For which in 1981 Yevgeny Prigozhin was tried in the USSR, who is now known to the whole world as “Putin’s cook”. We publish the text of the court document
What Yevgeny Prigozhin was tried for in 1981
In November 2020, businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin filed a lawsuit to protect his honor, dignity and business reputation against Meduza, its editor-in-chief Ivan Kolpakov, editor-in-chief of the Vladimir newspaper Dovod, Ilya Kosygin, and journalist Maxim Shevchenko. The reason for the suit was Shevchenko’s interview published by Dovod , where he said about Prigozhin: “He is a twice convicted felon , one of the articles is the involvement of minors in prostitution”. These words were accompanied by a hyperlink leading to Meduza’s story Evgeny Prigozhin’s Right to Oblivion. What does the restaurateur who served the presidents of Russia want to hide about himself ” ; it came out on June 9, 2016.
Our publication did say that Prigozhin was convicted of “involving minors in prostitution,” which prompted Prigozhin’s claims against Meduza. The version of “involvement in prostitution” was by that time widely disseminated in the media; as the noted author of the investigation, “Rosbalt” about Ilya Prigogine Davlyatchin, “in some of the media and, in principle, [even] Wikipedia was a line that Eugene [Prigogine] was convicted of inciting minors to engage in prostitution.”
In 2018 (two years after the publication of Meduza’s publication), Rosbalt was able to obtain copies of the verdict against Prigozhin from the archives of the Primorsky Court of St. Petersburg (the former court of the Zhdanovsky District of Leningrad – the future businessman was tried there in 1981). The publication was convinced that there was no mention of prostitution there.Advertising
Apparently, the reason for the widespread misconception (which, unfortunately, was included in Meduza’s material) was the wording of Article 210 of the RSFSR Criminal Code , according to which Prigozhin was tried: “Involvement of minors in criminal activities, in begging,prostitution, gambling, as well as the use of minors for the purposes of parasitic existence. ” You can find out exactly what Prigozhin was accused of under this article from the documents: it is about “drunkenness” and “attempted burglary”.
We chose for publication the decision of the cassation instance on the verdict of the Zhdanovsky District Court of Leningrad, not only because it is shorter than the verdict (it takes 200 pages of handwritten text), but also for the sake of objectivity. Indeed, in addition to describing the crimes, it sets out the position of the convicted Prigozhin himself: what he did not agree with in the verdict – and what objections he made.
And now – the document
Case No. I-I75
Narudya Abramov M.S.
Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Leningrad City Court
In the composition: presiding Semenyako E.V.
and members Vishnevskaya L.N., Khokhlov A.A.
considered at the hearing on December 17, 1981 the case on cassation appeals against the verdict of the People’s Court of the Zhdanovsky District of Leningrad on October 6, 1981, according to which the following were convicted:
- Bushman Alexey Vasilievich, born on September 16, 1957, a native of Leningrad, convicted on August 29, 1977 under Art. 144 h. 2 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR to the year of imprisonment, the sentence was served on 11/25/1978; not working, –
sentenced to imprisonment:
under Art. 147 h. 3 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR – for a period of 6 years,
under Art. 144 h. 3 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR – for a period of 5 years,
under Art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR – for a period of 4 years,
under Art. 209 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR – for a period of 1 year,
under Art. 115-1 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR – for a period of 1 year,
under Art. 146 h. 2 p. “A”, “b” of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR on the aggregate of crimes for a period of 11 years with serving a sentence in a correctional labor colony with a strict regime.
- Prigozhin Evgeny Viktorovich, born on June 1, 1961, a native of Leningrad, convicted on 06/29/1979 under Art. 15 and 144 h. 2 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR to 2 years in prison with the application of Art. 24-2 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR –
sentenced to imprisonment:
under Art. 144 h. 2 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR – for a period of 5 years,
under Art. 15 and 144 h. 2 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR – for a period of 4 years,
under Art. 147 h. 3 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR – for a period of 7 years,
under Art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR – for a period of 4 years,
under Art. 146 h. 2 clauses “a”, “b” of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR on the aggregate of crimes for a period of 12 years. By virtue of Art. 41 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, to this punishment, partly in the form of 1 year of imprisonment, an unserved sentence was added by the verdict of 11/29/1979, and finally 13 years of imprisonment were assigned to serve the sentence in a corrective labor colony with a high security regime.
Having heard the report of the member of the court Semenyako E.V., the explanations of the lawyer Deza Yew.N. ( in other documents, the lawyer is called Tezo Y.N., – approx. “Meduza” ) in defense of Prigozhin’s interests and the conclusion of the prosecutor M.N. Shiremina, who believed that the verdict should be left unchanged, the Judicial Collegium
Bushman and Prigogine were found guilty of the following crimes:
March 20, 1980, at about 24 hours at the house 7 on the street. M. Zheleznyak Bushman and Prigozhin, by prior conspiracy between themselves, as well as with the convicted in this case Makeko and Kopaev, a group, with the use of a knife used as a weapon, committed a robbery on citizen Koroleva under the following circumstances:
On March 20, 1980, in the evening, Bushman, Prigozhin, Kopaev and Makeko were at the Ocean restaurant. Leaving the restaurant around 24 hours, they met a previously unknown Queen. Prigogine offered to take away her property. Prigozhin and the others agreed with this ( the document is worded that way – approx. Meduza). Then they caught up with the Queen at the house 7 on the street. M. Zheleznyak, where Prigozhin and Makeko approached the Queen, and Makeko, in order to distract the Queen, asked her for a cigarette. When the Queen opened her purse, Prigozhin grabbed her from behind by the neck and began to strangle her, while Makeko threatened the Queen with a knife and helped pull the Queen away from the road. Prigogine continued to strangle the Queen until she lost consciousness, after which Bushman took off her boots, one of which he handed over to Kopaev, and Prigozhin and Makeko removed the victim’s gold earrings worth 50 rubles. With the stolen property, everyone fled the scene of the crime.
September 28, 1979, at about 8 pm, Bushman from the car “Zaporozhets”, owned by the citizen Veterzon, parked at the house 22 on the street. V. Vishnevsky, secretly stole a woman’s bag with a cosmetic bag, gloves and an umbrella for a total of 114 rubles 50 kopecks.
In the period from 22 to 27 February 1980, Bushman and Prigozhin, having entered apartment 30 of building 24 on McLean Avenue, stole from the room the property of citizen Osipov in the amount of 177 rubles, causing significant material damage to the victim.
March 1, at night, Prigozhin, wishing to enter to commit theft of personal property into apartment 2, building 12 on the street. Ropshinskaya, squeezed out the glass in the window of the apartment, but he could not bring his criminal intent to the end, as he was noticed by citizens.
On March 2, at night, Bushman and Prigozhin, in conspiracy and a group, committed theft of personal property from apartment 2, building 12 on Ropshinskaya street, owned by the Telitsins: a tape recorder, a radio, two carpet tracks, crystal and other things, totaling 980 rubles, causing the victims a significant material damage.
On March 14, 1980, at about 12 o’clock, Prigozhin, Bushman in conspiracy and in a group with convict Makeko, using a crowbar as a technical means, broke into apartment 157 of house 28 on the street. Bryantsev, from where the property belonging to the Rostovtsevs was secretly stolen: crystal products, braid for a car steering wheel, candles, a set of pens, bonds of a 3% loan in the amount of 1,300 rubles, and a total of 1,610 rubles, causing significant material damage to the victims.
On March 19, by prior agreement and in a group with convicts Makeko, Kopaev and Yerin, Prigozhin attempted to commit theft from apartment 35, building 26 on Bryantsev Street. After agreeing to commit theft from the said apartment, Makeko, at Prigozhin’s instructions, remained at the entrance to observe the situation, while Kopaev remained on the stairs for the same purpose, while Prigozhin and Erin broke the front door of the apartment with a pry bar, tried to open the front door by picking keys, but then, frightened that the alarm might go off, they fled from the scene of the crime, without completing their intent.
On March 20, 1980, Prigozhin and Bushman, in conspiracy and in a group with Makeko, fraudulently stole Kovalenko’s property, causing him significant material damage. Under the pretext of acquiring jeans and other scarce goods for the victim, they received 250 rubles from him, then drove up by car with the victim to house 12/63 on ul. The workshop, where Prigozhin allegedly took the victim for the things, on the way, through the entrance yard, disappeared from him, after which he drove away with the waiting Bushman and Makeko.
They, Bushman, and Prigozhin, together with Makeko, knowing about Kopaev’s minority, in the period from March 16 to March 21, involved him in drunkenness, drinking alcohol with him in restaurants and the apartment of his friend Blokhin, in addition, they involved him in criminal activities, having committed with them on March 19 and 20 theft and robbery.
Bushman led a parasitic lifestyle: he did not work for more than 4 months for more than 4 months, lived on unearned income, and despite the official warning given to him on 9/11/1979, he continued to lead a parasitic existence.
He also maliciously evaded the payment of alimony for the maintenance of the child, recovered by a court decision of 5.3.1979; without working since 1978, he did not provide material assistance to the child, did not take measures for employment, admitted alimony arrears for a period of 13 months and 21 days.
He also avoided the treatment of venereal disease: being warned on December 25 after the detection of syphilis about the procedure for undergoing treatment and responsibility for evading it, starting from January 12, 1980, he stopped coming for examination and checks at the KVD [skin and venereal dispensary] despite repeated calls …READ ALSO
The following requests are expressed in the cassation complaints:
The convicted Prigozhin and his lawyer are asked to exclude from the verdict the charges against him of attempted theft in a group with convicts Makeko, Erin and Kopaev from apartment 36, building 26 on the street. Bryantsev, referring to the voluntary refusal of the participants in the crime to bring it to an end, exclude instructions from participation in the crime of Bushman and Makeko on the episode of fraud against the victim Kovalenko, taking into account the testimony of the convicts that Prigozhin committed this crime on his own, exclude instructions for the same episode on inflicting significant material damage to the victim and to re-qualify the actions of the convicted person on Part 2 of Art. 147, to reduce the punishment, to exclude the accusation of participation in the theft with Makeko and Bushman of the personal property of the Rostovtsev victims, taking into account the testimony of the convicted in the court session that Makeko committed this theft without the help of other convicts, to re-qualify the actions of the convicts under Part 2 of Art. 146 on part 1 of this article on the episode of the robbery against the Queen, taking into account the testimony of the convicted in the court session that Prigozhin independently committed the robbery without participating in the crime of other convicts, to exclude the conviction under Art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in the absence of corpus delicti, since Prigozhin’s awareness of Kopaev’s minority has not been established, to reduce the punishment imposed by the court, taking into account the reduction in the amount of guilt and the retraining of the convicted person’s actions.
The convicted Bushman and his lawyer ask:
cancel the verdict in terms of the conviction of Bushman under Art. 146 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR on the episode of robbery for lack of evidence of Bushman’s participation in the crime,
cancel the verdict in terms of the conviction of Bushman under Art. 147 h. 3 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR on the episode of fraud against Kovalenko on the grounds that Bushman was not in collusion with Prigozhin and Makeko and did not participate in the commission of the crime,
to exclude from the verdict the accusation against Bushman of participation in a group of theft with Prigozhin and Makeko of the personal property of the Rostovtsev victims, taking into account the testimony of the convicted in the court session that Makeko committed this theft independently.
The Judicial Collegium, after checking the case materials and discussing the arguments set out in the complaints, finds the verdict to be lawful and well-grounded.
The guilt of Prigozhin and Bushman in the commission of these crimes was established by the totality of the evidence in the case, which the court gave the correct assessment in the verdict.
the testimony of Prigozhin and Makeko about the circumstances of the attack on the victim and the theft of her property; the conclusion of a forensic expert on the nature of the infliction of bodily harm on the victim; the data contained in the protocol of the examination of the victim’s coat, which indicate the use of a knife in relation to the victim.
The evidence presented refutes the arguments of the convicts and their lawyers that the attack on the Queen was committed by Prigozhin alone and that Bushman’s participation in this crime has not been established.
According to the episode of the theft of the victim’s personal property, Viterzon ( her name is spelled differently in this document – Meduza’s note), Bushman’s guilt is confirmed by the testimony of the victim, Bushman’s confession, and the testimony of witness Ivanov.
On the fact of the theft of Osipov’s personal property, the guilt of Bushman and Prigozhin was established by the testimony of Prigozhin, the testimony of Bushman during the preliminary investigation, correctly assessed by the court as reliable, the testimony of the victim about the amount and value of the property seized from him.
According to the episode of the attempted theft of Prigozhin on March 1, 1980, property from the Telitsins’ apartment and the episode of theft from the same apartment by Prigozhin and Bushman on March 2, the guilt of the convicts is confirmed by their personal confession, the testimony of the witness Melnikova about the reasons why Prigozhin did not bring his intention to an end 1 March 1980, the testimony of witness Toropova and Andrianova that they saw damage on the window of the Telitsin apartment, testimony of the victim Telitsina about the circumstances of the theft, the amount and value of the stolen property.
According to the episode of theft of personal property of the Rostovtsev victims, the guilt of Bushman and Prigozhin is confirmed by the testimony of convicted Makeko at the investigation, which the court checked in the court session and correctly recognized it as reliable, and from which it is clear that Bushman and Prigozhin, together with Makeko, committed this theft, by the testimony of the victim Rostovtseva and witness Rostovtseva , from which it is clear that Prigozhin had previously visited their apartment and only he could point to their apartment as a place for the theft, by the testimony of the witness Kryukova that on the day of the incident she saw the victims of Makeko with two young men at the apartment, which also testifies about the participation of Prigozhin and Bushman in the theft.
Assessing the said evidence in aggregate, the court reasonably recognized Bushman and Prigozhin’s denial of their guilt in this theft and Makeko’s refusal at the hearing from the testimony given during the preliminary investigation as an attempt to evade responsibility for the crime.
According to the episode of the attempt on the group theft of personal property on March 19, 1980 from the apartment of the victim Ioffe, Prigozhin’s guilt is confirmed by the testimony of the victim Ioffe about the circumstances of the break-in of the front door to the apartment and damage to the alarm system, protocols of inspections of the scene with the participation of convicts Erin and Kopaev, from which it is clear that they really tried to enter the victim’s apartment together with Prigozhin with the aim of theft, but fearing that the alarm would go off, they fled from the scene of the crime, with the testimony of convicted Kopaev, Erin and Makeko during the investigation and in court, from which it is clear that they did not bring Prigozhin their criminal intent to the end for reasons beyond their control, in particular, being afraid of the alarm.
Taking into account this evidence, the arguments of the convicted Prigogine and his lawyer that Prigozhin and other convicts voluntarily refused to bring the crime to an end cannot be considered convincing.
According to the episode of fraud against the victim Kovalenko, the guilt of Prigozhin and Bushman is confirmed by the testimony of the victim, from which it follows that Prigozhin and Bushman, as well as convict Makeko, acted in taking over money from him in the amount of 250 rubles under the pretext of acquiring scarce goods in concert and as a result of the crime inflicted on the victim significant material damage.
The factual data contained in the testimony of the convicted Prigogine and the convicted Bushman and Makeko testify to the truthfulness of the testimony of the victim and at the same time expose the convicts of wanting to hide the actual circumstances by accepting Prigozhin only one … ( illegible ) responsibility for fraud, which the court correctly indicated in the verdict.
According to the episode of the involvement of a minor Kopaev in drunkenness and criminal activity, the guilt of Bushman and Prigozhin was established by the testimony of the convicted Kopaev that Bushman and Prigozhin, while drinking alcohol with him, and also when committing crimes with him, were aware of his minority, similar to the testimony of the convicted Erin. Both Erin and Kopaev had no grounds for an agreement between Prigozhin and Bushman.
Bushman’s guilt in leading a parasitic lifestyle, in malicious evasion from the payment of alimony and in evading treatment of a venereal disease is also established correctly and is confirmed by the totality of the evidence given in the verdict.
The criminal actions of the convicts are qualified correctly.
The question of the type and amount of punishment was decided by the court in accordance with the requirements of the law: taking into account the nature and severity of the crimes committed by Prigozhin and Bushman, all the circumstances of the case and data on the personality of the convicted.
Therefore, the Judicial Collegium sees no grounds for reducing the punishment.
The question of the civil claims of the victims was correctly resolved by the court.
By virtue of the foregoing, guided by Art. 332 and clause 1 of Art. 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR ( Articles on the Powers of the Cassation Instance – Meduza’s note ), Judicial Board
The verdict of the Zhdanovsky District People’s Court of Leningrad dated 6.10.1981 against ALEXEY VASILIEVICH BUSHMAN and EVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN shall be left unchanged, and the cassation appeals – dismissed.
CHAIRMAN – signature
BOARD MEMBERS – signatures