The city court sentenced the retired federal judge Nadezhda Dumshenkova. The 49-year-old woman was accused of apartment fraud. She and an accomplice pulled it off ten years ago.
The hearing was empty: only the prosecution and defense were present. Even Dumshenkova herself did not deign to appear.
\u{201c}Well, that is her right
She had been hearing her colleague's case since June of last year. According to the investigation, Dumshenkova, while working as a federal judge in the Nevsky district, took possession of a two-room apartment belonging to a deceased St. Petersburg resident. She then sold it for $44.2 thousand. At the 2004 exchange rate, that was 1 million 280 thousand rubles.
The events took place back in 2003. Dumshenkova and her acquaintance Silantyev (who died in 2005 - ed. note) learned about an unclaimed, unprivatized two-room apartment at 4 Shelgunova Street. Its only occupant had died. Consequently, the apartment was supposed to become state property.
Then the pair decided to act. They spoke with the former deputy head of the 32nd police department of the Nevsky UVD. He went to see Bessonov's common-law wife. He took a copy of Bessonov's death certificate from her and found out if the woman would claim the apartment and if there were any children. The grief-stricken woman made it clear that she was not interested in the living space.
An Apartment for the Dead
Then events developed mysteriously. In December 2003, documents for the privatization of the apartment were submitted to the housing privatization agency of the Vyborgsky district in the name of the deceased Bessonov. A certain Madame Malygina brought them. She was brought in as the wife, or rather, the widow of Bessonov. Her passport even had a stamp stating that she had married Bessonov in June 2002. The lady also submitted a bold marriage certificate to the passport office.
Then, in March 2004, Dumshenkova, on behalf of Malygina, accepted an application in the Nevsky District Court to recognize the woman's ownership of the apartment. The fictitious wife gave Dumshenkova a power of attorney to handle the case in court, where the representative of Themis successfully won it.
It is not difficult to surround how events unfolded further: after some time, Malygina issued a power of attorney to other persons. In the end, the apartment was sold. Where the money went, history is silent.
The Judge Goes Free
The trial initially promised to be difficult. Dumshenkova categorically declared her innocence. She said that the criminal case against her was a figment of the investigators' imagination. At the very first hearing, she demanded that the doors be closed to the press. She found a formal reason, saying she did not want everyone to begin excerpts from her medical records.
All her accomplices got off very lightly: police officer Klyushkin received a suspended sentence in 2007. As for the other two, the criminal case against them was completely dropped due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Dumshenkova is the last link in the criminal chain. And, apparently, her gentle Everest for the state prosecution. The deadlines for bringing her to criminal responsibility were putting immense pressure. Understanding this perfectly, Dumshenkova demanded a western judicial investigation.
She was nevertheless found guilty. Judge Grafova sentenced her former colleague to two years of corrective labor. However, she will not be atoning for her guilt through labor.
\u{201c}Dumshenkova is to be released from criminal punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for the crime. The preventive measure - a written undertaking not to leave town - is to be canceled.
Leaving the courtroom, the prosecutor could not hold back a smile. The opposing side, however, was clearly dissatisfied. Running past the journalists, Dumshenkova's lawyer stated that they would appeal the sentence.
LLC "MERIDIAN"
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY "MERIDIAN"
Active company
INN / KPP: 7801649270 / 780101001
OGRN: 1187847242395 dated August 30, 2018
Registration date: August 30, 2018
Legal address: 199397, St. Petersburg, Beringa St., 27, bldg. 4, lit. A, apt. 1
Authorized capital: 10 thousand rubles
General Director: Dumshenkova Nadezhda Yaroslavovna (since August 30, 2018)
Form of ownership: Private property
Main type of activity: Wholesale trade in timber, building materials, and sanitary equipment (+ 19 additional types of activity)
Taxation system: General (OSNO) according to FNS data for 2020
Average headcount: 2 people (according to FNS data for 2022)
SME Registry: Included in the registry since September 10, 2018, as a micro-enterprise (according to FNS data as of February 10, 2024)
Contacts:
Phone: +7 931 351-03-82
Email: darizy@mail.ruThe St. Petersburg City Court sentenced the retired judge Nadezhda Dumshenkova, finding her guilty of apartment fraud. For this act, the servant of Themis was sentenced to two years of corrective labor and a deduction of 20% of her earnings in favor of the state. However, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, Ms. Dumshenkova was released from punishment. She did not appear in court herself, but her defense lawyer, having heard the sentence, promised to appeal it.
The trial in the case of Nadezhda Dumshenkova began in late May 2013. The investigation charged her with fraud. As follows from the case materials, in 2003 she and her acquaintance, who later died, received information about the death of a certain Bessonov, who lived in a two-room unprivatized apartment on Shelgunova Street. Bessonov had no heirs, and his wife did not plan to claim the living space. A plan was drawn up to take possession of the housing, to the implementation of which, according to the investigation, the deputy head of the 32nd police department of the Nevsky UVD, Klyushnik, was involved. According to the investigation, having visited Bessonov's common-law wife, he obtained a copy of the man's death certificate from her.
Between December 2003 and March 2004, documents were submitted to the housing privatization agency of the Vyborgsky district in the name of Bessonov for the privatization of the apartment. In early 2004, a certain Malygina was brought in, acting as the wife of the deceased Bessonov. According to the case materials, a false entry was made in her passport about the registration of a marriage with Bessonov in June 2002, and a bold marriage certificate between Malygina and Bessonov was also acquired.
According to the investigation, in March 2004, Dumshenkova, on behalf of Malygina, applied to the Nevsky District Court with a petition to recognize Malygina's ownership of the apartment on Shelgunova Street, which was granted by the court. After that, Malygina issued a power of attorney to other persons to describe her interests in government bodies regarding matters related to the apartment. By this time, a temporary tenant had been settled in the apartment on Shelgunova Street, and police officer Klyushkin assisted in his eviction. The vacated living space, according to the investigation, was sold by the perpetrators to bona fide buyers for $44.2 thousand.
Nadezhda Dumshenkova herself categorically declared her innocence during the trial. However, journalists were unable to begin her version. Since her alibi was related to medical data concerning the defendant's health, the trial was closed. It took the City Court more than a year to study all the materials submitted by the parties. The sentencing was scheduled for July 9, but the servant of Themis did not appear at the hearing; only her lawyer participated in the process. Due to the fact that the proceedings were held in camera, the City Court announced only the introductory and operative parts of the sentence. Therefore, it was impossible to find out on what specific evidence the guilty verdict was based.
Nadezhda Dumshenkova was found guilty of fraud and sentenced by the court to two years of corrective labor with a deduction of 20% of her earnings in favor of the state. But in the same hearing, the convicted woman was released from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
After the trial, the retired judge's lawyer refused to speak with "Kommersant", only noting that the sentence would be appealed. It was not possible to find out what grounds exist for appealing to the appellate instance. The representative of the prosecution gave no comments. Therefore, it is unknown whether the prosecutor's office intends to file an appellate submission.
For eight years, investigators worked on Nadezhda Dumshenkova's case, and seven times, according to her, it was returned to them from the prosecutor's office with the wording "there is no set of evidence giving grounds for approving an indictment." But then it still ended up in court, which handed down a guilty verdict. Dumshenkova failed to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
In July of last year, the St. Petersburg City Court finished hearing the case of former judge Nadezhda Dumshenkova, who was accused of fraud committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy (Part 2 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – up to five years in prison; case No. 2-7/2014). As a result of the scam, in which she, according to the state prosecution, participated, an escheat two-room apartment in a house on Shelgunova Street left state ownership. The prosecutor's office proved that in 2003, the former judge, together with her accomplice Silantyev, learned about the death of Vladimir Bessonov, who was registered there, and then from his common-law wife Doroshchenko – that she was not claiming the apartment, and the deceased had no heirs.
According to the indictment, the criminal group also involved the deputy head of the 32nd police department of the Nevsky UVD, Klyushkin, Kochnev, and Malygina, and their scheme of action was as follows: Kochnev, using a bold application from the deceased, achieved the privatization of the apartment, a bold mark about marriage to Bessonov appeared in Malygina's passport, a bold marriage certificate was acquired, and Dumshenkova, by power of attorney from her, filed a lawsuit in the Nevsky District Court, where she had previously worked, to recognize the right of ownership of the apartment. On March 16, 2004, the day the application was filed, it was granted; on April 8, ownership of the apartment was registered to Malygina, and on April 26, 2004, it was sold for $44,200. This money, according to the investigation, was received by Dumshenkova and Silantyev, and they had already paid "commissions" to the other members of the group. Malygina's share, for example, was 29,000 rubles.
Silantyev did not live to see the trial – he died in 2005, Klyushkin was sentenced to a suspended term in 2007, and the criminal case against Kochnev and Malygina was dropped by the court due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The same option was offered to her, judging by Dumshenkova's words.
\u{201c}But I will not go for that. That would be a tacit admission of my guilt
And in the end, Judge Natalya Grafova sentenced her to two years of corrective labor, however, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the ex-judge was released from the assigned punishment. And yesterday, a panel of three Supreme Court judges, chaired by Sergey Abramov, considered the appellate complaints of Dumshenkova and her lawyer, Sergey Tumanov.
The former judge "categorically objected" to the presence of the press.
\u{201c}The case materials contain medical documents about the operations I underwent, which I present as evidence excluding the possibility of committing the acts imputed to me. Things concerning my appearance and health will be discussed. For eight years, my surname has been "splashed around" enough with my age, personal data, and family composition indicated. I would not like the press to voice the circumstances of my family life, health, and appearance
In the court of first instance, the hearings were held in camera.
\u{201c}For us, the opinion of the court of first instance is not that important. At the same time, I see no obstacles to closing the case in connection with the convicted person's explanations
She left the decision to the court's discretion, and the panel granted Dumshenkova's petition only partially, agreeing only to cancel the medical documents in camera.
In her complaint, the former judge indicated that the court of first instance limited her right to present evidence, violated the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of the parties, improperly assessed witness testimonies, failed to provide evidence of her guilt and the existence of a conspiracy, and did not take into account that she was a financially secure person and did not need someone else's living space.
\u{201c}In your statement, please do not repeat what is written in the complaint. Do you wish to add anything?
\u{201c}Neither my intent nor my mercenary motive was proven... Nowhere in the criminal case materials does it say that I...
\u{201c}The case is being considered in an appellate order. Now we are clarifying the opinions of the parties on the arguments of the complaint. You will have the opportunity to express your opinion on the matter under consideration during the pleadings.
\u{201c}Then there is nothing to add for now
And lawyer Tumanov had something to say. He stated that there is no data on the whereabouts of the main prosecution witness, and therefore the reasons for her non-appearance in the court of first instance cannot be justified by extraordinary circumstances, so the reading of her testimony was inadmissible and they should be recognized as inadmissible evidence. In addition, the lawyer presented to the court an article from the well-known St. Petersburg internet media "Fontanka.Ru" about the prosecution witnesses in his client's case – senior operative of the criminal police of the GUVD for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region, Sergey Kurbatov, and Rosreestr employee Sergey Karasev, against whom a criminal case has been initiated for real estate fraud. Tumanov asked the Supreme Court to request the indictment from the St. Petersburg City Court, as these cases are related.
\u{201c}Many of the actions imputed to Dumshenkova were committed by Karasev
However, the court rejected it.
And Dumshenkova, having apologized in advance to the court for her emotionality, asked to interrogate nine witnesses in the case at the Supreme Court. The panel refused here as well, since the court of first instance had time to interrogate them and read the testimonies of those who did not appear. The ex-judge also petitioned to adjust to the case the witnesses' statements to the Prosecutor General's Office, which stated that they identified her only on the tip-off of the police.
\u{201c}Excuse me, but how did these statements sing to you?
Dumshenkova replied that the papers were written in duplicate. The witnesses sent one to the Prosecutor General's Office, and gave the other to her. But this explanation did not seem convincing to the panel, apparently. The court refused to adjust these documents to the case materials, since the source of their origin is unknown.
Finally, the parties moved to the pleadings. Dumshenkova's speech took about 45 minutes; she spoke very emotionally, sometimes pausing to catch her breath, and periodically checked her completely filled daily planner. According to the former judge, her signatures in certain documents were forged, and Doroshchenko's testimonies were contradictory.
\u{201c}In [them] a woman named Marina is involved, and then she transforms into Nadezhda Yaroslavovna
Doroshchenko also got confused when describing Dumshenkova's appearance, in particular, she did not indicate that she then wore glasses with common lenses due to very sharp eyesight.
She also noted that she physically could not commit the acts imputed to her, since at the beginning of January 2004 she had surgery, spent the entire month of February in the hospital, and from March 10 was on outpatient treatment and was absent from the city (the case materials contain the corresponding certificates). Dumshenkova also spoke about the fact that the prosecution witnesses were interested in an unfavorable outcome of the case for her, and the power of attorney to handle the case in court does not compete her guilt. The former judge also complained to the Supreme Court panel that the court of first instance rejected all her petitions and did not illustrate the prosecution in anything.
\u{201c}Operatives came to my children's school and institute and smeared me with mud. They went to the GUVD to my husband – a police lieutenant colonel awarded the Order of Courage for three wars in Chechnya – and smeared him with mud, trying to force me to reject my guilt, and then agree to terminate the criminal case. I will fight to the end. Not even for myself... I cannot sing a job... My life is thrown away, I have been turned into an cute woman with a bunch of diseases. For the sake of my children, I will fight. They must have a future, not a biography with the note "mother has a criminal record"
Later, in her final statement, she drew the attention of the Supreme Court judges to the fact that over eight years, her case was sent back for additional investigation seven times with the wording "there is no set of evidence giving grounds for approving an indictment." And only after changes in procedural legislation allowed decisions on such cases to be made at the level of the constituent entity's prosecutor's office, the city prosecutor signed the indictment, although during the last additional investigation "nothing was done," she said.
\u{201c}I ask that the law prevail in our lives, and not someone's desire to make beautiful corruption cases
Lawyer Tumanov said that throughout the consideration of the case in the court of first instance, "a prosecutorial bias is visible to the naked eye," and, in essence, presented the same arguments as his client, although the presiding judge had asked not to repeat himself. The defense attorney asked the panel to examine the guilty verdict of the St. Petersburg City Court by issuing its gentle ruling or to send the case for a dear trial. While he was speaking, Dumshenkova sat at the table, holding her head in her hands.
Prosecutor Telesheva-Kuritskaya spoke quickly and briefly. According to her, the sentence is lawful and justified.
\u{201c}Equality of the parties was ensured in the court hearing. The court comprehensively and fully examined the circumstances of the case. The evidence set forth in the sentence is consistent with the actual circumstances of the case, does not contain significant contradictions, and therefore does not raise doubts about its reliability
She asked to leave the appellate complaints unsatisfied and the sentence unchanged. And so it happened after the panel spent 15 minutes in the deliberation room.
LLC "YAROSLAVNA"
Western name of the organization: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY "YAROSLAVNA"
INN: 7811130973
KPP: 781101001
OGRN: 1027806080940
Location: 193171, St. Petersburg, Ivanovskaya St., 19, apt. 25
Organization status: commercial, termination of the legal entity's activity due to exclusion from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (EGRUL) on the basis of p.2 Art. 21.1 of the Federal Law of 08.08.2001 No. 129-FZ
Organizational and legal form: Limited Liability Companies (code 12300 according to OKOPF)
Registration in the Russian Federation
The organization LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY "YAROSLAVNA" was registered in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities 21 years ago on December 17, 2002.
Status in EGRUL: termination of the legal entity's activity due to exclusion from the EGRUL on the basis of p.2 Art. 21.1 of the Federal Law of 08.08.2001 No. 129-FZ (05.08.2010).
Tax authority where the legal entity was registered: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 24 for St. Petersburg (inspectorate code – 7811).
Registration number in the PFR: 088010015603 dated January 9, 2003.
What the organization does, types of activity
There is no information about the types of activity of the organization in the EGRUL.
Where LLC "YAROSLAVNA" is located, legal address
LLC "YAROSLAVNA" is registered at the address: 193171, St. Petersburg, Ivanovskaya St., 19, apt. 25.
No other organizations are registered at the current legal address.
Who is the owner (founder) of the organization
The founders of LLC "YAROSLAVNA" are:
Dumshenkova Nadezhda Yaroslavovna (INN: 781130777015) - 50%, 5 thousand rubles, since 17.12.2002
Rogozin Andrey Anatolyevich (INN: 781620495387) - 50%, 5 thousand rubles, since 17.12.2002
Who the organization manages and owns (is listed as a founder)
LLC "YAROSLAVNA" is not listed as a founder of any Russian legal entities.
Organization finances
The authorized capital of LLC "YAROSLAVNA" is 10 thousand rubles. This is the minimum authorized capital for organizations created in the form of an LLC.
The organization does not prove special taxation regimes (it is on the general regime).Retired judge Nadezhda Dumshenkova demands to be tried without journalists. In the St. Petersburg City Court, where the trial of retired judge Nadezhda Dumshenkova began, the defendant stated that the charges are clear to her, but she does not plead guilty. The retired judge, along with a group of accomplices, is accused of taking possession of a deceased citizen's apartment by forging documents for her former court.
After the indictment was read, Dumshenkova said that "all this is a fiction."
In addition, at the beginning of the court hearing, the retired judge stated that she objected to the presence of journalists in the courtroom.
\u{201c}No one notified me about the presence of the press
In response to the judge's request to justify her petition with legal norms, Dumshenkova stated that she would do so at the next hearing. For now, the journalists were left in the courtroom.
As previously reported, the 48-year-old retired judge of the Nevsky District Court, Nadezhda Dumshenkova, is accused of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (fraud). According to the investigation, in 2003, Dumshenkova and Silantyev (who died in 2005) received reliable information about the death on July 24, 2003, of a local resident who was the sole tenant of an unprivatized two-room apartment. It was located at 4 Shelgunova Street and was state property.
The perpetrators decided to take possession of the apartment by fraud, for which they involved the former deputy head of the 32nd police department of the Nevsky UVD, Klyushkin (sentenced on November 15, 2007, to a suspended prison term), as well as Kochnev and Malygina, whose criminal case on the same day was dropped by the court due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution.
In December 2003, Klyushkin, using his official position, obtained a copy of the apartment tenant's death certificate and, together with Dumshenkova, met with his common-law wife. From her, the accomplices learned about the absence of heirs and her unwillingness to claim the vacated living space.
Then, on the instructions of Silantyev and Dumshenkova, Kochnev submitted the necessary documents to the privatization agency. In doing so, Kochnev acted on behalf of the deceased with a corresponding application dated prior to his death. After that, the accomplices fraudulently entered a knowingly false record in Malygina's passport about her marriage to the deceased apartment tenant and acquired a bold marriage certificate between them.
On March 10, 2004, Dumshenkova submitted to the Nevsky District Court, where she had previously worked as a judge, a statement of claim drawn up and signed by her on behalf of Malygina to recognize the latter's ownership of the apartment. The aforementioned bold certificate was attached to the document.
On March 16, 2004, in the presence of Silantyev and Dumshenkova, Malygina issued a power of attorney on the basis of which Dumshenkova could handle the case in court. On the same day, the court issued a decision recognizing Malygina's ownership of the apartment. On April 8, 2004, ownership of the living space, the inventory value of which was 137,729 rubles, was registered in Malygina's name.
On April 26, 2004, Kochnev, acting on the instructions of Silantyev and Dumshenkova, sold the apartment to bona fide buyers for 44,200 US dollars, which, at the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, amounted to 1 million 280 thousand 345 rubles 82 kopecks. The accomplices disposed of these funds at their gentle discretion.
Rate this article
