THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS NEGOTIABLE

Regarding the 'Karachay conspiracy', those who had no money became terrorists

• Well, even now, at the trial, they claim that during the investigation I took a civic stance and personally persuaded the suspects to testify against themselves, and that it was only thanks to Shakhnazarov that our case moved forward. Even the prosecutor asked: 'If the evidence was gathered only with Shakhnazarov's help, then why did you arrest everyone?'
• Did you receive commissions from the bribe amounts?
• From each client, I took 10–15 thousand rubles for the work, but that is a standard legal fee. As for commissions, when the investigators told me: 'Take 3,000 dollars from them,' I tried to say: 'Fine, but I'll only give you two and a half, the rest is mine.' But that didn't fly. They replied: '3,000 is for us, and you demand more from them yourself.' I negotiated an additional reward for myself—200-300 dollars—after the people were released.
• How many clients did you have in total?
• Ilyas Ionov, Debirov, Dzugov, Balov, the Bayramukov brothers, Albert Dekkushev, the Semekushev brother and sister, as well as Kharatokov, Gogov, and Tlisov.
• I remember that Ionov's measure of restraint was indeed changed, but what was his fate at the trial?
• There was no trial for him. He spent a month under investigation and tried to hang himself twice.
  • Very strong pressure was put on him; his wife, Lida, was brought to his interrogation in handcuffs, and he was told that the department had raped her and would rape her again. This was untrue, but it was precisely after this that he attempted suicide.
• Investigator T... told his relatives that they should better contact me.
• I first handed T... 5,000 dollars, after which Ionov's measure of restraint was changed, and then another 5,000 for closing the case.
• Can Ionov confirm your version of events?
• I don't know. He is in Moscow now, doing business, involved in equestrian sports. And his relatives, after the prosecutor's office started looking into me, were told that everything could return to how it was. So their position is—as long as they aren't touched.
• Besides Ionov, who else did you release for bribes?
• Debirov, Dzugov, Balov, Dekkushev...
• How much did their relatives pay?
• For Balov and Dzugov, 45,000 rubles each; for Dekkushev, 2,000 dollars; for Debirov, 800 dollars. Such small sums for freedom were taken from them because they were supposed to be released anyway, and T... and S..., as members of the investigative group, knew this well.
• Why did Ionov have to pay so much? Was there something against him after all?
• No. Ionov is a grown man of forty-three, a successful businessman. When his nephew Dzugov was arrested, under torture he indicated that he had a rich uncle capable of paying for his freedom. Ionov had just received a prize for his horse named Brabus winning—one million rubles. Information about him was passed to a traffic police post, and he was detained while driving home from his birthday in his own 600-series Mercedes.
• Of the names you listed, three people—Kharatokov, Gogov, Tlisov—received long sentences. At the same time, you say that for money, and relatively small amounts at that, only the innocent were released. Does that mean they actually found material on these three?
• I was offered to release Tlisov for 5,000 dollars, but the relatives only collected 1,000 and gave it to me—they couldn't collect more, and I had to return that thousand to them. For Gogov, they demanded 3,000 dollars, but his mother could give me nothing but 5,000 rubles, the usual legal fee. It was the same with Kharatokov as with Tlisov. They demanded 8,000 dollars for him; his sister only collected three. I returned those three thousand to her as well.
• You name several investigators involved in this scam. This information was checked and not found to be credible; though, wasn't it checked by their direct superiors?
• T... and S... are just errand boys. The entire team's work was led by senior investigator Igor Tkachev; I had no dealings with him and never handed him money, but I assume that T... and S... are still just intermediaries. Well, judge for yourself: regarding the dollars. The relatives collected only 3,000 and T... released only Anzor. The relatives were dissatisfied: they wanted the girl released as soon as possible and gave the money specifically for her, while her brother, they said, could wait. T... understood this too, so he held Mariam back to guarantee receiving the second...

P.S. While this material was being prepared, the verdict in the Shakhnazarov case was delivered. He was sentenced to two years probation, although the prosecutor asked for four years of imprisonment. Furthermore, the editorial office of 'Novaya Gazeta' conducted its own investigation and, without any extraordinary effort, obtained information that the investigation so lacked to charge Shakhnazarov not with slander, but with fraud.

Relatives of Eduard Kharatokov, Ruslan Tlisov, and Vladimir Gogov confirmed the words of lawyer Shakhnazarov, according to the names of those with whom he negotiated, the amounts extorted by him, and the circumstances under which the money was handed over. Another fact emerged concerning hostage psychoses: among his clients was Ruslan Kochiyev; for his freedom, Shakhnazarov demanded 4,000 dollars for the investigators and 20,000 rubles for himself. The conditions were met, for which Kochiyev had to sell his own house, but nevertheless, Ruslan received a 10-year sentence.

Moreover, to fail to notice that this was not just slander, but that facts of extortion took place, was only possible with a very strong desire, as a corresponding complaint was filed with the prosecutor's office by the robbed relatives in the Cherkessk police. The prosecutor's office had a reason to charge Shakhnazarov only with slander in the event that its employees were indeed involved in releases for bribes. After all, during a fraud investigation, facts could emerge from which even prosecutor's epaulettes would not save them.

If Andrei Adolfovich Shakhnazarov is not lying, it means Kharatokov and Tlisov received 15 years each, and Gogov 10 years, only because they had no money.

Shakhnazarov is cynical; he doesn't particularly hide the motives that guided him. Dozens of honest lawyers cannot be the heroes of this publication because they could not help their clients. Society and Shakhnazarov turned out to be much more useful than the honest and noble. I do not presume to judge him, because it was not he who created such a system in which only a Shakhnazarov like this is good.

Orkhan DZHEMAL