Sergey Zaytsev | 20:52 22/04/2019
Kantemir Karamzin. © / youtube.com screenshot
Karamzin’s troubles commenced when he won the case for 15 Billion Roubles at arbitration court in 2018. Here the interests of ex-Director of AO DSK-1 Vladimir Kopelev and other players on real estate market have been affected.
The very first version: arrest of the lawyer Karamzin was required to review the results of arbitration case. Absolute invalidity of the case under which the lawyer was arrested states in support of this version. It is grounded on the testimony of the debtor, who did not wish to repay Karamzin over $200 thousand borrowed back in 2007.
Legal proceedings on the case in respect of repay of the debt commenced back in 2013. Then Karamzin prevailed in the action against the writer Oleg Blotsky.
Though the decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court, the money had never been collected from Blotsky, i.e. he did not repay the debt. In 2014, Blotsky initiated criminal case against Karamzin claiming that one of the loan agreements was forged. During the following four years the case was initiated and suspended.
In 2015, an expert conclusion was prepared with probabilistic assessment of the signature belonging. However, it contained no definitive conclusion i.e. it could not be unambiguously said whether the signature on the agreement belongs to Oleg Blotsky. Besides, Blotsky could intentionally distort the signature. He refused to attend the handwriting examination, though Karamzin insisted on it.
According to the defence, this is not a circumstance that could lead to such a strict measure as taking into custody.
On 12 April, the judge of Balashikhinsky court Natalia Grishakova gave a ruling to arrest Kantemir Karamzin for a month, after which the lawyer was placed to the remand centre No. 8 in Sergiev Posad. The lawyers’ arguments in respect of the excessiveness of such measure of punishment were not taken into consideration. Consideration of defence’s appeals with the Judicial Panel for Criminal Cases in the Moscow Province is appointed for 23 April. They contain significant number of breaches of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation allowed during custody.
The custody itself took place at 10:30 on 10 April, but the arrest statement was prepared at about 15:30. This could have been done in order to increase the time for accusation, which according to the law should be performed within 48 hours. During that day insulin dependent Karamzin suffering from diabetes mellitus was held with no meals and medication.
Likewise, according to the defenders the detainee was provided with no opportunity to sleep, the accusation was declared at night time, when he was unable to conceive the pages of the protocol because of tiredness. According to the lawyers the detainee’s glasses were collected, though it is known that his eyesight is poor and he must familiarise with the materials in the proceedings during the judicial sitting. As a result, instead of a lawyer well-known for his bright and well-bred speeches during proceedings they brought an exhausted person who could hardly understand questions and answered with muddy phrases.
It well may be that the lawyer Karamzin is not the main target of the case. His arrest was followed with information attack on the judges of the Moscow City Court and the Supreme Court that Karamzin allegedly had criminal affiliations with. All this may transform from the “Lawyer Karamzin’s case” into “Judges Plot”.
The lawyer himself in his message to the Chairman of the Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin says that he has no testimony in respect of the judges.
Besides, he – same as any other lawyer – has a lot of lost cases. Therefore, the information that he was winning all the cases thanks to his contacts is not consistent with the reality.
The Karamzin’s appeal petition reads: “Accusatory theory contains no description of illegal activity. K. F. Karamzin is charged with the appealing to courts to protect his rights. Legal decisions of various instances on these appeals and demands of the relief came into effect and are still not revoked for any grounds.”