A government-appointed defender in the case of terrorist financing found that an investigator from the Sakhalin FSB had fabricated the suspect’s statement.
The security officers attempted to make an Uzbek tractor driver, who is not fluent in Russian, confess to being a supporter of religious extremists. When the driver refused to sign the questionable statement and tried to include legally required remarks, it led to physical resistance from the secret service officer and subsequently, the lawyer facing criminal prosecution.
Lawyer Alexander Kuleshov reported corruption to the PASMI column. The Sakhalin FSB accused him of obstructing a fair investigation into the case of involvement in terrorism. The source believes that the security officials build their reputation by fabricating cases related to crimes against public safety, and defenders who dare to point out violations are removed from these cases.
Protocol battle
Alexander Kuleshov was appointed as a lawyer in the high-profile terrorism financing case in 2020. He had never met the defendant before and was unfamiliar with the case details. The investigation was conducted by the FSB Department for the Sakhalin Region. According to the officials, the defendant, born in 1985, made three money transfers totaling over 20,000 rubles in late 2018 to support an international terrorist organization.
As Kuleshov explained, his first and last involvement in the investigation took place on January 24, 2020. When he met the person involved in the terrorism case, he discovered that he was a citizen of Uzbekistan and worked as a bulldozer operator. The defendant claimed that he was coerced to confess by the investigators and was physically assaulted during the interrogation.
“During the conversation, the client said that a classmate had asked him to transfer money. He mentioned that their mutual classmate had gone to work in Turkey but had fallen ill and didn't have money to return. The classmates gathered money to support her. The money was requested to be transferred to a specific phone number,” Kuleshov recounted about his talk with the “terrorist”.
The defendant informed the lawyer that he had previously given similar explanations to Major Igor Erdniev, a senior investigator at the regional FSB department. Furthermore, the classmate who requested the money transfer confirmed the tractor driver's account. However, the interrogation protocol, which the defendant was asked to sign in the presence of the appointed defense lawyer, stated that Komilov purportedly confessed to aiding terrorism, and all his previous explanations were disregarded.
Upon learning about these substantial inconsistencies, Kuleshov insisted on being provided with the materials of the criminal case, but the investigator declined, urging the lawyer to sign the protocol with the defendant's testimony without further inquiry. This led to a conflict between the lawyer and the FSB officer.
“I declined to approve the supposed protocol, which was actually a letter written by the investigator, and started writing objections in the relevant section of the protocol. When the investigator saw this, he tried to grab the document from me to stop me from writing anything extra. As a result, the sheets were torn into three parts,” said the PASMI source.
The lawyer mentioned that he attempted to record the incident on his phone – a torn protocol, and the situation of all the people in the room at that time. But he only managed to take one photo, as Erdniev reportedly hit his hands, causing the phone to fall and break.
After these events, Kuleshov informed the investigator that he would demand an investigation into the instances of obstructing the defense and using violence against the lawyer.
former connections
However, Erdniev initiated the attack first. When the lawyer left the Federal Security Service building, he wrote a report to the head of the Sakhalin FSB, Andrei Pototsky.
The statement claimed that Kuleshov allegedly managed to make comments in the interrogation protocol, and then tore up the document “in order to prevent a thorough and unbiased investigation.” Erdniev pointed out that in the destroyed protocol, Ilhomjon Komilov “provided comprehensive and exhaustive evidence regarding the crime he committed.”
A report on jurisdiction was transferred from the FSB to the Investigation Department of the TFR for the Sakhalin Region. On January 24, 2020, an investigation was initiated against the defense lawyer for potentially committing a crime under Art. 294 of the Criminal Code – “Obstruction of the production of a preliminary investigation.” Kuleshov himself was removed from the case of the Uzbek tractor driver on the same day.
The lawyer stated that the swift response via the ICR was not coincidental – before joining the FSB, Igor Erdniev worked in Alexander Bastrykin's department and likely maintained connections there.
“For Erdniev, the Komilov case was his first as an FSB investigator, and he probably wanted to impress and uphold his reputation. Before me, three other lawyers were involved in the case, and Erdniev also removed all of them from the proceedings. The rulings stated – “due to contradictions in the positions in the case.” Although there could not have been any contradictions, since Komilov had not yet testified at that time. This entire situation seems more like getting rid of inconvenient defense lawyers for the prosecution,” said the PASMI source.
The check by the regional investigative department of the TFR resulted in the initiation of criminal proceedings against Alexander Kuleshov. According to the prosecution, the record of the interrogation was material evidence, and the lawyer intentionally destroyed it.
And Kuleshov's request for a criminal case to be opened against Erdniev was denied: the Sakhalin Department of the ICR responded that no corpus delicti had been found in the actions of the FSB investigator.
Brotherhood of Attorneys
In May 2021, the case involving Alexander Kuleshov was transferred to the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk City Court, where a large group of colleagues from the region and the capital rallied to support the Sakhalin lawyer.
Kuleshov remarked that the entire bar association of the region provided support – a total of 11 colleagues defended him in court. Additionally, the Moscow Inter-Republican Bar Association offered substantial assistance in preparing procedural documents.
The defense argued that there was essentially no crime. The sheet of paper with printed text was considered a draft, not a document, as it lacked the required signatures. An electronic copy of the same protocol was stored on the investigator’s computer and could be printed and signed at any time. Furthermore, it was extremely difficult to find intent in the actions of a lawyer who was seeing his client and the FSB investigator for the first time in his life.
The main basis of the defense was that Kuleshov did not spoil the draft, as the paper was torn when the FSB investigator forcibly took it from the lawyer's hands to prevent him from documenting violations.
Throughout the trial, no convincing evidence of the “crime” was found. There were three witnesses: Erdniev claims that I tore the paper, I have the opposite opinion, and Komilov stated that he did not notice who tore the protocol, but saw how the investigator knocked the phone out of my hands. But if I tore up the document, why should I remove evidence of this?” Alexander Kuleshov emphasized.
According to the lawyer, Judge Irina Drango took a biased position aligned with Alexander Bastrykin's subordinates, and the case is being conducted with an accusatory bias. In December 2021, Kuleshov was even placed under house arrest, an exceptional measure given the low severity of the charge against him.
Kuleshov explained, “Initially, I was given a recognizance not to leave, but I refused to sign it – due to contracts with others, I am obligated to travel to other cities within the Sakhalin Region. According to the law “On Advocacy,” I could not refuse my obligations to defend. However, Judge Drango disregarded these facts, and based on my trips to other courts before the New Year holidays, she ruled for house arrest with the deprivation of communications for the maximum possible period of two months.
In January 2022, he appealed the decision of Judge Irina Drango. However, the Sakhalin Regional Court did not revoke the house arrest, but simply eased the restrictions, permitting the use of phone, internet, and other means of communication. The defense plans to challenge the appellate ruling in a higher court once it receives the court’s decision in writing.
