Magnitsky’s Mother Takes Legal Action Against Interior Ministry to Close Second Posthumous Prosecution of Her Son

January 27, 2014

Sergei Magnitsky’s moth­er has tak­en a legal action against the Russ­ian Inte­ri­or Min­istry to ter­mi­nate the sec­ond posthu­mous case against her son. She has also called for an inves­ti­ga­tion of those offi­cials who are respon­si­ble for the case falsification.
“This crim­i­nal case is based on a fic­ti­tious event, and there­fore must be ter­mi­nat­ed, and there should be a prop­er inves­ti­ga­tion launched into those offi­cials who have fal­si­fied the records and orga­nized the sec­ond posthu­mous per­se­cu­tion of my son,” says Ms Mag­nit­skaya in her statement.
Magnitsky’s moth­er believes that the sec­ond posthu­mous case accus­ing her son of com­plic­i­ty in the $230 mil­lion theft that he had uncov­ered is an attempt to pres­sure her into drop­ping her calls for justice.
“Unlaw­ful acts of officials…cause me unjus­ti­fied suf­fer­ing and pain which I con­sid­er as a new attempt by inves­ti­ga­tors to force me to with­draw my calls for jus­tice for my deceased son and for bring­ing to account those respon­si­ble for his unlaw­ful pros­e­cu­tion and mur­der,” says Ms Magnitskaya.
The com­plaint by Ms Mag­nit­skaya states that Inte­ri­or Min­istry Inves­ti­ga­tor Urzhumt­sev who was the offi­cer who launched the sec­ond posthu­mous Mag­nit­sky case had a mate­r­i­al con­flict of inter­est, as he was a friend of Andrei Pavlov, the lawyer who took part in the col­lu­sive law­suits in var­i­ous courts which were then used to jus­ti­fy the fraud­u­lent $230 mil­lion refund uncov­ered by Mr Magnitsky.
Ms Magnitskaya’s com­plaint says that Inves­ti­ga­tor Urzhumt­sev was aware of Magnitsky’s tes­ti­monies which exposed those involved in the fraud against Her­mitage and the $230 mil­lion theft, includ­ing Andrei Pavlov.
“The inclu­sion of false data in the crim­i­nal case records is an abuse of office, in this case wilful…A sig­nif­i­cant part in this fal­si­fi­ca­tion was per­formed by Inves­ti­ga­tor Urzhumt­sev, an acquain­tance of A.Pavlov… Inves­ti­ga­tor Urzhumt­sev was aware from the mate­ri­als of the crim­i­nal case …that my son dur­ing the stat­ed peri­od con­front­ed the crim­i­nal group which per­pe­trat­ed fraud against his client – the three Russ­ian com­pa­nies of the Her­mitage Fund. He knew of my son’s tes­ti­monies from 5 June 2008 and 7 Octo­ber 2008 in which he exposed the per­pe­tra­tors and the co-con­spir­a­tors of the theft,” says the statement.
The new crim­i­nal case was opened in secrect and kept from Mag­nit­sky’s family. 

“Seri­ous vio­la­tions of con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of my son who is deprived of an oppor­tu­ni­ty to defend him­self due to his death in deten­tion cen­tre, his incrim­i­na­tion, in secre­cy from his rel­a­tives, in com­mit­ting a seri­ous offence, doing so with­out issu­ing him a charge, and with­out a valid court ver­dict in rela­tion to him, is a clear ground to ter­mi­nate the crim­i­nal case No 678540 which is based on a fic­ti­tious crime event,” said Ms Mag­nit­skaya in her statement.

Comments

• Link