Will there be reform of the secret service? Bastrykin’s last dance: what’s wrong with the Investigative Committee

Not long ago on the territory Russian Federation a “wave” of resignations of heads of various divisions of the Investigative Committee (or Investigative Committee) of the Russian Federation literally began. First, the president fired the head of the Sverdlovsk division, then the representative of the Chelyabinsk Committee left his place of work, and now there are rumors that the heads of departments in the Krasnodar Territory, Penza Region, Belgorod and Pskov will be replaced. And experts believe that such news is a consequence of the fact that today the reorganization of the IC of Russia for 2018-2019 is taking place, therefore, it is worth finding out about what changes it is worth preparing for in the near future.

The content of the article:

• Liquidation of the department
• What do you know about Russia?!
• What will the employees of the new organization do?
• A short summary about the changes

Prerequisites for the implementation of insurance reform

A short summary about the changes

As the agency's interlocutors note, this is due to a number of factors. Firstly, Bastrykin’s own position is weakening against the backdrop of his distance from Vladimir Putin. Secondly, there is a need to optimize law enforcement agencies. In September of this year, the Prosecutor General's Office announced reductions and suspension of hiring for vacant positions. As sources note, it will be the members of the Investigative Committee who will patch up the personnel holes in the Prosecutor General’s Office.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs is also experiencing similar personnel problems due to the transfer of part of the units of the Russian Guard. It is expected that the Investigative Committee will also become a donor for the Main Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Scandalous trail

According to Pavel Salin, director of the Center for Political Science Research at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, there are currently prerequisites for returning the Investigative Committee under the wing of the Prosecutor General’s Office. The Investigative Committee too often appears in various scandals and is forced to fend off attacks.

“If we take the situation over the past few months, then the Prosecutor General’s Office is rather on the offensive. She demonstrates growing ambitions, and initiatives are constantly being thrown in to expand her powers. And the Investigative Committee is in a defensive position. There are constantly scandals around him and conflict situations", Salin noted in an interview with FederalPress

According to the political scientist, since the separation of the Investigative Committee from the Prosecutor General's Office, there has been a sluggish struggle for powers between the departments. It often resulted in public conflicts between Alexander Bastrykin and Yuri Chaika. Suffice it to recall the confrontation between the structures that broke out back in February 2011. The Investigative Committee then accused employees of the Prosecutor General's Office of allegedly covering up the network of underground casinos of businessman Ivan Nazarov. And in March, the Investigative Committee summoned the son of the Prosecutor General, Artem Chaika, for questioning. Dmitry Medvedev, who was then president of Russia, intervened in the conflict.

“The President sent them several clear signals that this should not be done publicly and the conflict went into a latent zone,” notes Salin.

After the scandal, rumors appeared about the possible entry of the Investigative Committee back into the Prosecutor General's Office.

“The prosecutor’s office can take advantage of the situation and, under certain circumstances, return the Investigative Committee back to its composition, restoring its powers. But this will be a consequence, not a cause, of the latest events around the UK,” says political scientist and economist Mikhail Delyagin.

In his opinion, the activities of a number of employees of the Investigative Committee cast a shadow on the department itself. Scandals involving them are turning into a political problem.

Has the Kremlin distanced itself from the Investigative Committee?

Experts note that President Putin is extremely intolerant of scandals involving the security forces. Last year, Alexander Bastrykin proposed sharply tightening Russian legislation. In particular, he stated that it is necessary to imprison citizens who doubt the results of the referendum and censor the Internet. After these statements, Bastyrkin was criticized by the public. The Kremlin made it clear that it has nothing to do with Bastrykin’s initiatives and pointedly showed its distance from his figure with a statement by Dmitry Peskov.

“I don’t comment or explain Bastrykin,” Peskov said, recalling the position of Vladimir Putin, who noted that the Internet is “a territory for the free exchange of information.”

The Investigative Committee was also accompanied by high-profile corruption scandals. In July last year, the deputy head of the capital's main branch of the Investigative Committee, Denis Nikandrov, was detained while receiving a bribe of $1 million for the release of thief in law Zakhary Kalashov. The head of the security service of the Investigative Committee, Mikhail Maksimenko, and Nikandrov’s deputy, Alexander Lamonov, were also detained.

It is also worth recalling that the reform to remove the Investigative Committee from the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation was initiated by Dmitry Medvedev. The process began back in 2007 with the creation of the Investigative Committee under the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. In January 2011, the Investigative Committee became an independent structure that does not belong to any branch of government and is directly controlled by the president. Thus, if Vladimir Putin decides to return the Investigative Committee to the Prosecutor's Office, he will not be afraid of image risks. The decision to withdraw did not come from his pen, and eliminating the consequences of his predecessor’s unsuccessful reform could add political points to the president.

The fate of the UK will be decided after the elections

However, experts believe that there is no point in expecting a reorganization of law enforcement structures in the next six months, even if the project to infuse the Investigative Committee into the Prosecutor’s Office is being signed by the President. Carrying out such reforms before the presidential elections is dangerous, experts believe.

"Rumors of reorganization law enforcement have been going for a long time. I am sure that in the next six months no reorganization of law enforcement agencies will occur. Nothing like this can be done during a presidential campaign for two reasons. Firstly, controllability may be lost. When the Russian Guard was created, controllability was lost for almost a year, since our institutions in the country do not function, and everything rests on personal connections. Secondly, during a reorganization there are always those who are offended. There is no need to produce offended security officials before the presidential elections,” explained Pavel Salin.

Some political scientists doubt the reorganization of the security forces themselves, but do not deny the possibility of Bastrykin’s resignation and personnel changes after the presidential elections.

“The style of the country’s president is such that you can wait for the resignation as long as you like, but it happens unexpectedly. Moreover, this is not the first resignation that has occurred in this way. Internal complaints less often lead to changes in figures of this rank. On the one hand, public negativity. On the other hand, there is a regrouping of forces between people from different structures. Unfortunately, it is impossible to answer unequivocally who won and who lost in this matter. But it is obvious that a certain rotation of the establishment is gaining momentum. And we can most likely expect that after the elections it will intensify,” says political strategist Valentin Bianchi.

Be that as it may, after the presidential elections, Russia's political system is expected to change. Personnel changes and structural reforms in the security forces will be carried out, especially against the backdrop of the increasing authority of the Russian Guard. At the same time, there is no need to expect Bastrykin’s position to strengthen. His department remains the most conflict-ridden and politically problematic among the law enforcement agencies.

Irina Mishina

The head of the Investigative Committee of Russia, Alexander Bastrykin, went on a long vacation. A source in the Investigative Committee reported this to NI. Bastrykin’s vacation will last almost until the end of September - beginning of October: it will include all unused “time off” of the head of the Sledkom. During his vacation, on August 27, Alexander Bastrykin will celebrate his 65th birthday. In this regard, versions have emerged that the ICR chief may not return from his long vacation. Alexander Bastrykin has long been tipped for the position of judge of the Constitutional Court. The fact that the Investigative Committee may change its leader is part of the problem. A much more serious question is: what will happen to the department itself?

Vacation of the chief of the country's main investigative body for almost 2 months - what would that mean?

“As for Bastrykin, the issue has been resolved a long time ago, I think. I don’t remember security leaders going on vacation for such a long period of time. And a lot of complaints have accumulated against Alexander Ivanovich.” - speaks Police Lieutenant General Alexander Mikhailov.

I agree with this opinion Head of the Center for Regional Policy Development Ilya Grashchenkov: “Bastrykin personally reported to the president on the most important matters, he was given personal instructions. I think Putin’s new term requires new approaches.”

The RIA Novosti agency reported the impending resignation of the head of the Investigative Committee and plans to appoint him as a judge of the Constitutional Court back in May. A month earlier, the ICR abolished the Main Directorate of Procedural Control, which was responsible for overseeing investigations. Experts linked this to the upcoming expansion of the functions of the Prosecutor General's Office. Following this, Speaker of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko announced the preparation of a bill to return control over the investigation to the Prosecutor General's Office. “The time is ripe, even overdue, to return control of the investigation to the prosecutor’s office. Then, during the reform, we were in a hurry, practice has shown this,” the speaker said. Our source in the Kremlin confirmed that changes in the structure of law enforcement agencies are quite likely. It is possible that the Service foreign intelligence will return to the FSB, and the Investigation Department will be reformed.

“Headman” of the Russian investigation?

The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, created on the initiative of then President Dmitry Medvedev, began its work on January 15, 2011. It was created on the basis of the former Investigative Committee under the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation. According to the law, the RF IC is federal government agency direct subordination to the President of the Russian Federation. The department investigates the most complex and especially dangerous crimes, including those related to corruption. Colonel General of Justice Alexander Bastrykin has headed the RF Investigative Committee since its creation. This was not a random appointment. At the Faculty of Law of Leningradsky state university Alexander Bastrykin was a classmate of Vladimir Putin and the head of the group where the current President studied. Subsequently, in a narrow circle, Bastrykind even received the nickname “Headman”.

“The figure of Bastrykin was obviously tied to the first person. It is clear that the Investigative Committee was an artificial body so that the president could personally entrust the main affairs to a loved one,” believes Ilya Grashchenkov.

At first, the Investigative Committee was a supplier of crime news from all fronts. “From my point of view, Alexander Bastrykin received too much trust from top officials and gradually began to ignore professional norms. At the request of the Investigative Committee, a person could be arrested and charged with serious articles of the Criminal Code. At the same time, the General Prosecutor's Office, as a supervisory authority, often insisted on his release because it did not find evidence of a crime. In general, over time, the Investigative Committee, as they say, “got loose”: he didn’t see the Prosecutor’s Office point-blank, he acted without supervision,” says Alexander Mikhailov.

There were more than enough high-profile cases under the jurisdiction of the Investigative Committee. However, most of them were associated with scandals. So, lawyer Alexander Treshchev believes: “I don’t remember any high-profile criminal cases that the Investigative Committee would quickly investigate and bring to the courts. But I remember big failures. From the very beginning, as soon as the department gained independence, scandals began at the top.”

Indeed, less than a month after the creation of the Investigative Committee, the first scandal broke out in February 2011. It was dubbed the “Gambling Scandal” or “The Prosecutors’ Case.” It erupted after, according to Investigative Committee, in Illegal casinos were discovered in 15 cities of the Moscow region. They allegedly brought in income of up to $10 million monthly. The business, as investigators noted, was “protected” by high-ranking employees of the regional prosecutor’s office. In connection with the “gambling case,” the name of the son of the Prosecutor General of Russia, Artyom Chaika, also came up. This case marked the beginning of an open war between the security forces.

And then, in 2012-2013, the country followed the Oboronservis case. Among the defendants in the case were the former head of the property relations department of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Evgenia Vasilyeva, and her patron (and more recently, her husband), ex-Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Anatoly Serdyukov. The Kirovles case with Navalny, who was detained shortly after the rallies on Bolotnaya, the case of the murder of Boris Nemtsov, the logical point of which was never reached... And also the case of corruption against the former minister economic development Alexey Ulyukaev, former high-ranking official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Dmitry Zakharchenko… “The Investigative Committee really took on all the high-profile cases.” But it is not a fact that the investigation went objectively and in the right direction: after all, there was no prosecutorial or any other supervision over the investigation,” he believes political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky. After all, no one had the right to interfere in the work of the Investigative Committee!

Scandals have accompanied the Investigative Committee almost since the creation of this department. What is it worth, for example, a public quarrel with “ Novaya Gazeta" in 2012! Then Alexander Bastrykin made an appointment with editor-in-chief Sergei Sokolov... right in the forest and began to intimidate.

In 2015, the senior investigator of the Investigative Committee from Gorno-Altaisk was sentenced to six years in prison: it turned out that investigator Alexander Satlaev was in fact a maniac rapist. The head of the local Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee was dismissed.

Gradually, information about corruption at the top of the Investigative Committee began to leak into the media. In 2013, Mikhail Mironov, deputy head of the department of the Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee for the Leningrad Region, was detained. He was accused of receiving a bribe of 300 thousand rubles; the FSB was in charge of the case. “All economic crimes were transferred to the Investigative Committee. And this is a “gold mine” that smells of considerable bribes. Alexander Bastrykin himself is not a corrupt official, but he failed to select honest, professional employees. The personnel work was essentially a failure for him,” comments the political scientist. Stanislav Belkovsky.

As you know, Alexander Bastrykin recently lost his “right hand” - the head of the Main Investigation Department of the Russian Investigative Committee for Moscow, Major General of Justice Alexander Drymanov, who was charged with several episodes of bribery. At the moment, the former chief investigator of the capital is in a pre-trial detention center. He was detained as part of a criminal case involving bribery of Investigative Committee officers by people of thief in law Shakro Molodoy. In this case, the former head of the internal security department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Mikhail Maksimenko, has already been sentenced to 13 years in a maximum security colony, as well as a number of officers of the Investigative Committee, including Drymanov’s former first deputy Denis Nikandrov. The FSB Investigation Department suspects General Drymanov of receiving two bribes - in large and especially large amounts (clause “c” of Part 5 and Part 6 of Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). But that’s not all. Drymanov’s ex-deputy Denis Nikandrov told an FSB investigator during the investigation that he had given his boss (that is, the head of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee for Moscow, Alexander Drymanov) a bribe in the amount of 9,850 euros for general patronage and appointment to a position. From the FSB report it followed that the money was credited to an account in a Latvian bank. Drymanov received from Nikandrov a card and an iPhone with a banking application to manage the balance of this card. By the way, it became known that Drymanov earned 20 million rubles last year. This is 4 million more than his immediate superior, the head of the Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin.

There have long been legends about the income of TFR investigators. In this regard, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Security and Anti-Corruption Anatoly Vyborny even made a proposal to control the income and expenses of investigators. “We need control over expenses and income, especially for those officials who are unable to rationally explain how they managed to achieve a certain standard of living. And removal from positions is necessary due to the loss of trust in all departments,” the deputy believes.

FSB Investigation Department for a long time sought to initiate a criminal case against Alexander Drymanov, the relevant materials were sent to the head of the Investigative Committee. But Bastrykin “covered” Drymanov to the last. It didn’t work out... By a strange coincidence, almost simultaneously with these events, the head of the Personnel Directorate of the RF IC, Major General Viktor Dolzhenko, retired...

The story of Alexander Drymanov, whom the head of the Investigative Committee A. Bastrykin “saved” from the FSB in every possible way, escalated the war within the law enforcement agencies.

“The Investigative Committee took on too much, thereby alienating the FSB and the Prosecutor General’s Office - two powerful law enforcement agencies. If one power structure strengthens, this inevitably leads to opposition from other “siloviki”. The “war of the clans” begins,” - says political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky.

This idea continues Doctor of Political Sciences Yuliy Nisnevich:“The problem of internal inter-clan squabbles has arisen again, in which today the Prosecutor General’s Office, or more precisely, Yuri Chaika, is winning. At one time there was a reverse process, when Bastrykin occupied a stronger position, and the Investigative Committee was separated from the Prosecutor General’s Office. In Russia, the legal framework is often determined by the correct institutional construction , and the relationship of clans - which of them is more influential. At one time, Alexander Bastrykin and his clan outmaneuvered the General Prosecutor’s Office headed by Yuri Chaika, but now he is losing to him.”

The actions of Investigative Committee employees often went beyond the legal framework. This was explained by one simple circumstance: no one had the right to interfere in the investigation or control it. “At the last Collegium of the Prosecutor General’s Office, tens of thousands of procedural violations in the actions of the Investigative Committee were discussed, and specific examples were given. The level of qualifications of the Investigative Committee employees, their methods of work, essentially raised the question of the safety of citizens, and the state itself,” says Alexander Mikhailov.

What awaits the Investigative Committee of Russia and its leader Alexander Bastrykin?

Novye Izvestia’s sources agree that until the fall, when the State Duma and the Federation Council begin their work, the position of the Investigative Committee will be uncertain. However, recently several options for possible reform of the Russian Investigative Committee have been discussed. Our source in the Ministry of Internal Affairs suggested that a single investigative body will be formed on the basis of the Investigative Committee, which will include investigators and interrogators from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. But there are other points of view.

Yes, Doctor of Political Sciences Yuliy Nisnevich believes that rumors that the Investigative Committee will again be merged with the Prosecutor General’s Office have been circulating for a very long time. This is a fairly expected story.” However, the political scientist does not agree with this point of view Stanislav Belkovsky:“The Investigative Committee was initially part of the Prosecutor General’s Office. In those days, by the way, Bastrykin also headed this department and was formally a colleague of the Prosecutor General. Now the Prosecutor General's Office is seeking to have control of the investigation returned to it. However, our president, as a conservative leader, rarely changes his decisions, so, in my opinion, the Investigative Committee will remain, but will be reformed.”

Alexander Mikhailov believes that the merger of the Investigative Committee and the Prosecutor General’s Office would be a mistake: “Now there are proposals to return the Investigative Committee to the Prosecutor General’s Office as an independent structure. I even heard the probable name: “Investigative Committee of the Prosecutor General’s Office.” However, from a procedural point of view, this would be an erroneous decision: the same agency cannot conduct and supervise the investigation. This again can lead to subjective decisions, errors and legal chaos.”

An equally discussed topic is the new potential head of the Investigative Committee. “Rumors about the resignation of the Chairman of the Investigative Committee have been circulating for several years, and so far they have not affected Alexander Bastrykin’s position in any way. If such a high-profile resignation does occur, it is likely that one of Bastrykin’s first deputies could take his place. For example, Igor Krasnov, Eduard Kaburneev, or Raskov, the head of the department for investigating particularly important cases,” believes lawyer Alexander Zheleznikov.

“Among Alexander Ivanovich’s successors, I would name two candidates,” says Stanislav Belkovsky. -This is 42-year-old Igor Krasnov, deputy chairman of the Investigative Committee. By the way, last year he was awarded the rank of general- Lieutenant of Justice. Another, no less worthy, in my opinion, candidate is the Chairman of the Committee State Duma in state building and legislation - 54-year-old Pavel Krasheninnikov. He is a Doctor of Law, professor, State Counselor of Justice, but more importantly, he has proven loyalty to the authorities, being a deputy from United Russia. Krasheninnikov is also known in the presidential structures: he h "The Leningrad of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the Improvement of Civil Legislation, is a member of the Commission under the President of the Russian Federation for the Improvement of Public Administration and Justice."

However, representatives of law enforcement agencies speak out more cautiously. To date, there has been no leakage of information from the Presidential Administration on this issue. The president can make any decision, and it can be the most unexpected, security officials believe.

Once again about the fate of the Investigative Committee

Hand on heart, can we say that we are satisfied with our Investigative Committee, that it is impeccable and effective? Most likely no. And not only ordinary citizens, but even statesmen think so, otherwise where would the ideas for another reform of this important department come from?

Yes, all over the world, by tradition, “cops”, “flicks”, “cops” and “sleuths” are not very favored. And yet, people always have a sense of truth or falsehood, public benefit or corruption. Efficiency, after all. And this is where the questions begin...

But first, let’s remind you of something.

From Pyotr Alekseevich to Alexander Ivanovich

Peter I can be called the “father” of an investigative agency independent from other authorities. It was he who separated the criminal process and the preliminary investigation. Centuries passed, the names and status of the investigative bodies changed (they were either part of the state security agencies or the Ministry of Internal Affairs), but on the threshold of the new millennium the investigation

It was under the control of the prosecutor's office. And in the summer of 2007, a federal law was adopted that excluded the investigation as such from the control of the prosecutor's office. It became independent. True, not entirely - the Chairman of the Investigative Committee was for some time still the First Deputy Prosecutor General, and the investigators were listed as prosecutorial employees.

The complete restoration of Peter’s idea of ​​an absolutely independent investigation occurred in January 2011, from the moment it came into force Federal Law“On the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.” Now the Committee was finally separated from the Prosecutor General's Office and began its independent voyage. And all this under the banner of the Investigative Committee and increasing the objectivity of the investigation, more fully ensuring the constitutional rights of Russians.

Was it good or bad? The world practice of the activities of law enforcement and special forces clearly shows that all these departments are always in a state of unspoken competition. Everyone is watching everyone. To some extent, this is beneficial to the state, maintains a system of checks and balances, and prevents the growth of corruption. But this is when among the security forces there is no one who is the most important, the closest, to whom everything is allowed. And when rivalry does not turn into open hostility. Moreover, public.

And this is exactly what happened between the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Committee. Between Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika and the head of the Investigative Committee, and then the Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin.

Personal hostility and conflict of interests between two departments - the Investigative Committee and the Prosecutor General's Office - became especially pronounced in the fight against economic crimes. The committee attacked private business: statistics from the same year 2015 showed that only 15% of such cases went to court, but in 83% of cases people lost their business. Who got it in the end? The facts cited by the prosecutor's office also indicated that employees of the Investigative Committee were often beneficiaries in cases of economic crimes. “They pressed” and “protected”.

There were other high-profile conflict cases where the confrontation between the Investigative Committee and the Prosecutor General’s Office was especially clear: the case of FSKN General Alexander Bulbov, Deputy Minister of Finance Sergei Storchak, an operation to uncover underground gambling establishments in the Moscow region.

A. Bastrykin sought to turn his Committee into a super department. In 2012, the issue of transferring the investigative apparatus of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Drug Control under the wing of the Investigative Committee was seriously discussed. It is clear that the Ministry of Internal Affairs and especially the FSB were against it. The mini-reform failed...

And yet, the head of the Investigative Committee did not give up attempts to somehow reform his department. In 2016, a number of the Committee’s departments ceased to be called main, and some of them became departments. The idea arose of abolishing the department of internal security and interaction between departments. These were the units whose leaders fell for corruption and went to Lefortovo.

And here are the events of recent times, when the head of the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee for the city of Moscow, Alexander Drymanov, and some other officers were caught taking a bribe. This loud scandal became the reason for a new round of conversations and ideas on reforming or reorganizing the Investigative Committee.

Russian President Vladimir Putin at the board of the Prosecutor General's Office (he never visited the board of the Investigative Committee) drew attention to strengthening prosecutorial oversight of the investigation at all levels.

Many experts note that recently the FSB is increasingly involved in the Investigative Committee. And the picture of an otherwise successful and once all-powerful department is crumbling before our eyes.

Further more. After the regular annual speech of Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika in the Federation Council, Council Chairman Valentina Matvienko supported the proposal to return effective control over the investigation to the prosecutor's office. It turned out that the senators had already discussed this issue, there were specific ideas, but this topic itself, in their opinion, was already “overripe.”

By the way, it turned out that today the prosecutor does not have the opportunity to obtain at least any materials from the investigator. He also does not have the opportunity to express his own opinion about the measure of restraint. The Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building of the Federation Council drew attention to this and many other absurdities of the previous reform of the TFR. Legislators concluded that it is necessary to strengthen the supervisory powers of the prosecutor's office. There are proposals to return to the prosecutor's office the right to initiate or cancel criminal cases.

Rumors spread that the investigation was going to be returned to the prosecutor's office. But this, as it turned out, contradicts several international conventions that Russia has signed and in which supervision and investigation are separated. So there is no point in disbanding the Investigative Committee and returning the entire investigation to the prosecutor’s office, especially since this is also a significant waste of the budget.

The earth is full of ideas

There are so many versions today about the future of the Investigative Committee of Russia! And they will disband it, and hand it over, and, on the contrary, they will bring all the investigative forces in the country under its roof. And Bastrykin - he’s already done his job. They have already “found” a new place of service for him – the Constitutional Court.

There was (perhaps only in some advanced minds) a global idea of ​​creating a Ministry of State Security on the basis of the FSB. It was supposed to send both the FSO and the SVR to it. Return the Investigative Committee to the Prosecutor General's Office. The Ministry of Emergency Situations will be divided between the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Among the heap of nonsense and deliberate falsehoods, there are also quite adequate proposals. For example, change the situation with the inquiry and preliminary investigation. If anyone doesn’t know, an inquiry is one of the forms of pre-trial investigation of crimes. As a rule, small and moderate in severity. The inquiry, unlike the preliminary investigation, can be carried out by police officers, commanders of military units, and FSB officers. Unfortunately, in practice, the Investigative Committee formalizes and conducts most of the crimes under investigation as a preliminary investigation, which takes more effort and delays the case. It is no coincidence that the Prosecutor General's Office noted an annual increase in the number of cases that investigators consider for more than a year.

It seems that in the minds of the active part of society the idea is becoming stronger that the prosecutor’s office and the investigation are incompatible, since the same body cannot conduct a case and control it tightly. But supervision over the investigation and its legality is simply necessary. Not squabbling, not a battle of power titans, but intense and responsible work.

And mutual control between law enforcement agencies is needed, not tugging, and certainly not rivalry. Such cross-control is only for the benefit of society. By the way, it should be as active as possible in this matter. And also - without hysterics, unjustified emotions, but from the standpoint of healthy and common sense.

How to make some adjustments to the activities of the Investigative Committee, and who will ultimately head it, is a second matter.

P.S. At the beginning of 2019, legislative acts will be adopted that will give the Prosecutor General’s Office new opportunities to control the Investigative Committee. So, we’ll see which ones and how it will all “land”.....

Vladimir Putin will consider proposals to reorganize the structure of the Russian investigation. It is expected that the functions of the Investigative Committee will be divided between the Prosecutor General's Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

According to PASMI, on the desk of the head of the Presidential Administration Anton Vaino The draft proposals of the head of the investigation department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Alexander Romanov, were laid down. According to the author’s proposals, the Prosecutor General’s Office will be given cases involving especially serious corpus delicti. Heavy, moderate and light cases will be assigned to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. PASMI journalists talked with experts and received different opinions on the need for reforms.

Criticism of the supervisory authority

The Ministry of Internal Affairs is not alone in its requests to reform the investigation. So, April 26th of this year Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika during a speech at the Federation Council, he criticized the work of investigators. He said that over the past two and a half years, employees of the Investigative Committee, the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB Investigation Department 6.7 thousand criminal cases were illegally initiated, as part of the investigation of which the investigation asked the court to arrest the defendants. “No one apologized to them (the wrongfully arrested) and no one was held accountable for this.”, - said the head of the Prosecutor General's Office. He also noted that the court, when considering the investigation's request for arrest, listens to the opinions of the prosecutor and the investigator, but in most cases only supports the latter.

And in mid-March, during the final board meeting, the head of the Prosecutor General’s Office noted that a third of criminal cases are being investigated for too long, and the number of people in custody for more than a year increased by 70%.

Rumors about the reorganization of the Investigative Committee

The current structure of investigative bodies took shape seven years ago, when the Investigative Committee of Russia was separated from the Prosecutor General's Office. Today investigative functions divided among three departments: Investigative Committee of Russia, Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Main Investigation Department of the FSB. In addition, there are also bodies of inquiry as part of the police, the FSB border service, the Federal Bailiff Service. At the same time, the TFR is almost completely inherited previous jurisdiction General Prosecutor's Office.

Since then, information about the liquidation of the Investigative Committee or its return to the Prosecutor General’s Office has arisen with enviable regularity. At the same time, rumors are also circulating about liquidation of investigative units Ministry of Internal Affairs and the distribution of their functions between the Investigative Committee and the police investigation departments. So, in 2014, in funds mass media raised the issue that investigative authorities may unite by presidential decree, and the new joint investigation structure will begin to work in 2017. However, in the fall of 2015, the head of the Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, announced the freezing of the merger project.

“For now this topic is frozen, and I decided that while I am in this capacity (chairman of the Investigative Committee), I will not raise it... There were meetings, discussions and conversations. After listening to the opinion of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, I thought that I don’t need this,” Bastrykin told reporters then.

Independence or permissiveness

In the discussion around the Investigative Committee, one can highlight two points of view. One of them comes from the fact that the creation of the Investigative Committee made it possible to separate the functions of supervision and investigation and made the preliminary investigation process more objective and independent. Supporters of the creation of the Investigative Committee proceed from the fact that the prosecutor's office can no longer arbitrarily initiate criminal cases, and investigators, in turn, will not be able to arbitrarily refer cases to court without the approval of prosecutors. Opponents believe that the result is too much power being concentrated investigative authorities are in their hands, and the prosecutor’s office’s ability to influence the stages of the preliminary investigation is minimal, which leads to excessive concentration of powers in the hands of investigative authorities and, as a consequence, many abuses.

Experts differ in their assessments of the reform of investigative bodies

Chairman of the National Anti-Corruption Committee Kirill Kabanov stated that he does not consider such a large-scale reorganization possible in the near future. According to him, we can only talk about partial return investigative functions to the Prosecutor General's Office.

Kabanov noted that there are certain advantages in the merger of the investigative bodies of the Investigative Committee and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but they are offset by possible economic risks, in particular, increased costs. At the same time, the existing system needs to diversify powers in order to reducing corruption risks. According to the expert, “in the case of building a strict control system, there must be some kind of independent structure”, which will be able to control the investigation. Kabanov said that main problem the existing system is that “the employees of the Investigative Committee are in a hidden conflict of interest, because only the Investigative Committee can initiate criminal cases against them.” He called the most optimal option for developing the situation the return of part of the investigative functions to the Prosecutor General's Office in terms of control over the employees of the investigative bodies and conducting investigative actions against them.

Advocate Alexey Mikhalchik noted that he does not see much point in changing the current system. At the same time, it is necessary to strengthen the functions of the prosecutor’s office, because “at the moment the prosecutor’s office has lost control over the preliminary investigation bodies”. According to the lawyer, as a result, there is practically no “opportunity to terminate the proceedings in an illegally initiated criminal case.” Mikhalchik noted that this “allows the same investigation, despite the position of the prosecutor’s office, to conduct investigations on ordered cases for years.”

Former assistant to the head of the Presidential Administration Evgeny Mikhailov noted that both the former and the current formats of the investigative system have their pros and cons. The advantages, according to the expert, are that “the two departments balance each other and are in a certain confrontation”. But in other way, “The efficiency of the Prosecutor General’s Office was previously higher because there was one structure”, so organizational issues were resolved more easily. Mikhailov also noted that “confrontation is not always useful in law enforcement matters”. The expert said that in a normally functioning judicial system such a division is hardly justified. Today, the main problem, according to the former official, is the functioning of the judicial system. “When the courts are independent and qualified, then I don’t see any problem in having a single prosecutor general’s office with the investigation,” the expert noted.

Former law enforcement officer and current GR specialist Sergey Zhirkov said that the creation of the Investigative Committee and the separation of the investigation from the prosecutor’s office was "a positive step", because it allowed “diversify the functions of prosecutorial supervision and investigation” and led “towards greater independence of investigation, and, in general, division of powers within the law enforcement system”. According to the expert, today it is also necessary to “separate the investigation department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, or, at a minimum, give it an autonomous status, because the heads of the investigation departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs are actually subordinate to the police leadership.” In addition, further strengthening of the transparency of law enforcement agencies and the development of an independent judicial system are also necessary.