The military court refused to accept the challenge
The military court refused to accept the challenge
Lawyers present new arguments to stop criminal prosecution of defendants in the "REvil case"
The lawyers of the defendants accused of links to the REvil hacking group insist that there is no reason to prosecute their clients. At the last hearing, they stated that the investigative materials, including the expert examination, that served as the basis for initiating the case were compiled with violations. In their opinion, law enforcement agencies not only made a number of gross procedural errors, but also failed to take the measures necessary for a full investigation. For example, they did not interrogate the owners of bank cards from among American citizens, whose funds their clients allegedly encroached on. The defense believes that this makes the victims nothing more than an abstraction, and the proceedings have been going on for over two years. However, these arguments did not convince the military prosecutor's office and the court.
Expand to full screen
Garrison Military Court hearing on the REVIL group case
Garrison Military Court hearing on the REVIL group case
Photo: Kucherov Andrey
Garrison Military Court hearing on the REVIL group case
Photo: Kucherov Andrey
Recently, the St. Petersburg Garrison Military Court held another hearing on the "REvil case" (the hacker group Ransomware Evil, also known as Sodinokibi), where the stage of presenting evidence for the defense began. Last time, the lawyers of the young people accused of droppering filed several motions, which, among other things, contained a demand to terminate the criminal proceedings, since at the stage of the preliminary investigation, according to the defense, the FSB and the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia violated the norms of legislation regulating the procedure for initiating a criminal case.
Lawyers believe that law enforcement officers did not properly draw up a report on the discovery of signs of a crime, which was the initial reason for initiating a case on the illegal circulation of payment funds.
"The fact that the case materials contain a document called a 'report' does not mean that it is a legitimate procedural document drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, the results of operational investigative measures were transferred, and, having studied these materials, the FSB investigator should have drawn up a report on the discovery of signs of a crime, but he did not do so. In the absence of such a basis, the decision to initiate a criminal case, no matter what you do with it, is illegal," lawyer Denis Brudov told the court, noting that this argument was never refuted by the state prosecution.
In late October last year, eight defendants appeared in court: retired senior warrant officer Artem Zayets, Aleksey Malozemov, Andrey Bessonov, Mikhail Golovachuk, Roman Muromsky, Dmitry Korotayev, Daniil Puzyrevsky, and Ruslan Khansvyarov. They are accused of illegal activities with financial resources (Part 2 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and the last two are also charged with developing and distributing malware (Part 2 of Article 273 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). All of them have been in custody since early 2022. The arrests of the alleged REvil members, who are called pro-Russian cybercriminals in the Western press, were carried out in several regions of the Russian Federation at the request of the United States. After their arrest, the FSB announced that the hacking group had been liquidated, but the defendants themselves deny their involvement in it.
The defense also asked the court to interrogate the owners of the electronic payment instruments, which in the case are mainly American citizens, but they were denied. The military justice officer drew the court's attention to the fact that the case does not include damages and that no claims were filed by the victims, and such demands from the defense, in his opinion, are aimed at delaying the process. In response to this, attorney Brudov explained that such a need is due to the fact that if it suddenly turns out that the bank accounts were blocked at the time of the alleged crime, then they cannot be considered payment instruments.
"Were these cards valid at that time or not? They have an expiration date, but a person could block the card if the data, say, fell into the hands of fraudsters, and then what? This information can only be verified by questioning the victims or by requesting this information from the bank (issuer). This was not done. We have doubts that these cards could have been used. And how can the case be continued if there are doubts? We are not asking to collect evidence of the defendants' guilt. We are for an objective investigation," the attorney complained.
In another petition, the defense indicated that the first examination in the criminal case was conducted at United Card Services, which, in their opinion, did not have the appropriate license. After this fact was revealed, said lawyer Yulia Kanunnikova, at the stage of familiarization of the defense with the case materials (Article 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), the investigator "in an accelerated manner" ordered a similar examination to be conducted by experts from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. "Significant violations were committed during the appointment and conduct of the second examination, which cast doubt on the conclusions set out in it," emphasized Ms. Kanunnikova.
The lawyer Vladislav Dreeris, who took the floor, explained that the methodology used in the said examination itself raises doubts, as does the qualifications of the specialists.
Senior defense team member Aleksandr Kanishchev added that if the name of a department includes "expert department," it does not mean that it is one. "I go to a hairdresser, and he is also an expert hairdresser, but that does not mean that he is an expert in our case," the lawyer gave an analogy.
Advertisement - continued below
The lawyers filed a motion to call the police department experts for questioning at the court hearing, but the representative of the military prosecutor's office opposed this, as he considered that the expert's conclusion was drawn up correctly and there was no reason not to trust it. Judge Anatoly Movchan supported his position. After the defense presented additional arguments justifying the need to call the experts to the hearing, the court took a break on this issue until the next hearing.
Lawyers present new arguments to stop criminal prosecution of defendants in the "REvil case"
The lawyers of the defendants accused of links to the REvil hacking group insist that there is no reason to prosecute their clients. At the last hearing, they stated that the investigative materials, including the expert examination, that served as the basis for initiating the case were compiled with violations. In their opinion, law enforcement agencies not only made a number of gross procedural errors, but also failed to take the measures necessary for a full investigation. For example, they did not interrogate the owners of bank cards from among American citizens, whose funds their clients allegedly encroached on. The defense believes that this makes the victims nothing more than an abstraction, and the proceedings have been going on for over two years. However, these arguments did not convince the military prosecutor's office and the court.
Expand to full screen
Garrison Military Court hearing on the REVIL group case
Garrison Military Court hearing on the REVIL group case
Photo: Kucherov Andrey
Garrison Military Court hearing on the REVIL group case
Photo: Kucherov Andrey
Recently, the St. Petersburg Garrison Military Court held another hearing on the "REvil case" (the hacker group Ransomware Evil, also known as Sodinokibi), where the stage of presenting evidence for the defense began. Last time, the lawyers of the young people accused of droppering filed several motions, which, among other things, contained a demand to terminate the criminal proceedings, since at the stage of the preliminary investigation, according to the defense, the FSB and the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia violated the norms of legislation regulating the procedure for initiating a criminal case.
Lawyers believe that law enforcement officers did not properly draw up a report on the discovery of signs of a crime, which was the initial reason for initiating a case on the illegal circulation of payment funds.
"The fact that the case materials contain a document called a 'report' does not mean that it is a legitimate procedural document drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, the results of operational investigative measures were transferred, and, having studied these materials, the FSB investigator should have drawn up a report on the discovery of signs of a crime, but he did not do so. In the absence of such a basis, the decision to initiate a criminal case, no matter what you do with it, is illegal," lawyer Denis Brudov told the court, noting that this argument was never refuted by the state prosecution.
In late October last year, eight defendants appeared in court: retired senior warrant officer Artem Zayets, Aleksey Malozemov, Andrey Bessonov, Mikhail Golovachuk, Roman Muromsky, Dmitry Korotayev, Daniil Puzyrevsky, and Ruslan Khansvyarov. They are accused of illegal activities with financial resources (Part 2 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and the last two are also charged with developing and distributing malware (Part 2 of Article 273 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). All of them have been in custody since early 2022. The arrests of the alleged REvil members, who are called pro-Russian cybercriminals in the Western press, were carried out in several regions of the Russian Federation at the request of the United States. After their arrest, the FSB announced that the hacking group had been liquidated, but the defendants themselves deny their involvement in it.
The defense also asked the court to interrogate the owners of the electronic payment instruments, which in the case are mainly American citizens, but they were denied. The military justice officer drew the court's attention to the fact that the case does not include damages and that no claims were filed by the victims, and such demands from the defense, in his opinion, are aimed at delaying the process. In response to this, attorney Brudov explained that such a need is due to the fact that if it suddenly turns out that the bank accounts were blocked at the time of the alleged crime, then they cannot be considered payment instruments.
"Were these cards valid at that time or not? They have an expiration date, but a person could block the card if the data, say, fell into the hands of fraudsters, and then what? This information can only be verified by questioning the victims or by requesting this information from the bank (issuer). This was not done. We have doubts that these cards could have been used. And how can the case be continued if there are doubts? We are not asking to collect evidence of the defendants' guilt. We are for an objective investigation," the attorney complained.
In another petition, the defense indicated that the first examination in the criminal case was conducted at United Card Services, which, in their opinion, did not have the appropriate license. After this fact was revealed, said lawyer Yulia Kanunnikova, at the stage of familiarization of the defense with the case materials (Article 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), the investigator "in an accelerated manner" ordered a similar examination to be conducted by experts from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. "Significant violations were committed during the appointment and conduct of the second examination, which cast doubt on the conclusions set out in it," emphasized Ms. Kanunnikova.
The lawyer Vladislav Dreeris, who took the floor, explained that the methodology used in the said examination itself raises doubts, as does the qualifications of the specialists.
Senior defense team member Aleksandr Kanishchev added that if the name of a department includes "expert department," it does not mean that it is one. "I go to a hairdresser, and he is also an expert hairdresser, but that does not mean that he is an expert in our case," the lawyer gave an analogy.
Advertisement - continued below
The lawyers filed a motion to call the police department experts for questioning at the court hearing, but the representative of the military prosecutor's office opposed this, as he considered that the expert's conclusion was drawn up correctly and there was no reason not to trust it. Judge Anatoly Movchan supported his position. After the defense presented additional arguments justifying the need to call the experts to the hearing, the court took a break on this issue until the next hearing.
