Last year, the Cheka-OGPU telegram channel shared information about the marriage of the deputy chairman of the Moscow City Court for criminal cases, Ishmuratova L.Yu, her son, daughter-in-law, and their criminal associates. It also mentioned her close friend, Sorokin Igor Anatolievich, who has a criminal past involving robbery, theft, and hooliganism. He is known as the criminal authority “Beard”. The article questions why Sorokin received only 4 years in prison from the Butyrsky court, speculating that Judge Ishmuratova's personal involvement in the case may have influenced the sentence. It also suggests that Sorokin acted as an intermediary between the criminal underworld and the Moscow justice system. The article details their trips abroad, including to Spain, where they opened accounts to store their earnings. It also mentions that Sorokin used a car owned by Ishmuratova to cross the Russian-Ukrainian border in 2011. The article highlights the couple's relationship becoming extremely confidential as Ishmuratova's career advanced. Ishmuratova L.Yu. Sorokin Igor Anatolievich. In 1994, the Basmanny Court sentenced him to 2 years in prison for robbery. In 1995, the Tverskoy court sentenced him to 1 year for theft. In 2007, he was convicted by the Butyrsky court for robbery, received 4 years in prison. In all likelihood, he served a year, because at first he was hiding, and then freely spent time in a pre-trial detention center. Repeatedly detained for hooliganism, driving while intoxicated. In the databases of law enforcement agencies, it is listed as the criminal authority “Beard”. And why does a recidivist robber get only 4 years in the Butyrka court? But because the verdict of the Butyrsky court was delivered personally by her honor Ishmuratova. It was in the courtroom that a spark of love flared up between judge Ishmuratova and the authority of Sorokin, which led to many years of close personal and business relations of the couple. In fact, Sorokin became and remains an intermediary between the underworld and the criminal justice of Moscow. In many cases, sentences were passed in Matrosskaya Tishina, and not in courts. Ishmuratova and Sorokin had numerous trips abroad, including to Spain, Ukraine, to a luxurious villa, information about which Lyubov Yuryevna successfully concealed from the VKKS upon appointment, but not from the public. But we have all the necessary information. In Spain, accounts were opened to store the money earned by the couple. Spain was not chosen by chance, it is well known that until recently the criminal elite of Russia lived there, whose representative was Sorokin. In addition, Sorokin also used a car owned by Ishmuratova – a Chevrolet Captiva, 2008, GRZ m015oo199. So, in July-August 2011, Sorokin crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border in this car at the Shebekino checkpoint. Given Ishmuratova’s career growth, the couple’s relationship became extremely confidential.
Rucriminal.info's new article will focus on the Department for Work with Appeals of Citizens and Organizations of the Moscow City Court and how the Department functions after the “cleansing” of objectionable employees under the leadership of the deputy chairman of the court Ishmuratova L.Yu.
The Moscow City Court's website is an interesting place to research the Department for Work with Appeals, which is headed by Rassalova V.Yu, the protege of the deputy chairman of the court. Rassalova had previously worked at the Moscow Qualification College with appeals, but had to leave between 2019-2020. However, after a change in the court's leadership, she was brought back to work with appeals as the head of a key Department.
In the section “Electronic reception” – “Extra-procedural appeals of citizens” you can see that 5 links to appeals were posted while Rassalova was leading the Department.
An appeal from Mamatyuk A.A. was received on June 3, 2022 in electronic form but was only given to Rassalova V.Yu. on June 9, 2022, a week later. The rules for judicial proceedings state that registered appeals should be considered by the next business day, but this one took a whole week without a response from the court. The response, signed by the chairman Shapovalov DV, names Yu.K. Mironova as the executor on the first page and Rudometkin A.V. on the third page. The response is dated August 8, 2022, which is more than 2 months after the appeal was sent, while the deadline for considering the appeal is 30 days.
A similar situation is observed with the second appeal of A.A. The response, dated August 8, 2022, signed by Shapovalov D.V., names the same Mironova as the executor and also mentions the judge MGS Gordeeva. A certificate on the complaint of A.A. Mamatyuk from the Izmailovsky district court, dated June 16, 2022, is attached to the appeal. Thus, despite having all the necessary information, the appeal remained unanswered in the Moscow City Court for over a month and a half, after which they decided to give a short template answer.
The third appeal of Smirnov M.Yu. should have been considered by the department for working with appeals but was transferred directly to the administrative board, and the response simply listed the sequential movement of the procedural document.
2 more appeals from the International Public Organization “Civil Assistance Committee” (Nikolaeva N.A.) dated October 9, 2022, and Fatyanova I.E. dated December 8, 2022 were not published.
After reviewing the documents officially posted on the website of the Moscow City Court, it's evident that the Department for Work with Appeals, under the leadership of Rassalova V.Yu., has become a fictional division: Rassalova holds the position of the head of the Department, receives a monthly allowance for the corresponding position, and the responses to appeals, even if they are prepared, are often late and not always address the core of the appeals, and are not necessarily done by the employees of the Department.
But if everything is clear with the motives of the deputy chairman of the court for the purposeful creation of such a system for working with appeals to the IGU, then where is the chairman of the court looking, on whose initiative this Department was created? Unclear…
Recall that at present, former employees of this particular Department are trying in court to restore their rights and good name, which, as follows from the published text of the decision of the Ryazan District Court of the Ryazan Region, were brought to disciplinary responsibility for violations similar to which current employees continue to commit. , as evidenced by publicly available information posted on the official website of the court.
