Findings and Conclusions

• Systematically brought personal floppy disks to his workplace, after which he illegally copied onto them and onto a personal computer system unit arrays of service information of a restricted nature.
• Secretly removed service documents from his workplaces, including those containing information constituting a state secret.

Subsequently, Trepashkin stored these documents at his place of residence, which did not ensure their proper safekeeping, but allowed Trepashkin to freely disclose state secrets.

Furthermore, the submission describes the elements of crimes provided for by Art. 283, part 1 and 22, part 1 of the UK RF, and indicates evidence providing grounds for accusing Trepashkin of committing the crimes named above.

Having considered the submission and the materials received from the Main Military Prosecutor's Office confirming the commission by Trepashkin of the socially dangerous acts indicated above, I come to the following conclusions.

In the submitted materials, there is confirmation of the existence of an act, the circumstances of which are to be investigated by the preliminary investigation authorities, namely - abuse of official powers by Trepashkin.

In the same materials, signs of an official crime are seen, allowing for the qualification of Trepashkin's actions, namely:

• Use by him of his official powers contrary to the interests of the service.
• The occurrence of specific consequences of the act.
• The existence of a causal link between the actions of Trepashkin as an official and the occurrence of harmful consequences.

Based on the analysis of the materials examined in the court session, the author of the submission reasonably assumes the involvement of a specific person - Trepashkin, in what was done.

Thus, in this part, the submission is subject to satisfaction, since signs of a crime - abuse of official powers - are seen in Trepashkin's actions.

As for the question of granting consent to bring lawyer Trepashkin M.I. as an accused in the commission of crimes provided for by Art. 222, part 1, 283, part 1, 285, part 3 of the UK RF, then in this part the submission is not subject to satisfaction, for the following reason.

According to part 3 of Art. 448 of the UPK RF, based on the results of the consideration of the prosecutor's submission, the court gives a conclusion on the presence or absence of signs of a crime in the actions of a person.

Consequently, the decision on the issue of granting consent to bring, in this specific case - a lawyer, as an accused - does not fall within the competence of the court.

On the basis of the foregoing and guided by Art. 448 of the UPK RF,

DECIDED: