Buksman Alexander Emmanuilovich biography. The investigation into the criminal case of the leader of the Rostekhnadzor organized crime group Vladimir Ivchenko has been completed

Everyone remembers the cultural shock in the self-regulatory community caused by the news about Nikolai Kutin, who, upon joining the National Association of Builders, with the “approval” of the Council members, appointed himself. Indeed, after Basin’s leadership on a voluntary basis, the two million dollar salary seemed somehow too much for the first month of work. Especially with clean hands minus all taxes! The new Nostro leadership, presumably, read the reviews on the forums and was sincerely perplexed about the reaction of the plebeians - what’s wrong with the fact that people, accustomed to living in grand style, intend to continue this process? Don’t the directors of the SRO - people in themselves far from poor - want the top of NOSTROY to lie down with their chests on the Ministry of Construction’s embrasure for their sake as a thank you?

The well-intentioned part of the community agreed - yes, let them get as much as they want, as long as they get the job done! If a person puts things in order in the industry and saves billions for the state, then he won’t mind a couple of “lemons” a month. It turned out, however, that those who said this did not take into account one simple thing - yesterday’s RTN members were by no means poor even before they came to Malaya Gruzinskaya.

For example, right hand Mr. Kutyin, the current head of the NOSTROY apparatus and his namesake Nikolai Kapinus published the following data on his condition a couple of years ago on the RTN website. It turns out that in a year the head of the Central Directorate of Rostechnadzor earned as much as 110.94 million rubles! Of course, it’s not good to count money in other people’s pockets, but when we are talking about an official, especially one working in a control and supervisory department, the public has the right to ask the question - where did such profits suddenly come from, good sir? After all, it may well turn out that it was the official himself who misled his own pockets and those of his subordinate builders.

The website also gives the same figure about Nikolai Ivanovich’s income Apple party. It is doubtful that an RTN official, even a high-ranking one, would receive 9-10 million a month. Is Mr. Kapinus really that good at poker or did he find a treasure in the Scythian burial mounds?... Moreover, a year earlier, in 2011, the Rostechnadzor website called a much more moderate figure of 1.1 million rubles. Was it really possible that both the vigilant Yabloko people and their own office made a hundred times a mistake when they checked the declaration?

But even if we leave aside the suspicious confusion with income, it still turns out that Mr. Kapinus and his household are a thrifty and very prosperous person. He owns (as of 2012) two apartments - one, with an area of ​​91.97 square meters, in Moscow, the second, with an area of ​​144 square meters, in Greece.

His wife, rector of the Academy of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation and simply beautiful Oksana Kapinus, owns a couple more apartments in the capital - one with an area of ​​31.1, the other 129.9 square meters. A minor daughter will also not be homeless - a house in Krasnodar region with an area of ​​314.2 square meters and a plot of land. The family's car fleet is modest, but decent - one Land Rover and one Mercedes-Benz.

In a word, the modest “Rostekhnostroyevo” Nikolai Ivanovich Kapinus is either an extremely tight-fisted person in everyday life, since he was able to acquire such property on one official salary, or he is prudently keeping silent about something. The latest in NOSTROY and corruption scandals that Rostechnadzor give a lot of food for thought - what exactly are they talking about.

Moreover, serious questions arose from the Prosecutor General’s Office to the Kapinus spouses. So, as recently as February 2013 "New Newspaper" mentioned an ugly story. It was assumed that a certain businessman would approach Ms. Kapinus and ask for a bribe of 300 thousand dollars through her husband to solve the problems that had arisen with the garbage dump. However, the operational experiment in relation to the Kapinus spouses had to be canceled: a fuss began after the suicide in the building of the Prosecutor General's Office of the head of the department for supervision over the implementation of laws on federal security Vyacheslav Sizov.

So, who knows, it may not be by chance that the head of the NOSTROY apparatus suddenly developed a love for ancient dramas and red-figure vase paintings. Bad news is coming from Foggy Albion - they now dislike fugitive Russian officials and oligarchs and even sometimes demand to explain where exactly the money they brought with them was honestly earned. And in Greece, the poor people will be happy to see a wealthy Russian. Naturalized, for example, from Nikolai Kapinus to Nikolas Kapinopoulos - and live for yourself and be happy. Wander through the ruins of the Parthenon, drink Mediterranean wines and dance sirtaki.

We continue to monitor corruption scandal in the National Association of Builders.

Your ZaNoStroy.RF

First Deputy Prosecutor General Russian Federation. State Counselor of Justice 1st class.

Born on September 15, 1951 in the Shakhunsky district of the Gorky region (now Nizhny Novgorod region). Ethnic German.

1968-1969 - truck weigher, worker at the Uritsky grain collection point, urban settlement. Uritsky, Kustanai region.

1969-1969 - concrete worker of the Uritsky KSMK trust "Sovkhozstroy" No. 13, urban settlement. Uritsky, Kustanai region.

1969-1971 - service in the Armed Forces.

1971-1972 - electrician of the Northern Electric Networks Administration.

1972-1976 - student at the Sverdlovsk Law Institute.

1976-1977 - investigator of the prosecutor's office of the Uspensky district, Pavlodar region of the Kazakh SSR, Uspenka village.

1977-1979 - investigator of the prosecutor's office of the Ilyichevsky district of Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR.

1979-1981 - assistant prosecutor of the Pavlodar region of the Kazakh SSR, Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR.

1981-1982 - Deputy Prosecutor of the city of Ekibastuz, Kazakh SSR.

1982-1984 - Deputy Head of the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor's Office of the Pavlodar Region, Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR.

1984-1987 - Head of the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor's Office of the Pavlodar Region, Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR

1987-1987 - prosecutor of the Industrial district of Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR.

1987-1988 - senior investigator of the prosecutor's office of the city of Kustanai, Kazakh SSR.

1988-1989 - Deputy Prosecutor of the city of Kustanai, Kazakh SSR.

1989-1991 - head of the investigative unit - deputy head of the investigative department of the prosecutor's office of the Kazakh SSR, Alma-Ata, Kazakh SSR.

1991-1993 - Deputy Prosecutor of the Kazakh SSR, Alma-Ata, Kazakh SSR.

1993-1994 - prosecutor of Alma-Ata, Republic of Kazakhstan.

1994-1995 - Deputy Butyrsky Interdistrict Prosecutor of Moscow.

1995-1996 - First Deputy Prosecutor of the North-Eastern Administrative District of Moscow.

1996-2001 - Prosecutor of the Central Administrative District of Moscow.

From April 16, 2001 to December 2004 - Head of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Justice for Moscow (Minister of Justice Yu. Chaika).

December 22, 2004 appointed acting Head of the Main Directorate of the Federal Registration Service for Moscow - Chief State Registrar of Moscow.

On February 14, 2005, he was confirmed as the head of the Main Directorate of the Federal Registration Service for Moscow - the chief state registrar of Moscow.

From July 7, 2006 to the present - First Deputy Prosecutor General (Prosecutor General - Yu. Chaika). Supervises the Main Directorate for Supervision of the Execution of Federal Legislation.

He took an active part in the YUKOS case (sent to the Moscow Bar Chamber a proposal to terminate the legal status of four lawyers Alexei Pichugin).

In February 2005, the Council of the Moscow Bar Association did not find any violations in the actions of the defenders.

Order of Merit for the Fatherland, IV degree (January 12, 2009) - for services to strengthening law and order and many years of fruitful work

Certificate of Honor from the President of the Russian Federation (September 16, 2011) - for services to strengthening law and order, many years of conscientious work

"Honored Worker of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation."

Married, wife - Irina Buksman.

Press

The most corrupt structures named: Buksman disagrees
Published 08/19/10 10:37
First Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia Alexander Buksman protested the second place assigned to his department in the corruption rating.
Public organizations, having conducted their research and published the rating of corruption of civil servants, did not correctly assign second place to prosecutors, said First Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia Alexander Buksman.
“There are many, including human rights organizations, that make various analyzes and conclusions based on their own research. The question is which groups of people are surveyed, what questions are asked and where this happens,” Buksman said, RIA Novosti reports.
The Deputy Prosecutor General noted that his department itself prepares a report twice a year on the level of corruption in Russia and this report contains slightly different data.
“Every year, twice a year, we send the president a report on the state of corruption in Russia. Our report is based on serious researchers - VTsIOM, Transparency International(non-governmental international organization to combat corruption and study the level of corruption around the world) - and it completely coincides with our internal research," Buksman said.
According to him, this report states that “in first place in terms of corruption is the state apparatus at the federal and subject levels, in second place are traffic police officers, then employees of operational services, military registration and enlistment offices, and customs.”
“And only in seventh place are the prosecutor’s office and courts,” said the deputy prosecutor general.
“This is an extensive document, which also contains specific examples,” he noted.
http://www.topnews.ru/news_id_37552.html
***

First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation A. Buksman held a meeting with activists of OPORA RUSSIA

10.12.2012
On November 28, a meeting was held between the First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, Alexander Buksman, and activists of OPORA RUSSIA, dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the organization.
The event was attended by: Head of the Main Directorate for Supervision of the Execution of Federal Legislation of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation Anatoly Palamarchuk, Head of the Directorate for Supervision of the Execution of Legislation in the Economic Sphere of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation Vyacheslav Kroshkin and Deputy Head of the Directorate for Supervision of the Execution of Legislation in the Economic Sphere of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation Alexander Letunovsky. SUPPORT OF RUSSIA was represented by: President Alexander Brechalov, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the organization Sergey Borisov, vice-presidents Andrey Korkunov, Natalya Zolotykh, Alexander Kalinin, as well as Executive Secretary of the Bureau for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs and Investors Irina Yunkman.
In his welcoming speech, Sergei Borisov noted that OPORA RUSSIA has been interacting fruitfully with the Prosecutor General’s Office for a long time and expressed hope for continued successful cooperation. Alexander Brechalov spoke about his positive experience collaboration Krasnodar regional branch of OPORA and the regional prosecutor's office. Andrey Korkunov touched on the topic of lending to small businesses, and Natalya Zolotykh raised the issue related to the import and trade of counterfeit products. In turn, Alexander Kalinin focused the attention of the meeting participants on problems related to unlawful actions of municipalities in the field of real estate and land plots.
Also during the event, representatives of the Prosecutor General's Office were awarded diplomas for their contribution to the development of small and medium-sized businesses and the honorary badge of OPORA RUSSIA.
Commenting on the results of the meeting, Alexander Brechalov noted:
“When you evaluate the achievements of OPORA RUSSIA over ten years, the first thing that comes to mind is the unique experience of interaction. This experience has been most successful with the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, one of the pillars of the state's law enforcement system.
What is the secret of relationships? In my opinion, it’s simply a human factor. The Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, Yuri Chaika, and in particular the First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, Alexander Buksman, rely in their work not in words, but in deeds, on the opinion of the business community. The result of such work is tens of thousands of appeals to the bureau for the protection of the rights of entrepreneurs OPORA RUSSIA. The lion's share of appeals is resolved in favor of entrepreneurs. And this means thousands of saved enterprises, tens of thousands of jobs, tens of millions of rubles in taxes, and, most importantly, participation in the specific destinies of people. Needless to say, as President of OPORA RUSSIA I will support the established format of our interaction.”
Source: Informational portal SUPPORTS OF RUSSIA
***

Letter from the First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation A.E. Buksman
Published 12/18/2009 12:10
Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation V.P. Lukin
Dear Vladimir Petrovich!
The General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation has considered your request for information on the results of an audit of the implementation of legislation on the protection of the rights of people with disabilities to the unhindered use of railway, air and water transport.
During this inspection, the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation and transport prosecutors, in the exercise of supervisory powers in the field of protecting the rights of people with disabilities to the unhindered use of railway, air, sea and inland waterway transport, identified numerous violations of the requirements of Art. 15 of the Federal Law of November 24, 1995 No. 181-FZ “On the social protection of disabled people in the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as the Law).
Most violations are associated with improper equipment of infrastructure facilities of the above types of transport.
Contrary to the requirements of the Law, building codes and regulations 01/35/2001 “Accessibility of buildings and structures for people with limited mobility”, put into effect by Resolution of the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Construction and Housing and Communal Sector dated 07/16/2001 No. 73, and other regulatory documents Many engineering, transport and social infrastructure facilities have not created conditions to ensure their accessibility for people with disabilities.
The most typical violations are the lack of equipment for unhindered access of passengers of this category to platforms, buildings and premises of stations, airports, sea and river ports, boarding and disembarking trains, airplanes, sea and river vessels, lack of accessible ticket offices, telephones, bathrooms.
The management of most railway transport enterprises does not provide conditions for unhindered use by the category of passengers with limited mobility. Violations of the norms and rules for equipment of facilities of this type of transport are, to one degree or another, widespread almost everywhere.
Thus, the railway stations of the Paveletsky direction of the Moscow Railway (hereinafter referred to as the Moscow Railway) do not have ramps and handrails to ensure the possibility of climbing onto and descending from platforms. At stopping points with low platforms there is no equipment for lifting this category of passengers into and out of the carriage. In connection with the identified violations of the law, the Moscow Interregional Transport Prosecutor's Office submitted a report to the head of the Moscow Railways, and a case was initiated against the legal entity - JSC Russian Railways - for an administrative offense under Art. 9.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in connection with evasion of the requirements for accessibility of engineering, transport and social infrastructure facilities for disabled people. As part of fulfilling the requirements of the prosecutor, work has begun on equipping 8 stations and stopping points in this direction with ramps.
There are numerous obstacles to the use of transport and social infrastructure by disabled people at the Kursky railway station in Moscow. In this regard, the Moscow Interregional Transport Prosecutor's Office sent to the Meshchansky Court of Moscow statement of claim in defense of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of an indefinite number of persons on the obligation of JSC Russian Railways to take measures to bring the station infrastructure into compliance with the requirements of the law.
Similar violations were detected on the East Siberian, Far Eastern, Transbaikal, Krasnoyarsk, Oktyabrsk, Northern, and North Caucasian railways.
Many infrastructure facilities of maritime and inland water transport, sea and river vessels also lack the necessary devices that allow people with disabilities to use these types of transport.
In order to ensure the rights of disabled people, the Far Eastern Transport Prosecutor's Office sent an application to the court to OJSC Korsakov Sea Port to impose the obligation to create conditions for disabled people for the unhindered use of maritime transport. By the decision of the Korsakov City Court, the claims were satisfied in full. The port administration has ensured access for disabled people to its facilities.
The demands of the Southern Transport Prosecutor's Office to declare illegal the inaction of the administration of FSUE "Rosmorport" to build a ramp for unhindered access of wheelchair users to the building of the Sochi marine terminal were satisfied on a voluntary basis.
Violations of the law were detected in the Kostroma river port, river stations cities of Khabarovsk, Ust-Kut, etc.
Unimpeded access for people with disabilities to air transport facilities is not fully ensured.
At Vnukovo and Sheremetyevo airports, there are no special accessible areas for disabled passengers in the waiting rooms, and access to luggage storage, waiting rooms and storage facilities is limited. On these facts, the Moscow Interregional Transport Prosecutor's Office made representations to the management of these airports.
Similar violations took place at airports in the cities of Irkutsk, Orenburg, Perm, Rostov-on-Don, Khabarovsk, Yakutsk, etc.
In total, 504 violations of this legislation were identified in 2008, and 448 in 2009. For all identified violations of the law, transport prosecutors took measures to eliminate them. For this purpose, in 2008 and in the 1st quarter of 2009, 178 submissions were made, 141 statements of claim were sent to the courts, 39 cases of administrative offense were initiated, and warnings were issued to 12 officials.
The foregoing indicates that the measures implemented by the management of transport enterprises are clearly insufficient to resolve the current situation with ensuring unimpeded access for people with disabilities to these and other transport facilities.
Due to the fact that violations of the constitutional rights of citizens are widespread, and the measures taken to eliminate them are not always effective, the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation sent the relevant information to the Minister of Transport of the Russian Federation for taking, within the scope of their competence, effective measures to create conditions for the unhindered use of transport in this area. categories of passengers, development and normative consolidation in transportation rules, transport charters and codes of relevant provisions on ensuring accessibility of transport facilities for people with disabilities.
Work in this area continues and is under the control of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation.
First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation A.E. Buksman

***

The established damage from corruption in 2010 exceeded 12 billion rubles.
03 February 2011
In April of this year, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office will report to the head of state the results of inspections of income declarations of officials. About how the inspection is carried out, about the scale of violations revealed in last year, and the number of criminal cases in an interview with corr. First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Alexander Buksman told ITAR-TASS Alexander Shashkov.
ITAR-TASS: Alexander Emanuilovich, recently the President of Russia instructed the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Federal Tax Service to check the authenticity of income declarations of officials. As is known, the Prosecutor General’s Office has been conducting inspections of civil servants’ compliance with the requirements of the legislation on the state civil service and anti-corruption for several years. What are the results of inspections and what are the most common violations?
Alexander Buksman: The practice of prosecutorial supervision shows that civil servants do not always comply with the prohibitions and restrictions established by the Federal Law of July 27, 2004 “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation.”
In 2010 alone, over 226 thousand violations of federal legislation in the field of anti-corruption were identified, including more than 17 thousand violations of legislation on public service, over 37 thousand people were brought to disciplinary liability, and more than 5.5 thousand to administrative liability.
Moreover, in general, violations of the legislation on civil service from year to year are quite typical character. Thus, cases of civil servants combining service with occupation are common. entrepreneurial activity. Moreover, they often perceive this combination of work as a way of doing business and protection from any pressure or interference.
And although this is a direct violation of the law, their managers often do not show integrity and do not make decisions in accordance with federal law on the termination of service contracts or employment contracts, that is, they actually turn a blind eye to this, which only contributes to such violations.
The problem of conflict of interest is also acute - when state civil servants, in violation of the requirements of the law, do not inform the employer’s representative about their personal interest in the performance of work. job responsibilities, which may lead to a conflict of interest, and accordingly, employers do not take measures to prevent such a conflict. As a rule, civil servants hide facts when their relatives, as well as organizations affiliated with them, carry out commercial activities in the same area.
A vicious practice has developed of concealing or presenting false information about income, property and property-related obligations by civil servants. This is also not regarded by the heads of state bodies as a basis for terminating a service contract on discreditable grounds, although this is required by the law “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation”.
There are also violations of the competitive procedure for filling civil service positions established by law. Citizens are often appointed to positions based on criteria other than those based on the law. The principle of personal loyalty is sometimes put at the forefront, which is convenient and safe for the functioning of existing corruption mechanisms and schemes. Although it should be noted that the number of such violations is decreasing.
ITAR-TASS: A separate topic in the fight against corruption has become the issue of violations in public procurement...
Alexander Buksman: The practice of prosecutorial supervision confirms that the areas of distribution and expenditure are most susceptible to corruption budget funds, including when purchasing products for state and municipal needs. An analysis of violations identified in the field of procurement shows that, to their own advantage, unscrupulous officials, when purchasing products, violate the legally established principles of transparency of such procedures, which entails limiting competition and including the amount of illegal remuneration in the final cost of products. In addition, when holding competitions, competition participants take advantage of gaps and imperfections in procurement legislation.
Thus, in 2010, over 32 thousand corruption violations were identified in this area.
ITAR-TASS: Returning to the topic of income declarations of officials - how often are hidden assets revealed during prosecutorial checks? What can such violators face?
Alexander Buksman: Indeed, there are facts of civil servants providing unreliable and incomplete information about income, property and property-related obligations. Thus, real estate objects owned and used are not always indicated, the reasons for using the premises for living are not reflected, and received in reporting period income and other property.
In accordance with the Regulations on the provision by citizens applying for positions in the federal civil service and federal civil servants of information on income, property and liabilities of a property nature, approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 18, 2009, in case of failure to provide or provision of knowingly false information a citizen cannot be appointed to a position in the state civil service, and a civil servant is dismissed from a position in the civil service or is subject to other types of disciplinary liability.
Prosecutors are working to implement the provisions of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of September 21, 2009 “On verifying the accuracy and completeness of information provided by citizens applying for positions in the federal civil service and by federal civil servants, and compliance by federal civil servants with requirements for official conduct.” . For example, the prosecutor's office of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District sent information to the governor about checking the accuracy and completeness of information on income, property and property obligations, compliance with established prohibitions and restrictions by one of the heads of the department of science and innovation of the district. Despite the income this official received in 2008 in the amount of almost 3.8 million rubles, within 3 months he opened accounts in commercial banks totaling almost 8 million rubles, and purchased an apartment in the Krasnodar Territory. Based on the results of the audit, the fact of providing false information about income received was established, and therefore the specified person was brought to disciplinary liability.
Cases of failure by state and municipal employees to provide information about the income and property of their family members have also been identified. Thus, the prosecutor's office of the Yaroslavl region established the fact of failure to provide such information in relation to the wife by the acting director of the Department of Industry, Entrepreneurship, Consumer Market and Tourism of the Yaroslavl Region. In order to eliminate violations of the law, the regional prosecutor made a submission to the governor of the Yaroslavl region.
ITAR-TASS: How will information about the income of civil servants and their compliance with restrictions and prohibitions be verified?
Alexander Buksman: In January of this year, the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev to senior officials of the constituent entities of the Federation, heads of federal bodies executive power, other federal government bodies have been instructed to take measures to intensify the work of units for the prevention of corruption and other offenses of personnel services of government bodies and to increase the efficiency of the activities of commissions to comply with the requirements for official conduct of state / municipal / employees and resolve conflicts of interest. And for each case of identified violation of the legislation on civil service and anti-corruption, apply the measures provided for by law to civil servants, up to and including dismissal.
At the same time, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Yuri Chaika was instructed by the President to carry out, together with the units for the prevention of corruption and other offenses of the personnel services of state bodies with the involvement of the Federal Tax Service of Russia, an audit of the implementation of legislation on civil service and anti-corruption in terms of the provision of complete and reliable information on income and property and property obligations.
During such inspections, special attention will be paid to the provision of such information by employees of the internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation, military personnel, state civil servants of health and social protection bodies, persons holding government positions in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, positions in the state civil service of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as persons , filling positions of heads of municipalities, municipal positions and positions of municipal service. The results of this work will be reported to the President by April 15 of this year.
ITAR-TASS: Please tell us what are the results of the fight against corruption crimes over the past year?
Alexander Buksman: In January-December 2010, over 38 thousand crimes against state power, interests of public service and service in local governments.
I want to emphasize that law enforcement agencies are primarily focused on identifying corruption crimes committed on a large and especially large scale. And this is already producing results. In 2010, 12 percent more such illegal acts were detected.
About 13 thousand crimes related to bribery have been registered. By the way, it is gratifying that the ratio of cases of receiving and giving a bribe has changed. If in previous years the indicators of the bodies carrying out operational investigative activities were mostly based on the number of identified so-called “everyday” bribes to doctors, traffic police officers, and teachers, now in the structure of bribery the majority are made up of criminal cases specifically about the receipt of bribes.
Probably, the decrease in the total number of detected corruption crimes was also reflected in the gradual change in the criteria for the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies. Priority is given to areas of operational work to identify and suppress the most significant illegal acts committed on a systematic basis on a large and especially large scale, as part of criminal groups and criminal communities. This is evidenced by an increase in the proportion of detected crimes committed on a large or especially large scale, an increase in the average size of a bribe and commercial bribery. Last year, 14 percent more bribes were detected in large (over 150 thousand rubles) and especially large amounts.
Measures are being taken to intensify operational work to identify facts of corruption on the part of heads of state authorities and local self-government. Thus, the criminal activities of high-ranking corrupt officials were stopped: the Minister of Health of the Kaliningrad Region, the Ministers of Culture and Urban Development Perm region, Minister of Finance of the Moscow Region and his deputy, and a number of other persons.
ITAR-TASS: Is there any data on the scale of damage from corruption?
Alexander Buksman: The amount of damage for which charges were brought in 2010 in all criminal cases of corruption crimes exceeds 12 billion rubles. Moreover, the amount of damage compensated at the preliminary investigation stage (that is, before the case is sent to court) amounts to more than 2 billion rubles.
ITAR-TASS: And yet, what articles of the Criminal Code can be classified as corruption?
Alexander Buksman: The General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, together with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, the Federal Drug Control Service, the Federal Customs Service and with the participation of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, have developed criteria for classifying crimes as corruption, and also developed a list of criminal acts in this category.
Based on the results of the work of the General Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, on April 30, 2010, a joint instruction was issued “On introducing amendments to the Lists of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation used in the formation statistical reporting". The list of articles is supplemented by a list of 23 corruption-related crimes. The publication of this organizational and administrative document allows us to obtain comparable performance indicators for each of the law enforcement agencies and is intended to facilitate more accurate planning and subsequent assessment of the effectiveness of ongoing anti-corruption measures.

***
Participation in the program “Morning of Russia” (TV channel “Russia-1”) by First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation A.E. Buksman
August 19, 2010
First Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia Alexander Buksman spoke about what needs to be done to make the fight against corruption in our country effective, and what measures need to be taken first of all, on the air of “Morning of Russia”.
According to Buksman, in first place in terms of the level of corruption is the state apparatus, both at the federal and regional levels. On the second - traffic police officers. Next come the operational services employees. Then the military registration and enlistment offices and customs. And only in seventh place are the prosecutor's office and courts.
“Unfortunately, we still do not have a law on control over expenses,” notes the first deputy prosecutor general. “This would be the end point and a serious lever in combating corruption. In the meantime, in any case, turn out everything you have and let the people decide. Unfortunately, in our country public opinion does not play such a role as in the West. But we will get there."
“It’s not easy to investigate and solve these crimes. It’s just to catch a doctor or a teacher. And it’s not easy to uncover serious corruption. There’s not enough professionalism, there’s not enough experience. This is also a problem. But in general, the essence of the anti-corruption law and the work that is being done in the country is not The point is to put everyone in jail, but to warn, to show that the state is watching, the state knows. That is, to warn,” concludes Alexander Buksman.

***

In the past year, Russia failed to implement only two of the 26 recommendations of the Group of Countries against Corruption
January 31, 2011
Alexander Buksman, the first deputy prosecutor general of Russia, spoke in detail about how Russia is implementing the recommendations of the Group of Countries Against Corruption (GRECO), what problems it faces, and what steps it plans to take in the near future.
Interfax: Alexander Emanuilovich, when and why was the GRECO group created, what is its role in the fight against corruption?
Alexander Buksman: GRECO was created in May 1999 to implement international legal documents in the field of anti-corruption developed by the Council of Europe. The most important of these documents are the Council of Europe Conventions on criminal liability for corruption (dated 27.01.1999) and on civil liability for corruption (dated 04.11.1999). Initially, GRECO included 17 member states of the Council of Europe. Now there are already 49 of them (48 European countries and the USA), with the 48th member (San Marino) joining GRECO on August 13, 2010, and the 49th (Belarus) at the end of last year.
GRECO helps identify shortcomings in national anti-corruption policies and encourages states to undertake necessary legislative, institutional and practical reforms. It also provides a forum for the exchange of best practices in the prevention and detection of corruption. To achieve these goals, GRECO monitors the policies pursued by its member countries in the field of anti-corruption, during which it assesses their compliance with the anti-corruption standards of the Council of Europe and makes recommendations to eliminate identified shortcomings. The mechanism of GRECO's work is to conduct mutual expert assessments with country visits to substantively study the situation with corruption in the assessed country and the features of the system for organizing counteraction to it.
GRECO's work is divided into thematic cycles or so-called assessment rounds. Within each of them, a specific block of questions is examined.
The subject of analysis of the first round of assessment is various aspects of the activities of the country's specialized bodies involved in the prevention and suppression of corruption (independence of these bodies, their competence, adequacy of resource and other support, efficiency of work), as well as questions of the validity and scope of granting certain categories of officials immunity from criminal charges. persecution.
As part of the second round, the features of national legislation and law enforcement practice are assessed on the issues of identifying, seizing and confiscating income and other property derived from corruption, preventing corruption in the system government controlled, responsibility legal entities for corruption crimes committed in their interests.
The third round is devoted to issues of the state’s criminal legal policy (peculiarities of criminalization in the national criminal legislation of specific types of corruption) and transparency of financing political parties.
Each assessment round is designed for a specific period. So the first round was designed for 2000-2002, the second - 2003-2006, and the third was launched in January 2007 and is still ongoing. A country that joins GRECO after the end of the specified periods goes through all of the listed assessment rounds, only in a more accelerated manner. Membership of GRECO is not limited to member countries of the Council of Europe. It is automatically granted to a state that has ratified one of the listed conventions of the Council of Europe.
Interfax: When did Russia join GRECO, and how did it go through the assessment rounds provided for by this organization?
Alexander Buksman: After ratifying the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption in 2006 and joining the Group of States against Corruption in February 2007, Russia underwent a combined first and second round of GRECO assessments, which were carried out in 2008.
Based on their results, 26 recommendations were made to Russia aimed at improving legislation and law enforcement practice in order to bring them into line with European anti-corruption standards. Thus, Russia found itself in a difficult position when it was necessary to quickly implement measures to implement 26 GRECO recommendations, while the vast majority of GRECO member countries were addressed with no more than 10-15 recommendations. In addition, Russia did not use the right to make reservations when ratifying the Convention (this right was used by a number of countries: Andorra, Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland, France, etc.). Therefore, we are forced to implement all its provisions unconditionally.
In 2009, by decision of the President of the Russian Federation, interaction with GRECO was entrusted to the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia. Previously, the lead agency that carried out such interaction was the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. On behalf of the Presidium of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Combating Corruption dated July 23, 2009, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation issued Order No. 282 dated August 26, 2009 “On organizing work to implement the recommendations of the Group of States against Corruption,” which determined the deadlines for completing the necessary activities and responsible persons, and the composition of the interdepartmental working group on the implementation of GRECO recommendations was approved.
Many of GRECO's recommendations were conceptual in nature and suggested the implementation of fairly deep reforms in various areas of public administration. According to GRECO rules and procedures, only 18 months were allotted for their implementation.
Interfax: What was required from Russia?
Alexander Buksman: Russia was ordered to reduce the degree and scope of immunities of certain categories of officials from criminal prosecution; extend anti-corruption reforms in public administration to a wide range of public sector employees, and not just government civil servants; legislatively regulate issues related to the settlement of conflicts of interest in the public service, and ensure their implementation in practice (recommendations XI, XII, XVI, XX, etc.).
Despite the limited time frame, a lot was accomplished, which ensured that GRECO gave a fairly high assessment of the efforts made by Russia to implement the recommendations made. This was achieved to a large extent due to the fact that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev personally gave priority to the implementation of GRECO recommendations.
All activities were carried out by us in close contact with the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation. For example, according to Recommendation I, Russia was to develop, on the basis of the National Anti-Corruption Plan, a comprehensive national anti-corruption strategy covering the federal, regional and local levels; according to recommendation II, to ensure wider representation in the Anti-Corruption Council under the President of the Russian Federation in order to better take into account the interests of the regions and civil society.
The full implementation of these recommendations was facilitated by the adoption by the President of the Russian Federation of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and new edition The National Anti-Corruption Plan for 2010-2011, as well as the inclusion, by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation, of representatives of civil society in the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Combating Corruption.
Directly, the Prosecutor General's Office has fully implemented recommendations aimed at: improving the coordination of the activities of law enforcement agencies in the field of combating corruption (recommendation VI); improving the recruitment procedure for prosecutors at all levels based on objective criteria (VIII); encouraging auditors and other persons professionally engaged in the provision of consulting and legal services to inform authorized bodies of suspicions of corruption (XXVI).
The work received a positive assessment Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, the Federal Tax Service to carry out activities within their competence to implement GRECO recommendations. With their participation, recommendations aimed at ensuring systematic training of judges on issues of judicial ethics, as well as the use of confiscation and interim measures in cases of corruption crimes (X and XV); development of the necessary methodological basis for the application in practice of new simplified procedures for depriving immunity of certain categories of officials (XII); provision of special training for tax authorities on the identification of corruption offenses (XXV).
Ministry of Health and social development on the initiative of the Prosecutor General's Office, a Model Code of Ethics was developed in a short time and official behavior civil servants. This made it possible to partially implement recommendation XXIII. Its full implementation will be facilitated by the approval of the code at the last meeting of the Presidium of the Anti-Corruption Council under the President of the Russian Federation and the instruction adopted at it for the relevant government bodies to approve their own internal departmental codes of ethics on the basis of this code.
At the initiative of the Prosecutor General's Office, the resolution of the Meeting of Representatives of Notary Chambers of the Subjects of the Russian Federation dated November 19, 2009 established provisions obliging notaries to inform the competent state bodies about the known facts corruption offences. On November 30, 2009, the Council of the Audit Chamber of Russia made a decision, when developing new regulatory legal acts and amending existing documents, to include provisions obliging auditors to report to law enforcement agencies about all facts of corruption violations, to ensure the development of effective measures for interaction between the Audit Chamber and its regional branches and branches with the prosecutor's office, provide for the participation of representatives of the prosecutor's office in meetings of the Council and the General Meeting of the Audit Chamber, at which they would have the opportunity to express their proposals on improving work in the field of anti-corruption.
Interfax: How did Russia report in 2010 on meeting GRECO requirements, what was recommended to us?
Alexander Buksman: The Prosecutor General's Office prepared a draft report of the Russian Federation on the implementation of GRECO recommendations, which was approved by the Presidium of the Anti-Corruption Council under the President of the Russian Federation and submitted to the Council of Europe on June 30, 2010. Based on the results of summarizing the information we presented, according to the initial assessment of the GRECO secretariat, 7 recommendations were considered fully implemented, 5 unrealized, and 14 partially implemented. Such an assessment is typical for GRECO member countries that underwent a combined first and second round of assessment.
However, in order to improve Russia’s rating, some recommendations were taken additional measures, based on their results, relevant information is provided to GRECO.
The GRECO plenary meeting, at which the report on the Russian Federation’s implementation of recommendations based on the results of the first and second rounds of GRECO assessment was adopted, took place from November 29 to December 2, 2010 in Strasbourg (France). Russia’s defense of this report as a whole should be considered successful. Upon review, it was possible to achieve an unprecedented rating increase for GRECO practice on 6 recommendations (compared to the initial draft of the report). Of these, two have been raised to the level of fully realized, 4 - partially realized. Thus, Russia is credited with complete implementation of 9 recommendations, partial implementation of 15 recommendations, and only 2 recommendations not implemented.
The GRECO Secretariat, speakers and participants of the meeting recognized that Russia has launched and carried out large-scale work to implement GRECO recommendations, and is rapidly taking consistent conceptual measures to prevent and suppress corruption, the completion of which in the one and a half year period allotted to the country is objectively very difficult. A report on the Russian Federation’s implementation of GRECO recommendations based on the results of the first and second rounds of assessment (in English) has already been published on the GRECO website on the Internet. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has carried out an official translation of this report into Russian and in the near future it will be available to the Russian reader.
Interfax: Which recommendations are assessed as partially implemented and what needs to be done to fully implement them?
Alexander Buksman: The recommendations are assessed as partially implemented, mainly with reference to the fact that the measures taken in accordance with them, due to their relative novelty and insufficient testing in practice, are difficult to evaluate for effectiveness.
For most of these GRECO recommendations, it is noted that it is necessary not only to ensure the availability of appropriate regulatory instruments (which we mostly have), but also to achieve its full and effective application in practice.
Yes, a recommendation XVII Russia it is prescribed, in addition to the adoption of legislation on access to information about the activities of government bodies, to implement necessary measures to ensure its implementation within the entire public administration system, including proper control over its implementation. GRECO recognized that the adoption of federal laws of February 9, 2009 No. 8-FZ “On ensuring access to information on the activities of state bodies and local governments” (came into force on January 1, 2010) and of December 22, 2008 No. 262-FZ “On ensuring access to information about the activities of courts in the Russian Federation” (came into force on July 1, 2010) ensures the implementation of the first part of this recommendation.
Meanwhile, GRECO noted that “the adoption of legislation should be followed by a phase of its implementation, which requires extensive training of employees of the entire public administration system at all levels,” and on this basis the recommendation was recognized as partially implemented.
To fully implement a number of recommendations (XI, XIV, XXI, etc.), it is necessary to continue work on amending the legislation of the Russian Federation. In particular, it is necessary to complete the adjustment of legislation in order to eliminate the legal basis contained in Article 575 of the Civil Code (Civil Code) of the Russian Federation for the acceptance of gifts by civil servants in connection with the official powers they exercise; ensuring confiscation of proceeds from all corruption crimes; additional reduction of the circle of persons in relation to whom a special procedure for criminal proceedings is applied.
The relevant bills were prepared in a timely manner, but the work to agree on them and submit them to Parliament, unfortunately, requires more time than the GRECO rules and procedures allow for the implementation of recommendations. In general, this is typical for all countries that implement GRECO recommendations, and not just for Russia. At one of the GRECO plenary meetings in 2010, in this regard, the issue was discussed that the established period of one and a half years for the implementation of GRECO recommendations does not always allow countries to adopt the necessary legislative changes, since the legislative process usually takes a longer period.
Based on the results of the discussion of this issue, GRECO decided to amend the rules and procedures to allow the country's approach to implementing such recommendations to be recognized as satisfactory even if all activities have not been fully completed, if the country has taken the necessary and sufficient measures for this.
Some recommendations will require additional organizational measures to be completed. Thus, to implement recommendation III, a mechanism was introduced to monitor the practical results of anti-corruption measures taken in various areas, including changes in the level of corruption in them over time. At the same time, GRECO points out the need to ensure the participation of civil society in this process and to provide the opportunity for its representatives to express their opinions on the monitoring results. We believe that the full implementation of this recommendation can be achieved when all the mechanisms launched in the middle of last year for connecting the potential of civil society to the problem of combating corruption are fully operational. Specifically to ensure that civil society has the opportunity to make its contribution to the activities of the Anti-Corruption Council, a working group on interaction with civil society structures has been formed under the Presidium of the Council, the leadership of which has been entrusted to the Minister of Justice of the Russian Federation. It includes a number of representatives of non-governmental organizations in the field of anti-corruption, as well as prominent independent scientists and experts.
Interfax: Which recommendations are considered unfulfilled and why? Are they planned to be implemented and how?
Alexander Buksman: Only two recommendations were recognized as unfulfilled, related to the need to revise the system of administrative and criminal processes in order to ensure that facts of corruption are considered primarily as crimes (IV), and to establish the liability of legal entities for corruption offenses (XXIV). However, it cannot be said that Russia has not taken any measures to implement them. It’s just that in this case, our vision of how to implement these recommendations did not coincide with the opinion of GRECO experts.
In the first case, the negative assessment from GRECO is largely due to the fact that when the Russian side sent information in 2008 (during the first and second rounds of assessment), a number of compounds were erroneously declared as corrupt administrative offenses, in fact, not related to those. For example, the category of corruption includes offenses during the preparation and conduct of elections and referendums (Articles 5.2, 5.5-5.13, 5.15-5.25 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation), restriction of competition (Article 14.9 of the Administrative Code); violation of deadlines for consideration of applications (petitions) for the provision of land plots or water bodies(Article 19.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses), etc. As a result, GRECO experts formed a not entirely correct idea about the existence of the alleged parallel systems(administrative and criminal proceedings), creating opportunities for abuse, for example, in order to divert perpetrators from criminal prosecution.
Reporting on the implementation of this recommendation, Russia indicated that the definition of corruption contained in Article 1 of the Federal Law of December 25, 2008 “On Combating Corruption” includes the names of specific articles of the Criminal Code, that is, it lists acts for which the legislation of the Russian Federation has established only criminal liability. The only type of corruption offense for which administrative liability is provided is illegal remuneration on behalf of a legal entity - Article 19.28 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Moreover, we have clearly demonstrated that in Russian legislation there is a clear division between the elements of administrative offenses and crimes, and that for all acts listed in the Convention on Criminal Liability for Corruption, only criminal liability is established (without duplicate articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses). These arguments, as well as references to previous GRECO decisions on similar situations (in particular, the report on Ukraine), where the score was higher than that given to Russia, made it possible to attract to our side a number of countries with a similar legal system (Bulgaria, Armenia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan , Latvia, etc.). The position of the opponents, mainly represented by Western countries with other legal traditions, including those based on the system of so-called “common law” (Great Britain, Norway, the Netherlands, France, Germany), was that they do not understand our legal system, and the introduction of a definition of corruption into the said law is not enough to solve the situation described in the report, which preceded the making of the corresponding recommendation.
This issue was put to a vote, which revealed a significant advantage in favor of the Russian position (18 votes to 13). However, it was not enough to overcome the conclusion on this recommendation contained in the report, since according to GRECO rules and procedures, such a majority must be at least 2/3 of the votes of the voting quorum (at least half of all GRECO members). At the GRECO meeting, a proposal was made to explicitly indicate Federal law“On Combating Corruption” means that manifestations of corruption will be primarily considered crimes.
In the second case, it was not possible to convince GRECO that the introduction of Article 19.28 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (illegal remuneration on behalf of a legal entity) allows it to implement the corresponding recommendation. On this issue, the Russian side cited examples developed in the practice of the prosecutor's office, when the head of an organization was brought to criminal liability under Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for giving a bribe (in order to obtain illegal benefits for his organization), and the organization itself was brought to administrative liability under Article 19.28 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
The main observation is the absence in the law of a clear link between the administrative liability of legal entities and the commission of corruption crimes by their employees. To implement this recommendation, GRECO experts pointed out the need in the disposition and title of Article 19.28 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation to make references to the crimes provided for in Articles 291 (bribe-giving) and 201 (commercial bribery) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Interfax: What measures are planned to be taken upon completion of the implementation of the remaining GRECO recommendations, and what are the general prospects for further interaction with this organization?
Alexander Buksman: The results of consideration of the report on Russia’s implementation of GRECO recommendations were discussed on December 23, 2010 at a meeting of the presidium of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Combating Corruption. In pursuance of the instructions given following its results, the Prosecutor General's Office, in cooperation with interested ministries and departments, is working to prepare a draft plan of additional measures aimed at implementing GRECO recommendations, in respect of which international experts concluded that they were not fully implemented. The said draft plan will be submitted by the Prosecutor General's Office to the Presidium of the Council by February 10, 2011.
18 months are allotted for additional activities. Accordingly, Russia must report on their implementation by June 30, 2012. In addition, this year the third round of GRECO assessment will be carried out in relation to the Russian Federation, which includes two topics - criminalization and transparency of the financing of political parties. Preparations for this important event are currently underway.
However, one should not assume that Russia, in the process of interaction with GRECO, acts only as an object of assessment. We actively participate not only in assessments carried out by this organization in relation to other countries (for example, Russian experts assessed Spain, Andorra, Austria), but also in determining the future fate of this organization, promising directions its development.
In 2011, it is planned to complete the development of the fourth round of GRECO assessment, dedicated to the prevention of corruption in parliamentary assemblies, in the judicial system, among other participants in pre-trial and judicial proceedings. A representative of Russia is included in a specially created working group from among representatives of 12 countries to prepare the tools for the fourth round. Russia objectively could not take part in the development of the topics and methodology for conducting previous rounds of GRECO assessment. She was forced to follow the rules of the game that were established before she joined this organization. Now we are an active player on this international platform and our voice is heard more and more clearly.

First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Alexander Buksman and his young wife, Rector of the State Enterprise Academy Oksana Kapinus, do not want to pay rent for luxury housing

In the center of Moscow, in the prestigious residential complex “Italian Quarter”, a communal scandal broke out, involving high-ranking officials of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. The owner of one of the apartments, a certain pensioner Taraskina, is writing complaints about the management company of the Service Group residential complex, not wanting to pay bills for the maintenance of luxury housing. At the same time, the office of this company is being shaken by countless inspections by supervisory authorities and even searches. And this is not surprising, because the real owner of the apartment is the rector of the Academy of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation Oksana Kapinus, who has recently been married to the first deputy prosecutor general Alexander Buksman.

The subject of the communal squabble was the payment for the maintenance of an immodest apartment with an area of ​​176.6 square meters. m. and worth 62.8 million rubles, located in a prestigious “club” house on the street. Fadeeva, 4a. The house is located just two kilometers from the Kremlin; it is inhabited by pop stars, politicians, successful businessmen and other representatives of the non-poor, frankly speaking, sections of the population, as well as prosecutor Oksana Kapinus - just in the mentioned apartment No. 124. Another tenant of this apartment, according to neighbors, not so long ago was Alexander Buksman, the First Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia.

However, none of them has any formal relation to luxury housing. The owner of the apartment, according to the state real estate register, is a simple Russian pensioner, Nelly Vasilievna Taraskina, 81 years old. Moreover, until 2017, she was also listed as the owner of another apartment No. 50 in the same building with an area of ​​145.6 square meters. m and cost 62.2 million rubles, as well as four parking spaces in the underground garage, the market price of which is more than 10 million. In total, it turns out that the grandmother owned cool capital real estate worth a total of over 135 million rubles!

In general, this is not the most exceptional situation for Moscow: everyone knows that, starting from the 90s, the standard of living of the capital’s grandmothers has been steadily growing. Not all of them, of course, but mainly those whose children and grandchildren were involved in government positions. And Madame Taraskina is a representative of just this happy circle: Oksana Kapinus is her own granddaughter.

In official sources, Oksana Sergeevna Kapinus is presented as a Doctor of Law, professor, rector of the Academy of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, state counselor of justice 2nd class and an honorary employee of the prosecutor's office.

But Oksana Kapinus has another, less public, hypostasis: she is the wife of Alexander Buksman, person No. 2 in the prosecutor’s hierarchy.

Rumors about the close relationship between Kapinus and Buksman have been circulating on the sidelines of the department for a long time. Over the past year and a half, they have been constantly seen together at all sorts of official and semi-social events, as well as on various trips. The wedding of two high-ranking prosecutors took place in October last year, in the strictest secrecy. But, as you know, love affair at work- this is such an awl that you cannot hide in any office “bag”, even if we are talking about the offices of the Prosecutor General’s Office. And the impartial search engine “Yandex”, when requesting “Kapinus Booksman” in the first line gives an auto hint: “Kapinus Booksman wedding”. This means that the formal owner of the apartments in the “Italian Quarter” can already be considered the common grandmother of the prosecutors.

In general, we must pay tribute to Oksana Kapinus’s ability to find at the right time the right men. The rector of the Academy is only 39 years old, and, according to many colleagues, she made her rapid career not least thanks to this quality and bright appearance.

Ivchenko Oksana Sergeevna once changed her maiden name to her surname ex-husband Nikolai Kapinus, also from a prosecutorial background, ex-head of the central department of the Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision (Rostechnazdor), currently heading the Academy of the National Association of Builders (NOSTROY). It is noteworthy that soon after Kapinus left Rostekhnadzor in 2014, his post with the prefix “acting” was taken by a man also named Ivchenko - Vladimir, who was called in the press “a very close relative” of Oksana Kapinus. Vladimir Ivchenko ended his short career at Rostekhnadzor in the dock: he was accused of inflicting bribes from controlled organizations in the Central Federal District. However, “connections with the Prosecutor General’s Office,” as journalists observing the process noted, allowed Ivchenko to avoid a real sentence. In May 2017, he was released from the pre-trial detention center after the expiration of the investigation, which was clearly artificially prolonged by someone “at the top.”

This story did not affect Oksana Kapinus’s career in any way - she still heads the Academy - but her personal life, apparently, has changed dramatically: last year the Kapinus couple divorced. However, Nikolai Kapinus is 22 years old older than Oksana, so to consider their union a marriage of love was initially naive. But, one way or another, this marriage broke up.

Moreover, if at first there were rumors about a divorce, then later these rumors received quite significant confirmation: in 2017, apartment No. 50 in the building on the street. Fadeeva 4a was re-registered as the property of citizen Kapinus N.I. That is, the former spouses quietly and civilly divided the property, and only one of the two elite apartments remained in the ownership of Oksana Kapinus (more precisely, her grandmother).

Let's return to communal history.

Having purchased two luxury apartments in 2014, prosecutor Kapinus apparently decided that she was exempt from all further expenses for life. And I simply didn’t pay my monthly utility bills; but I must say, these bills, taking into account the square footage of these apartments, were rather large: on average, 23 thousand rubles per month for apartment number 50 plus 30 thousand rubles. - for apartment number 124.

When the debt for utility services provided reached 373 thousand rubles, the management company Service Group reasonably applied to the court to collect this debt. And in August last year, the Tverskoy Court of Moscow, of course, recognized the correctness of the Criminal Code, obliging the nominal owner - citizen Taraskina - to repay the debt in full.

Oksana Kapinus had no choice but to pay off the accumulated debt, but, interestingly, it was not she personally, or even her grandmother, who did this, but a certain employee of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Central Administrative District of Moscow, Alexander Vladimirovich Gilev. As an individual, that is, from personal funds, which is confirmed by the Sberbank receipt provided to the management company.

One can easily imagine the pressure put on the police officers of the Central Administrative District by the prosecutor. Carrying out the categorical instructions of the newlywed Buksman, the capital’s prosecutors, in turn, put pressure on the district security forces closest to the conflict: to “attack” the management company under any pretext! When there were no pretexts left, and even the court sided with the utility workers, the deputy head of the Internal Affairs Directorate Gilev had no choice but to personally pay off the debts of the prosecutor’s couple. In order not to aggravate the situation, not to prolong the squabble, and finally return to their direct responsibilities: maintaining law and order in the entrusted territory.

However, the prosecutor couple Kapinus and Buksman simply could not leave it like that, and now, signed by the 81-year-old homeowner, a letter is sent to the Tverskaya Interdistrict Prosecutor's Office of Moscow with a request to check the legality of the formation of tariffs for the services of UK Service Group LLC. Needless to say, this letter was compiled according to the highest standards of legal casuistry - not otherwise, the Academy of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation wrote test! In parallel, this appeal is sent to the Moscow Housing Inspectorate and law enforcement agencies for verification within their competence. That is, the approach is truly professional.

As a result, since September 2017, the management company has already undergone several inspections on the approval of tariffs, methods of managing the facility, holding general meetings of residents, etc. Employees of the Criminal Code were interviewed, documents were confiscated, the entire process took place under the vigilant control of the Tver Interdistrict Prosecutor's Office, and high-ranking officials visited the site one after another. The “Italian Quarter”, in particular, was personally visited by the deputy. Tver interdistrict prosecutor P.F. Kobzarev, assistant to Tver interdistrict prosecutor I.A. Sharshov, deputy. the heads of the district government and two representatives of the Moscow Housing Inspectorate! If only every request from every Moscow pensioner would receive so much attention!..

However, it’s all in vain. The Tver Interdistrict Prosecutor's Office was forced to state and report to the Prosecutor General's Office that no violations were identified, the tariffs were formed and applied legally.

However, in the Prosecutor General’s Office, citizen Taraskina’s appeal, as you might guess, is under special control, and the order to find at least some “clue,” apparently, was given at the very top. Or more precisely, from the office of Alexander Buksman.

One clue was found. In December 2017, the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Tverskoy district of Moscow (of course, at the urgent request of the Prosecutor General’s Office) opened criminal case No. 11701450019001575 against the management of UK Service Group LLC on the grounds of a crime under Art. 327 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - use of a knowingly forged document. It was discovered that on behalf of a certain citizen G.I. Pistsov, one of the residents of the “Italian Quarter”, a letter was provided to the general meeting of premises owners in 2015 that was not personally signed by Pistsov. However, it later turned out that the letter for Pistsov was signed by his wife, moreover, the vote of one owner at that time constituted only 0.39% of the total number of votes, and therefore could not significantly influence the decision of the meeting, and, finally, this marital “forgery” “was committed already in 2015, which means that a case under this article cannot be initiated due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

But, apparently, it’s too early for the management company’s employees to relax. They, as we already understand, are opposed by truly heavy artillery. It is not clear how this communal history is combined with the honor of the prosecutor's uniforms that both Oksana Kappius and her new betrothed Alexander Buksman wear.

But it is clear why the fight against corruption in Russia is, to put it mildly, stalled. Because the top ranks of the Prosecutor General’s Office have other, much more important concerns: they need to reduce payments for the maintenance of their luxury real estate at any cost.

Sergey Sobolev

First Deputy
Prosecutor General
Russian Federation

Born in 1951 in the Shakhunsky district of the Gorky region. In 1976 he graduated from Sverdlovsk law school majoring in "Jurisprudence".

1968-1969 – truck weigher, worker at the Uritsky grain collection point, Uritsky township, Kustanai region, Kazakh SSR

1969–1969 – concrete worker at the Uritsky plant building materials and structures of the trust "Sovkhozstroy" No. 13, Uritsky town, Kustanai region, Kazakh SSR

1969–1971 – service in the Armed Forces

1972–1972 – electrician of the Northern Administration of Electric Networks, Uritsky town, Kustanai region, Kazakh SSR

1972–1976 – student at the Sverdlovsk Law Institute, Sverdlovsk

1976–1977 – investigator of the prosecutor’s office of the Uspensky district of the Pavlodar region of the Kazakh SSR, p. Uspenka, Pavlodar region, Kazakh SSR

1977–1979 – investigator of the prosecutor’s office of the Ilyichevsky district of Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR, Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR

1979–1981 – assistant prosecutor of the Pavlodar region of the Kazakh SSR, Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR

1981–1982 – Deputy Prosecutor of the city of Ekibastuz, Kazakh SSR, city of Ekibastuz, Kazakh SSR

1982–1984 – Deputy Head of the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Pavlodar Region of the Kazakh SSR, Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR

1984–1987 – Head of the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Pavlodar Region of the Kazakh SSR, Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR

1987–1987 – prosecutor of the Industrial district of Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR, Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR

1987–1988 – senior investigator of the prosecutor's office of the city of Kustanay, Kazakh SSR, city of Kustanay, Kazakh SSR

1988–1989 – deputy prosecutor of the city of Kustanay, Kazakh SSR, city of Kustanay, Kazakh SSR

1989–1991 – head of the investigative unit - deputy head of the investigative department of the prosecutor's office of the Kazakh SSR, Alma-Ata, Kazakh SSR

1991–1993 – Deputy Prosecutor of the Kazakh SSR, Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan

1993–1994 – prosecutor of Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan

1994–1995 – Deputy Butyrsky Interdistrict Prosecutor of Moscow, Moscow

1995–1996 – First Deputy Prosecutor of the North-Eastern Administrative District of Moscow, Moscow

1996–2001 – prosecutor of the Central Administrative District of Moscow, Moscow

2001–2005 – Head of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for Moscow, Moscow

2005–2006 – Head of the Main Directorate of the Federal Registration Service for Moscow – Chief State Registrar of Moscow, Moscow

2006–present – First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, Moscow.

For strengthening law and order, he was repeatedly encouraged and awarded state and departmental awards.

State Counselor of Justice 1st class.

Buksman Alexander Emanuilovich (born September 15, 1951, Shakhunsky district, Gorky region, RSFSR, USSR) - First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (since 2006), honorary employee of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, State Counselor of Justice 1st class.

In 1968-1969 he worked as a weigher at the Uritsky grain collection point (Kazakh SSR), and then as a concrete worker at the Uritsky plant of building materials and structures of the Sovkhozstroy trust. In 1969-1971 it took place conscript service in the Armed Forces of the USSR. After demobilization, he worked for several months as an electrician for the Northern Administration of Electric Networks in the village of Uritsky (Kazakh SSR). In 1976 he graduated from the Sverdlovsk Law Institute with a degree in jurisprudence.

In 1976-1977 - investigator of the prosecutor's office of the Uspensky district of the Pavlodar region of the Kazakh SSR. 1977-1979 - investigator of the prosecutor's office of the Ilyichevsky district of the city of Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR. In 1979-1981 - assistant prosecutor of the Pavlodar region of the Kazakh SSR. In 1981-1982 - Deputy Prosecutor of Ekibastuz, Kazakh SSR. In 1982-1984 - Deputy Head of the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor's Office of the Pavlodar Region of the Kazakh SSR.

In 1984-1987 - head of the investigative department of the prosecutor's office of the Pavlodar region of the Kazakh SSR. In 1987, he became the prosecutor of the Industrial District of Pavlodar, Kazakh SSR. In 1987-1988 - senior investigator of the prosecutor's office of Kustanai, Kazakh SSR. In 1988-1989 - Deputy Prosecutor of Kustanai, Kazakh SSR.

In 1989-1991 - head of the investigative unit - deputy head of the investigative department of the prosecutor's office of the Kazakh SSR. In 1991-1993 - Deputy Prosecutor of the Kazakh SSR and Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In 1993-1994 - prosecutor of the city of Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan.

In 1994-1995 - Deputy Butyrsky Interdistrict Prosecutor of Moscow. In 1995-1996 - First Deputy Prosecutor of the North-Eastern Administrative District of Moscow. In 1996-2001 - prosecutor of the Central Administrative District of Moscow. In 2001-2005 - Head of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. In 2005-2006 - head of the main department of the Federal Registration Service for Moscow - chief state registrar of Moscow. Since 2006 - First Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia.

The prosecutor's office revealed major thefts due to former officials of the Ministry of Education and Science

The Prosecutor General's Office revealed theft in the expenditure of budget funds former leadership Department of Science and Technology of the Ministry of Education and Science. Due to the actions of the ex-head of the department Sergei Salikhov and his subordinates, the budget was shorted by about 127 million rubles, it follows from the letter of the first Deputy Prosecutor General Alexander Buksman to the head of the Ministry of Education and Science Olga Vasilyeva, who asked for an audit.

"Raiders" under the roof of the Prosecutor General's Office?

Two high-profile scandal happened in the Prosecutor General's Office for Lately. Thus, Deputy Prosecutor General Viktor Grin was able to protest the arrest of Interior Ministry employees Farit Temirgaliev and Mikhail Kulikov, who were accused of receiving bribes totaling over $225 thousand, but journalists suspected Deputy Prosecutor General Alexander Buksman of “protecting protection” for raiders in Voronezh region, a correspondent of The Moscow Post was told in opposition circles.