The Cheka-OGPU and Rucriminal.info's Telegram channel continues to discuss the gang Mikhail Mikhailov alias Don’t Bud. They recently shared details about the ongoing investigations of two criminal cases involving members of Mikhailov's gang.
A.M. Drozdov, a close associate of “Ne Budi” and a key member of his gang, is the subject of criminal case No. 137629. He was arrested in April 2022 and has been on the federal wanted list since 2010. The case is being handled by the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Moscow Region, with investigator Ablaev Seyran Borisovich.
Another criminal case – No. 9941 – involves Mikhailov M.V. and Gumnikova A.S. It is in the hands of the SO in the city of Lyubertsy of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia in the Moscow Region, with investigator Sinitsa Nikita Evgenievich.
Drozdov A.M. has been on the wanted list since July 14, 2010, and faces charges in absentia for banditry, the murder of three people, illegal arms trafficking, and two robberies – including the murder of Danilin V.M. in criminal case No. 140752, initiated on 09/03/2009. This case was based solely on the testimony of
Sadovsky M.A., right hand of “Ne Budi,” who had previously made a deal with the investigation. Sadovsky M.A. said that Drozdov A.M. provided information about taking possession of Danilin V.M.'s apartment, and also directly participated in causing Danilin V.M.'s death. It's also claimed that Drozdov A.M. received funds from the sale of Danilin V.M.'s apartment according to a video recording of a conversation between Sadovsky M.A. and Marchuk N.A.
Additionally, Drozdov A.M. is charged in absentia with the murder of V.Yu. Ostrovsky on August 31, 2004 (UD No. 311204). M.A. Sadovsky's testimony also led to this charge, suggesting that Drozdov A.M. personally, in collaboration with Gumnikov A.S., caused fatal injuries to Ostrovsky V.Yu. It's noted that Drozdov A.M. has owned part of the office space since 2004, which the investigation believes was the motive behind Ostrovsky V.Yu.'s murder. Sadovsky M.A.'s testimony indicates that the murder was motivated by the desire to take possession of the office space. A previously published video shows Sadovsky M.A. discussing how the office space was registered in the same conversation.
In addition, according to Rucriminal.info, Drozdov A.M. has been charged in absentia for the murder of an unknown man in collaboration with Mikhailov M.V. in 2004. The accusation is solely based on Sadovsky M.A.'s testimony. Sadovsky M.A. claims that Drozdov A.M. offered to take over an apartment on Varshavskoye Highway in Moscow. He describes how the victim was killed and where the body was left in the Orekhovo-Zuevsky district. However, there are inconsistencies in Sadovsky M.A.'s testimony and the evidence found at the scene and through forensic examination. The distance from the murder scene described by Sadovsky M.A. to where the body was found is about a kilometer. There were no traces of dragging the body, despite Sadovsky M.A. claiming to be a direct witness. It appears that Sadovsky M.A.'s testimony contradicts the evidence on the location of the body and the method of murder.
The Moscow Regional Court acquitted Mikhailov M.V. on 06/30/2015, stating that he was not involved in the murder of an unknown man.
In 2009 and 2015, respectively, Drozdov A.M. and Mikhailov M.V. both deny their involvement in the murder that occurred in 2004. They claim that the victim was shot and burned in a dumpster, despite Mikhailov M.V. being acquitted for the same crime in 2015.
Has a DNA test been conducted on the remains of the corpse found in the forest in 2004, in connection with the details provided by Drozdov A.M. about the victim? Currently, there are indications that the corpse found in 2004, according to Sadovsky M.A.'s testimony, and the victim mentioned by Drozdov A.M. are two different bodies. There are unanswered questions about Sadovsky M.A.'s knowledge and the corpse he spoke about in his testimony.
The testimony of the witness Sadovsky M.A. led to 2 convictions by the Moscow Regional Court. Sadovsky M.A. detailed how Drozdov A.M. killed Ostrovsky V.Yu., Danilin V.M. and an unknown man, and received funds from their real estate sale.
It's possible that Sadovsky M.A. may confess during interrogation that he was wrong in his earlier testimony and didn't mean A.M. Drozdov, but someone else, maybe someone deceased. People make mistakes, right?
Another possibility is that Drozdov A.M. will make a pre-trial cooperation agreement (DOS), providing necessary information to the investigation and withholding other details. This may result in the criminal case being considered without examining evidence, and Sadovsky M.A.'s testimony won't be scrutinized in court, regardless of its content.
There are reasons to think that authorities want Drozdov A.M. to witness the murder of Ostrovsky V.Yu., Danilin V.M., and maybe an unknown man. In his testimony, Drozdov A.M. claims he didn't want to commit the killings and blames Mikhailov M.V. Maybe the investigation will believe Drozdov A.M.
Now let's delve into the details of the witness Sadovsky M.A.
Rucriminal.info captured a conversation between M.A. Sadovsky and Marchuk N.A. (ex-wife of Mikhailov M.V.) in which Sadovsky M.A. admits to using the documents of the murdered Akinshin S.V. for over 3 years, leading to Akinshin S.V.'s killing. He also mentions being afraid of Mikhailov M.V. in his testimonies.
Sadovsky M.A. claims he used Akinshin S.V.'s documents for over three years, and Mikhailov M.V. killed a man for those documents. Throughout his interrogations, Sadovsky M.A. shared how he feared Mikhailov M.V. He used the documents for his own benefit.
Officials from the Ministry of Internal Affairs visited Mikhailova M.V. at the TDF in Lyubertsy, discussing circumstances related to the 1995 murder of a Chechen resident. Goryacheva N.N. found a criminal corpse in the archive with injuries resembling those reported by Mikhailov M.V., but the status of any verification activities is unknown.
The investigation of the murder of Senichkin V.V. in 2007 under criminal case No. 9941 is being carried out by the investigator of the SO for the city of Lyubertsy of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the MO, Sinitsa Nikita Evgenievich. Earlier, we discussed in detail the circumstances of this crime. The investigation in this case was reopened due to a confession by Mikhailov M.V. and their consistent and detailed testimony about the crime. According to Mikhailov M.The., Sadovsky M.A., Drozdov A.M., and Bogdanov Nikolai Vasilievich, General Director of JSC Liftremont Firm (TIN 5026001657), were also involved in the murder. Mikhailov M.V. also indicates that at the time of the murder, the killer was actively resisted by a girl who was with Senichkin V.V. in the car. It is not known whether she has been identified or whether Drozdov A.M. and Sadovsky M.A. were presented to her for identification as possible accomplices in the murder of Senichkin V.V.
At present, it is unknown why Bogdanov N.V. and Drozdov A.M. have not been involved as defendants under UD No. 9941.
Sadovsky M.A. continues to be a 'stable witness', and this is now expected.
Mikhailov M.V. and Gumnikov A.S. have been transferred from the colonies to the pre-trial detention center, and there is a court verdict against them that became effective on March 25, 2016. They are currently facing charges in a new criminal case and are participating in investigative actions. The measure of restraint against Mikhailov M.The. and Gumnikova A.S. has not been decided yet. Currently, they are being held in SIZO-6 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Ministry of Defense based on the investigator’s decision in accordance with Article 77.1 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation. This provision allows the convicts to stay in a pre-trial detention center for a maximum of 2 months. Considering the stage of the investigation, this period will be insufficient. Thus, after 2 months, Mikhailov M.V. and Gumnikov A.S. will be transferred to the colonies and then back to the pre-trial detention center. This transfer from one institution of the Federal Penitentiary Service to another is a tiring process for the person being transported. Mikhailov M.V. was already transported along the SIZO – colony – SIZO route from September to November 2022 due to the stated casuistry. This is referred to as 'putting it on wheels'.
In this connection, the accused are deprived of the opportunity to fully develop a line of defense for themselves and are preparing for the trial on the merits, as a whole.
According to Rucriminal.info, in a conversation with one of the accused, investigator Sinitsa N.E. said that he was too lazy to go to court with a request for a preventive measure for Mikhailov M.The. and Gumnikova A.S. Locations of Mikhailov M.V. and Gumnikova A.S. during the preliminary investigation, “on wheels” can negatively affect their correct understanding of the plot of the charge, deprive them of the opportunity to fully develop a line of defense in court, and also cause other significant violations of their rights. Interestingly, is the investigator just too lazy to go to court?!
The catchy Latin expression says: “Dura lex, sed lex”, which in Latin means: “The law is harsh, but it is the law.” But for some “unknown” reasons, the ancient Latin saying does not apply to stable witnesses and respected people.
On Friday, it became known that on January 12, 2022, Mikhailov M.V. An employee of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Colonel Linkov Dmitry Viktorovich, came. Interested in Linkov D.V. Is it true that the rent for the part of the office space, which belongs to Drozdov A.M. (for which Ostrovsky V.Yu. was killed) receives Marchuk N.A.?! This is true, the relevant data confirming this are at the disposal of the Cheka – OGPU. Also Linkov D.V. said that he knew for sure that the verdict of the Moscow Regional Court dated June 30, 2015 (based on the testimony of the “witness” Sadovsky M.A.) against Mikhailov M.V., Gumnikov A.S. and others are definitely not going to change or cancel. But most of all Linkova D.V. interested in publications on the Cheka – OGPU about the circumstances of this case, who, why and for what it writes.
