Trial Chronicle

September 11

After substitution of one of lay assessors a new consideration of V.Moiseyev's case began in a new staff of judges of Moscow City Court with presiding judge Gubanova and lay assessors Khromova and Kiseleva.

The defense moved out a number of petitions:

- to change a measure of suppression

- to conduct an open hearing of the case

- to allow participation of defense counsels of public organizations

- to challenge against military prosecutor

- about professional staff of judges according art.15 of RSFSR Code of Criminal -Procedure

- to present additional proofs including witnesses and documents

The court declined all petitions of the defense without any exclusions. The situation indicates that present staff of the court follows the previous one. It means that the court will most probably pay little attention to the Definition of the RF Supreme Court dated 25 of July which had returned the case for reconsideration.

Under such circumstances it's possible to suppose that Moscow City Court is not free in its actions (even concerning legal procedure).

Judge Gubanova rigidly violated art.46* of the federal law "On Prosecutor's Office of Russian Federation" and declined the petition to challenge against military prosecutor.

The court didn't adhere art.47 and 250 of RSFSR CCP and didn't allow participation of defense counsels of public organizations in a process.

When actions and decisions of the judge contradict law and common sense it means the only one thing: the court fulfils wills of any shadowy forces.

A well-founded suspicion about unity of Military Prosecutor's Office, Federal Security Service investigation and court appears.

After rejection of the petitions hearing of the indictment started.

Art.46: In the areas where under exclusive circumstances other bodies of RF Prosecutor's Office do not act as well as outside the RF where in accordance with international agreements RF Armed Forces are situated, the functions of RF Prosecutor's Office can be assigned by the RF General Prosecutor to the bodies of Military Prosecutor's Office.

September 12

Moiseyev's petition to allow him to refresh memory of materials of the case which he hadn't seen for a year was considered. The judge gave him 3 days instead of 5 he had asked.

His petition to give him an indictment without which it's impossible to defense himself properly was also considered.

The judge said that this question would be regulated in accordance with working procedure (!)

The court took break till September 15.

September 15

The defense handed a local complaint to the judge for handing it over to the RF Supreme Court concerning the fact that Moscow City Court had declined petition to challenge against military prosecutor as his participation violated art.46 of the law "On RF Prosecutor's Office". Besides, it includes a petition to change measure of suppression (Release from jail) and to allow participation of defense counsels of public organizations in the process.

The defense move out petition to postpone the judicial proceedings till consideration of this complaint by RF Supreme Court.

The court was presented a Russian PEN-center petition to change measure of suppression (to release from jail).

Judge Gubanova declined the petition about postponing the process saying there was no base for it.

The question of procedure of judicial session was considered and hearing of indictment has been finished.

September 18

The court was listening Moiseyev's testimony and carried out his interrogation.

September 19

Moiseyev's interrogation continued during judicial session.

The court took break till September 21.

September 27

Hearing of case materials and consideration of them by the participants of judicial proceedings continued. The search records were also under consideration.

Within considering of search reports at Moiseyev's apartment the court was interested why Moiseyev has kept at home the documents of the visit of Delegation head by Sysuev to Seoul. The answer was evident. Moiseyev was detained in the night from the 3d to the 4^th of July, 1998, when the search was carried out. Next morning he should fly to Seoul, that's why the documents were at home. It's quite normal. Moreover, the documents to the visit were prepared by him. All the documents were not classified.

The question of the dollars withdrawn at his apartment also was considered (4647 dollars).

All the dollars withdrawn at his apartment were packed in a single envelope. Later, in the court (previous one) they appeared to be in 7 envelopes, with South Korean Embassy seals on them addressed to Moiseyev. By the way, Moiseyev's notebook, four diskettes and even made in FSS fotos were later returned to the family. They even didn't take money for this operation).

The search record in Moiseyev's office were also considered. As it was established in the court, no one classified document was found in his office.

It didn't prevent investigation from writing down that classified documents were found in the office. Besides, the searches at Moiseyev's apartment, in his office, and in summer house were conducted without prosecutor's warrant in violation of art. 168, 170 of RSFSR CCP.

This violations were admitted by the Deputy Military Prosecutor General V.Smirnov in his letter where he informed the court that the investigators were reprimanded for violation of art.141, 141-1, part 2 of art.176 of RSFSR CCP. The previous court in its judgment referred to inaccurate information that the Moiseyev's apartment search record indicates the seizure of 7 envelopes containing US dollars and recognized them as material evidence

Notabene, contrary to General Smirnov prosecutor Dubkov, supervising the investigation and participating in judicial proceedings in the letter No.3u-1065-98, dated March 11, 1999 said that "the investigators of FSS have not violated the criminal procedure". Here is such difference of opinion of prosecutors!

The resolution of seizure of a car, computer, garage and report that there is no property in the flat which should be seized, also were considered.

The family property and daughter's computer were seized. Moreover, the garage has been seized after wife's complaint to the General Prosecutor's Office that she hadn't been informed about the search there. Do you want to complain? Well, we'll seize your garage.

The question about attaching as an evidence 8- paged list on the Korean language including Russian-Korean agreements.

The mentioned list of documents in the Korean language doesn't contain classified information, it was published in mass-media in different times. It was written rather carelessly (there are repetitions, deletions in it). There are no any marks testifying its belonging to Agency of National Security Planning and interest of ANSP in the agreements listed there, which are not classified documents. Some of them were published in collections and bulletins, some of agreements with such titles, listed there, do not really exist

The question of attaching to the case the material evidence, withdrawn during Cho Son U personal search was also considered.

In addition to the fact that documents were received with rough violation of international law (1961 Viennese convention on diplomatic relations) they do not contain any secrets. The main of them (so called red-handed evidence) was Moiseyev's report "Russian Policy on the Korean Peninsula", the copy of which was returned to the family, and this more than convincingly confirms that there were not any secrets in the report. In spite of this the report was attached to the case as a material evidence of espionage.

The military prosecutor has a funny opinion that it's not possible to apply the CCP norms (and that's why FSS didn't violated the law) as the Korean diplomat had been detained before a criminal procedure has been instituted.

Nevertheless the court (the previous one) had declined the petition of excluding the proofs obtained in violation of the law.

Moiseyev moved out a petition to be given a sanitary sertificate to special high-frequency equipment of unknown purpose, established in the hall. The court declined it but attached to the case.

The attempt to challenge against judge Gubanova failed. Moiseyev's petition about challenge against her, supported by his defense, was declined by lay assessors Khromova and Kiseleva with the support of prosecutor Dubkov.

September 28

The court considered the question on attachment to the case as material evidence the money, 4 fotos of Embassy's employees and 7 envelopes.

During search at Moiseyev's apartment 4647 US dollars were withdrawn. In search record is fixed that they were packed in a single envelope No2 (and that's all).

During observation the proof in the court they appeared to be packed in 7 envelopes with South Korean seals on them addressed to Moiseyev. These 7 envelopes the court recognized as material evidence of getting by Moiseyev remuneration for his espionage activity, in spite of the fact that they hadn't been withdrawn during search and their origin is unknown.

Having recognized the envelopes as material evidence attached them to the judgment the court legalized the forgery of investigation.

The court believes (has investigation convinced it?) that special services pay fee to their agents in nominated envelopes. Otherwise, it should expel them as material evidence of Moiseyev's espionage activity.

There are no any secrets on fotos. They only show Moiseyev and other Ministry of Foreign Affairs employees with legal diplomats, who are well known to South Korean diplomats as well.

September 29 - October 3

After hearing of audiorecords the defense moved out a petition to cancel a criminal case against Moiseyev on the base of art.5 (part 2) of RSFSR CCP (the absence of corpus delicti).

The court declined it with the support of military prosecutor.

October 4

The records of seachs and question about documents were announced. The "draft order" of ANSP activity that some person allegedly has been involved in its activity is interested in this connection.

Moiseyev and his defense stated that all documents had been fabricated by investigation and FSS employee M. and had nothing with Moiseyev.

FSS employee M., who provoked Moiseyev and interested in the case outcome and witness in the court is involved in fabrication of two main documents, which accusation in espionage activity is based on. During investigation and in court Moiseyev denied that these documents were authentic.

stated that they had been mounted by FSS employee M. rather than Korean special service.

The defense moved out petition to institute a criminal proceeding against investigator and translator, to present authentic documents, 8-pages list and above mentioned excerpt from draft order, and to carry out expert examination to establish their authenticity.

The court announced break till October 6, without any explanation.

October 9

The defense moved out a petition to invite to judicial session RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs experts.

The defense also repeated petition to submit authentic documents.

Again the defense stated that information taken from computer should be excluded as a proof.

It's necessary to say that earlier during investigation, there was a decision that this information is not classified. Later it was copied to diskettes and returned to the family.

The military prosecutor (and it's natural) didn't agree to the petitions.

The court as usual declined the petitions as premature.

CONTENT | top