Criminal Charges Against Mikhail Trepashkin

Scanned document 4 pages EN
English translation  ·  Page 1

Appendix 45

RESOLUTION

on the selection of a preventive measure in the form of a recognizance not to leave and proper behavior

Moscow, March 24, 2003

Investigator (inquirer) for particularly important cases of the investigative department of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office, Lieutenant Colonel of Justice Vladimirov V. Yu.

having examined the materials of criminal case No. 29/00/0001-02

HAS ESTABLISHED:

  • On March 24, 2003, Mikhail Ivanovich Trepashkin, born April 7, 1957, was brought into criminal case No. 29/00/0001-02 as an accused and was charged with:
    • repeated use by an official of his official powers contrary to the interests of the service, committed out of other personal interest and entailing grave consequences;
    • repeated disclosure of information constituting a state secret by a person to whom it was entrusted and became known through service, which resulted in this information becoming the property of other persons (in the absence of signs of high treason);
    • illegal acquisition, storage, transportation, and carrying of ammunition;
  • that is, the commission of crimes provided for by Part 3 of Art. 285, Part 1 of Art. 283, and Part 1 of Art. 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

To ensure the execution of the sentence, it is necessary to select a preventive measure for the accused Trepashkin M.I. in the form of a recognizance not to leave and proper behavior, for which a written obligation shall be taken.

Based on the foregoing and guided by Articles 97-101 and Art. 102 (103-108) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

HAS RESOLVED:

  • To select for the accused Mikhail Ivanovich Trepashkin, born April 7, 1957, a preventive measure: a recognizance not to leave and proper behavior.

Investigator (inquirer) [Signature]

A copy of the resolution was handed to me on March '25', 2003. At the same time, the procedure for appealing this resolution was explained to me.

Accused [Signature]

English translation  ·  Page 2

DECISION

City of Moscow
March 17, 2003

Judge of the Moscow Garrison Military Court, Lieutenant Colonel of Justice Tkachuk N.N., with the participation of the prosecutor - Assistant to the Chief Military Prosecutor, Colonel of Justice Kornilov V.V., and Mikhail Ivanovich Trepashkin, with Secretary Larina M.V., having considered the submission of the First Deputy Chief Military Prosecutor regarding the issuance of a finding on the presence or absence of signs of a crime provided for by Part 3 of Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the actions of lawyer Trepashkin M.I., and on the granting of consent to bring lawyer Trepashkin M.I. as an accused in the commission of crimes provided for by Articles 222, Part 1; 283, Part 1; 285, Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

HAS ESTABLISHED:

  • The military court received a submission from the First Deputy Chief Military Prosecutor regarding the issuance of a finding on the presence or absence of signs of a crime provided for by Part 3 of Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the actions of lawyer Trepashkin M.I., and on the granting of consent to bring lawyer Trepashkin M.I. as an accused in the commission of crimes provided for by Articles 222, Part 1; 283, Part 1; 285, Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
  • The submission states that in the period from December 1993 to July 1997, Trepashkin, while serving in various positions in the state security organs of the USSR and the Russian Federation, abused his official powers, which resulted in grave consequences - the disclosure of state secrets.
  • As the author of the submission notes, Trepashkin, being an official and acting out of other personal interest, repeatedly used his official powers contrary to the interests of the service, namely:
English translation  ·  Page 3

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:

English translation  ·  Page 4

Ruling

  • To grant the submission of the First Deputy Chief Military Prosecutor regarding the presence or absence of signs of a crime provided for by Part 3 of Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the actions of lawyer Trepashkin M.I.
  • To recognize the presence in the actions of Mikhail Ivanovich Trepashkin of signs of a crime provided for by Part 3 of Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
  • To deny the satisfaction of the remaining part of the submission.

This ruling may be appealed to the Moscow District Military Court within 10 days from the date of its issuance.

ORIGINAL WITH PROPER SIGNATURE

JUDGE OF THE MOSCOW GARRISON
MILITARY COURT
Lieutenant Colonel of Justice N. TKACHUK