, Mikhail Golovachuk, Roman Muromsky, Dmitry Korotaev, Daniil Puzyrevsky and Ruslan Khansvyarov. They are accused of illegal activity with financial resources (Part 2 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and the last two are also charged with developing and distributing malware (Part 2 of Article 273 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). All of them have been in custody since the beginning of 2022. The arrests of alleged REvil members, who are described in the Western press as pro-Russian cybercriminals, were carried out in several regions of the Russian Federation at the request of the United States. After their detention, the FSB stated that the hack group was liquidated, but the defendants themselves denied their involvement in it.
The defenders also asked the court to question the owners of electronic payment devices, which are mainly American citizens in the case, but this was refused. The military justice officer drew the court's attention to the fact that the case does not go through damage and no claims were filed from the victims, and such claims from the defense, in his opinion, are aimed at delaying the process. In response, lawyer Brudov explained that this need is due to the fact that if it suddenly turns out that bank accounts were blocked at the time of the alleged crime, then they cannot be considered payment instruments.
"Were these cards valid at all or not at that time? They have an expiration date, but a person could block the card if the data, for example, got to the scammers, and then what? This information can only be verified by interrogating victims or requesting this information from the issuing bank. This was not done. We have doubts that these cards could have been used. And how, if there are doubts, can the case be continued? We are not asking for evidence of the defendants ' guilt. We are in favor of an objective investigation, " the lawyer complained.
In another request, the defense stated that the first examination of the criminal case was conducted in JSC "United Credit Card Company" (COCC, United Card Services), which, in their opinion, did not have the appropriate license. After revealing this fact, lawyer Yulia Kanunnikova pointed out, at the stage of familiarizing the defense party with the case materials (Article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), the investigator "in an accelerated mode" appointed a similar examination to the experts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. "When appointing and conducting the second expert examination, significant violations were committed that cast doubt on the conclusions set out in it," Ms. Kanunnikova stressed.
Lawyer Vladislav Dreeris, who took the floor, explained that the methodology used in this examination itself is questionable, as is the qualification of specialists.
Senior defense group Alexander Kanishchev added that if the name of the unit is "expert department", it does not follow that it is such. "I go to a barber, and he is also an expert barber, but this does not mean that he is an expert in our case," the lawyer cited the analogy.
The lawyers filed a motion to summon experts from the police department for questioning at the court session, but the representative of the military prosecutor's office opposed this, as he considered that the expert's opinion was drawn up correctly and there were no grounds to distrust him. Judge Anatoly Movchan supported his position. After the defense submitted additional arguments justifying the need to summon experts to the hearing, the court adjourned on this issue until the next meeting.
• Source: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6636183
