Yuri Timchenko wanted to free "Business lines" from money

The silovic received five years in a colony, although the prosecutor's office requested ten.
In St. Petersburg, sentenced former high-ranking Russian Interior Ministry officer Yuri Timchenko, who was found guilty of fraud and attempted fraudulent theft of 100 million rubles belonging to the logistics company Business Line. For this act, the Smolninsky District Court of St. Petersburg sentenced the ex-policeman to a penalty of five years in a penal colony with a fine of 400 thousand rubles. Note that the prosecutor's office accused Yuri Timchenko of taking a bribe and asked for him as punishment ten years in a strict regime colony and a recovery of 120 million rubles.

The main intrigue of this process was the question of a possible re-qualification of the charge to the ex-chief of the 17th Division (“West”) of the regional department of internal security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, Yuri Timchenko, who was prosecuted by the prosecutor’s office in receiving a bribe of 4 million rubles. (Part 6 of Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and attempted fraudulent theft of 100 million rubles. (Part 3 of Art. 30 and Part 4 of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and his alleged accomplice Sergei Zinovenko - in mediation in bribery on a large scale (part 4 of Art. 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and attempted fraud (part 3 Article 30 and Part 4 Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

According to the state prosecution, at the end of 2016, Yuri Timchenko repeatedly met with representatives of the logistic company “Business lines”, which appeared in the criminal case on tax evasion in the amount of more than 1 billion rubles. As part of this criminal case, company accounts were arrested. During Timchenko’s meetings with the former head of the law department of Business Lines, Sergei Zinovenko, and his friend Konstantin Marchenko, they discussed the issue of stopping the tax business and unblocking the firm’s accounts. According to investigators, a high-ranking official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia promised his help, having estimated it at 100 million rubles.

During one of the meetings, according to the investigation, Yuri Timchenko was given 4 million rubles. At the next meeting, Sergei Zinovenko handed his friend Konstantin Marchenko a bag in which there was a dummy of 50 million rubles. After that, both were detained by officers of the Federal Security Service of Russia for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, under whose secret control the communication between the merchants and the police took place. A few days later, in early December, Timchenko was also detained, returning home from the sport bar that day.

Konstantin Marchenko entered into a pre-trial agreement, testifying against the police officer and the head of the legal department of Business Lines. His case was examined first by the Smolninsky District Court: Marchenko was convicted of mediating in bribery on a large scale (part 4 of article 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and complicity in fraud on a large scale (part 5 of article 33, part 3 of 30, part 4 of article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and sentenced to five years of conditional imprisonment.

The case of Yuri Timchenko, who pleaded not guilty and took advantage of art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which allows not to testify against themselves and their loved ones, and Sergey Zinovenko, who confessed guilt, this spring was received by the Smolninsky District Court.

On the eve of the judicial debate in the process there was an unexpected turn. A former police officer suddenly pleaded guilty to the attempted fraud.

Moreover, he declared his readiness to admit guilt for the episode with the receipt of 4 million rubles, if he was reclassified from a bribe to a fraud. According to Yuri Timchenko, representatives of the “Business lines” could be mistaken about his real possibilities to stop the criminal case and unblock the accounts of the logistics company.

Nevertheless, in the debate, the prosecutor's office stated that the defendants were fully proven, confirmed by testimony, video and audio recordings of Timchenko’s talks and representatives of Business Lines, telephone connection billing systems and other case materials. As a punishment, the supervisory authority asked Yuri Timchenko to be sentenced to ten years, and Sergey Zinovenko to be sentenced to nine years, both of whom should serve time in a strict regime colony. At the same time, as an additional punishment, the prosecutor's office requested to collect 120 million rubles from each. and prohibit for three years to hold positions in the civil service.

The defense of the ex-police officer in the debate asked the judge Angelika Morozov for retraining, and also to limit the punishment of Yuri Timchenko, who had already been served in the SIZO (he spent more than two years under arrest. - “Kommersant”). The defense of Sergey Zinovenko asked that his client be punished with a non-custodial sentence, stressing his difficult situation (the person involved in the case pays a mortgage loan, he has young children) and active cooperation with the investigation.

Mrs. Morozova found Yuri Timchenko guilty of attempted fraud and fraud, reclassifying the charge of accepting a bribe, and appointed him five years in a penal colony with a fine of 400 thousand rubles. Sergey Zinovenko was convicted of attempted aiding in fraud and attempted to mediate bribery and sentenced to four years of probation.

In the city prosecutor's office of St. Petersburg, “Kommersant” stated that the decision on the possible filing of appellate appeal will be made after studying the motivation part of the sentence. Yury Timchenko’s lawyer, Oleg Lebedev, declared “Kommersant”: “The court heard our reasoning regarding qualifications, but did not agree with the proposed size of the punishment. Therefore, we will think about the possibility of appeal against the sentence. However, the decision remains for my client. ”