Man
Professional
- Messages
- 3,093
- Reaction score
- 636
- Points
- 113
Lawyers have achieved the acquittal of the cryptocurrency seller and his friend, who were accused of aiding fraudsters.
The court pointed out that registration on a cryptocurrency exchange and the issuance of a card to a third party, on which the victim's funds were received, and then transferred to users of the exchange, do not indicate deliberate complicity in fraud.
In a comment to AG, one of the defenders shared that the most difficult thing was to convey to the court how the crypto platform works and what p2p arbitration is. Another considered that the adopted judicial act on the innocence of the defendants once again proves that the principle of adversarial parties exists and is successfully applied in practice.
On September 27, the Dimitrovgrad City Court of the Ulyanovsk Region issued an acquittal against two men on charges of committing crimes under Part 5 of Article 33, Part 3 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. aiding and abetting fraud committed on a large scale. Defenders of the acquitted, lawyers of the Moscow Bar Association "Spectrum of Law" Roman Goncharov and Asim Alyev told AG about the nuances of the case.
According to the investigation, unidentified persons conspired to steal money on a large scale by deception by phone, introducing themselves as law enforcement officers and demanding the transfer of funds under the pretext of saving them from fraudsters, for which A. and B. A. were involved, searched for bank accounts and cards for them, issued to third parties, and gave instructions to transfer funds to the cards of accomplices. B. was looking for third parties to open bank accounts and cards for them, managed them, and also received details for subsequent transfers.
No later than May 30, 2022, B. instructed A. to issue a bank card for a monetary reward to a person who was not aware of the criminal intent of the accomplices. A. persuaded an acquaintance O. to issue a bank card in his name for 1 thousand rubles, and then transfer it to B. Then A., having received the card, connected the number in his use to it, after which he handed over the details of the card to B. On
June 3, 2022, unidentified persons, introducing themselves as employees of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, through calls and correspondence in the Whatsapp messenger, convinced P. to transfer 1 million rubles to accounts controlled by them. P. took out a loan, after which he deposited money into his current account. Then A. transferred the money received to the details of cards controlled by the members of the criminal group, twice 400 thousand rubles to one account and 200 thousand rubles to the second account, thereby stealing them, disposing of them at his own discretion, causing damage to P. in the amount of 1 million rubles.
In court, A. and B. denied their knowledge of both the criminal intent of unidentified persons to commit fraud and their assistance in the implementation of this criminal intent.
B. indicated that at the beginning of 2022 he registered and agreed to the terms of the user agreement on the Garantex cryptocurrency exchange, where you can buy and sell cryptocurrency. On the platform, the buyer can choose the seller with the most favorable conditions and enter into a deal (P2P). In June 2022, a regular buyer came to him for a deal under the nickname "D... 28». At that time, B. had cryptocurrencies worth 1 million rubles, since banks quickly block cards, B. asked through A. O. to issue a card for himself, explaining that the activity is related to a crypto exchange. B. sent the details of O.'s card to the buyer for crediting funds.
When "D... 28" transferred 1 million rubles, B. made two transactions to buy cryptocurrency for 800 thousand from one seller and a transaction for 200 thousand from another, earning about 60 thousand rubles on this.
A. explained that in June 2022, B. asked him to issue a card, explaining that he was engaged in cryptocurrency on the exchange and there would be no illegal actions. He agreed and said he had a credit card. B. warned that the card could be blocked, then A. asked O. to help open the card. O. agreed, issued a card and handed it over to A., and he gave the details to B. When the money arrived, A. transferred the funds twice to 400 thousand rubles to one account and 200 thousand rubles to another. For the assistance provided, B. gave 2 thousand rubles, of which 1 thousand A. gave to O. B. did not turn to him with any more requests.
Witness O. said that in early June 2022, his friend A. asked to issue a bank card for the purchase of securities, assuring that it was legal. O. agreed and on the same day left a request for the issuance and issuance of a debit bank card. On June 3, 2022, the courier brought the card, which O. handed over along with the attached documents to A., receiving 1 thousand rubles for this. A. called the bank from O.'s number, whose consultants said that the money would be unblocked and credited to his current account. He was not against it.
The victim, P.'s wife, pointed out that on the evening of June 3, 2022, P. said that he had received a call from a man who introduced himself as an employee of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, who said that a person named Sidorov had tried to take out a loan in his name. The loan was issued to him, but not issued, and P. must contact the bank himself and withdraw the money, otherwise it will be sent to fraudsters. After that, a woman called him, introduced herself as an employee of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and said that he needed to withdraw money and transfer it to a "reserve" account, which P. did. He took a loan, an account was opened for him in another bank, and he transferred 1 million rubles through it to the account of A. Realizing that this was fraud, P. and his wife went to the bank, but it was already closed. Having called the hotline, P. left an application for the cancellation of the money transfer operation. The next day, P. went to the bank, where he wrote a statement about fraudulent actions. On June 4, 2022, P.'s wife received a message that he had committed suicide.
Witness L. said that from November 2021 to December 2022 he worked on the Garantex cryptocurrency exchange, for registration on which it is necessary to pass verification and sign a user agreement. On the exchange, he bought cryptocurrency cheaper and sold it at a higher price. Sometimes regular buyers transferred funds before opening a deal on the exchange due to the fact that he, as a seller, either did not have cryptocurrency, or it was frozen. With this money, he bought cryptocurrency and transferred it to buyers. In such cases, only the buyer is at risk. The percentage of the transaction is set by the seller and the buyer themselves. Income consists of differencesBetween buying and selling. L. indicated that he had taught B. how to work on the stock exchange and knew the user "D... 28", who was a regular customer. «D... 28" was an exchange service, customers turned to it for the purchase of cryptocurrency, after which it opened transactions for the purchase of cryptocurrency, including with it. In total, with the user "D... 28" he made about 100 transactions. Due to the large turnover of funds, bank cards were blocked. According to the user agreement, the seller has no obligation to check the origin of funds from the buyer, the Garantex exchange guarantees that the transaction takes place within the framework of the law.
Having considered the materials of the case, the court considered that the prosecution did not provide data indicating that B. and A. were aware of the fraudulent actions committed against P. and their role as accomplices in this. He noted that according to the response from the Garantex crypto platform, B. carries out transactions with digital signs on the crypto platform, on January 28, 2022, a client account was registered "In ... C", through which B. carried out a transaction for the purchase and sale of cryptocurrency on June 3, 2022. The seller received payment in the amount of 1 million rubles, a financial asset in the amount of about 934 thousand rubles of cryptocurrency was credited to the account of the user "D... 28». L. carries out transactions for the purchase and sale of crypto, including using his account for money transfers. From November 15, 2021 to July 7, 2023, the number of completed transactions amounted to 3161 with 740 different counterparties, including "D... 28».
As the court pointed out, the evidence indicating that B. and A. entered into a conspiracy with unidentified persons aimed at stealing P.'s money on a large scale, by deception, deliberately contributed to the theft, is not contained in the case materials and is not cited by the public prosecutor. The fact that B. was registered on the Garantex exchange as of June 3, 2022 and A., at the request of the latter, asked to issue a card to O., which he issued and transferred to A. and to which P.'s funds were subsequently transferred, which were then transferred by O. at B.'s request to users of the exchange, does not indicate their intent to assist unidentified persons in committing fraud.
The defendants' arguments that they did not know about the origin of the funds received on June 3, 2022 from the user "D... 28" on the account of O., that A. decided to help his friend in drawing up the card by finding O., have not been refuted. On the contrary, the court noted, when signing the user agreement, A. agreed to its terms, according to which the user may not use the content or services of the exchange for any illegal purposes or otherwise, not mentioned in the terms, use the services of the exchange on behalf of or in the interests of any third party in any way.
The Dimitrovgrad City Court of the Ulyanovsk Region concluded that none of the evidence of the prosecution confirms the deliberate complicity of B. and A. in the commission of fraud, and acquitted them due to the absence of corpus delicti with the right to rehabilitation in their actions.
In a comment to AG, B. defender Roman Goncharov shared that the most difficult thing was to convey to the court how the crypto platform works and what P2P arbitration is. "At the stage of the preliminary investigation, all motions of the defense to obtain information from Garantex were cut off fromAn icebreaker. It was difficult for the lawyer to get information on his own, since crypto platforms have such a policy that they respond to requests only to law enforcement agencies and courts. Subsequently, the defense was still able to independently obtain the requested information, but already at the stage of consideration of the case by the court", he said. − Documents were received confirming the "purity" of the transactions carried out by my client, as well as the user agreement, which is mandatory for each user during registration, in the version in force at the time of the transaction with the unscrupulous buyer. These documents were carefully analyzed by the defense, and their essence was conveyed to the court (in addition to the documents themselves) in an easy-to-understand language. Witnesses for the defense were questioned, who made it clear in detail and clearly to more than one judge (the case was heard in court three times) that the seller of cryptocurrency has no obligation to find out from the buyer the legality of the origin of the money with which the buyer pays for crypto."
Roman Goncharov noted that initially the line of defense was built on the basis of the absence of intent on the part of the defendants to assist in the commission of fraud. "It was the totality of the evidence presented to the court by the defense that emphasized the argument that the acquitted had no intent to commit a crime", he concluded.
His colleague, defender A. Asim Alyev called the verdict more than fair: "It corresponds both to the circumstances of the events established during the investigation of the criminal case, and to the materials studied during the trial. The decision on the innocence of our clients once again proves that the principle of adversarial parties exists and is successfully applied in practice, especially if you are sure that you are right," he said.
Asim Aliyev noted that the crypto industry is actively developing in Russia and many young people do not suspect that they can end up in the investigator's office, and then in the dock. "Unfortunately, investigators, interrogating citizens without a lawyer, try to "catch" them, find some phrases in the interrogation that can simply be taken out of context, and build the accusation on this. A person, being not very versed in the intricacies of jurisprudence, as well as experiencing psychological pressure, is "led" by such not entirely correct methods of the investigator, thereby causing harm to himself and his future, "the lawyer said.
Asim Aliyev believes that law enforcement and judicial authorities need to be more attentive to the investigation of crimes, and especially to the collection of evidence. In addition, they must strictly comply with Article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code – the presumption of innocence, according to which the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, all doubts about guilt are interpreted in favor of the accused, and the verdict cannot be based on assumptions.
"In conclusion, I would like to say that for me as a lawyer, the prestige of our profession is very important, as well as the belief of citizens that a lawyer is really needed and he can help. Such verdicts contribute better than anything else to the formation of a decent level of public confidence in the institution of the Bar, and also, undoubtedly, increase the prestige of our noble profession," he concluded.
Source
The court pointed out that registration on a cryptocurrency exchange and the issuance of a card to a third party, on which the victim's funds were received, and then transferred to users of the exchange, do not indicate deliberate complicity in fraud.
In a comment to AG, one of the defenders shared that the most difficult thing was to convey to the court how the crypto platform works and what p2p arbitration is. Another considered that the adopted judicial act on the innocence of the defendants once again proves that the principle of adversarial parties exists and is successfully applied in practice.
On September 27, the Dimitrovgrad City Court of the Ulyanovsk Region issued an acquittal against two men on charges of committing crimes under Part 5 of Article 33, Part 3 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. aiding and abetting fraud committed on a large scale. Defenders of the acquitted, lawyers of the Moscow Bar Association "Spectrum of Law" Roman Goncharov and Asim Alyev told AG about the nuances of the case.
According to the investigation, unidentified persons conspired to steal money on a large scale by deception by phone, introducing themselves as law enforcement officers and demanding the transfer of funds under the pretext of saving them from fraudsters, for which A. and B. A. were involved, searched for bank accounts and cards for them, issued to third parties, and gave instructions to transfer funds to the cards of accomplices. B. was looking for third parties to open bank accounts and cards for them, managed them, and also received details for subsequent transfers.
No later than May 30, 2022, B. instructed A. to issue a bank card for a monetary reward to a person who was not aware of the criminal intent of the accomplices. A. persuaded an acquaintance O. to issue a bank card in his name for 1 thousand rubles, and then transfer it to B. Then A., having received the card, connected the number in his use to it, after which he handed over the details of the card to B. On
June 3, 2022, unidentified persons, introducing themselves as employees of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, through calls and correspondence in the Whatsapp messenger, convinced P. to transfer 1 million rubles to accounts controlled by them. P. took out a loan, after which he deposited money into his current account. Then A. transferred the money received to the details of cards controlled by the members of the criminal group, twice 400 thousand rubles to one account and 200 thousand rubles to the second account, thereby stealing them, disposing of them at his own discretion, causing damage to P. in the amount of 1 million rubles.
In court, A. and B. denied their knowledge of both the criminal intent of unidentified persons to commit fraud and their assistance in the implementation of this criminal intent.
B. indicated that at the beginning of 2022 he registered and agreed to the terms of the user agreement on the Garantex cryptocurrency exchange, where you can buy and sell cryptocurrency. On the platform, the buyer can choose the seller with the most favorable conditions and enter into a deal (P2P). In June 2022, a regular buyer came to him for a deal under the nickname "D... 28». At that time, B. had cryptocurrencies worth 1 million rubles, since banks quickly block cards, B. asked through A. O. to issue a card for himself, explaining that the activity is related to a crypto exchange. B. sent the details of O.'s card to the buyer for crediting funds.
When "D... 28" transferred 1 million rubles, B. made two transactions to buy cryptocurrency for 800 thousand from one seller and a transaction for 200 thousand from another, earning about 60 thousand rubles on this.
A. explained that in June 2022, B. asked him to issue a card, explaining that he was engaged in cryptocurrency on the exchange and there would be no illegal actions. He agreed and said he had a credit card. B. warned that the card could be blocked, then A. asked O. to help open the card. O. agreed, issued a card and handed it over to A., and he gave the details to B. When the money arrived, A. transferred the funds twice to 400 thousand rubles to one account and 200 thousand rubles to another. For the assistance provided, B. gave 2 thousand rubles, of which 1 thousand A. gave to O. B. did not turn to him with any more requests.
Witness O. said that in early June 2022, his friend A. asked to issue a bank card for the purchase of securities, assuring that it was legal. O. agreed and on the same day left a request for the issuance and issuance of a debit bank card. On June 3, 2022, the courier brought the card, which O. handed over along with the attached documents to A., receiving 1 thousand rubles for this. A. called the bank from O.'s number, whose consultants said that the money would be unblocked and credited to his current account. He was not against it.
The victim, P.'s wife, pointed out that on the evening of June 3, 2022, P. said that he had received a call from a man who introduced himself as an employee of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, who said that a person named Sidorov had tried to take out a loan in his name. The loan was issued to him, but not issued, and P. must contact the bank himself and withdraw the money, otherwise it will be sent to fraudsters. After that, a woman called him, introduced herself as an employee of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and said that he needed to withdraw money and transfer it to a "reserve" account, which P. did. He took a loan, an account was opened for him in another bank, and he transferred 1 million rubles through it to the account of A. Realizing that this was fraud, P. and his wife went to the bank, but it was already closed. Having called the hotline, P. left an application for the cancellation of the money transfer operation. The next day, P. went to the bank, where he wrote a statement about fraudulent actions. On June 4, 2022, P.'s wife received a message that he had committed suicide.
Witness L. said that from November 2021 to December 2022 he worked on the Garantex cryptocurrency exchange, for registration on which it is necessary to pass verification and sign a user agreement. On the exchange, he bought cryptocurrency cheaper and sold it at a higher price. Sometimes regular buyers transferred funds before opening a deal on the exchange due to the fact that he, as a seller, either did not have cryptocurrency, or it was frozen. With this money, he bought cryptocurrency and transferred it to buyers. In such cases, only the buyer is at risk. The percentage of the transaction is set by the seller and the buyer themselves. Income consists of differencesBetween buying and selling. L. indicated that he had taught B. how to work on the stock exchange and knew the user "D... 28", who was a regular customer. «D... 28" was an exchange service, customers turned to it for the purchase of cryptocurrency, after which it opened transactions for the purchase of cryptocurrency, including with it. In total, with the user "D... 28" he made about 100 transactions. Due to the large turnover of funds, bank cards were blocked. According to the user agreement, the seller has no obligation to check the origin of funds from the buyer, the Garantex exchange guarantees that the transaction takes place within the framework of the law.
Having considered the materials of the case, the court considered that the prosecution did not provide data indicating that B. and A. were aware of the fraudulent actions committed against P. and their role as accomplices in this. He noted that according to the response from the Garantex crypto platform, B. carries out transactions with digital signs on the crypto platform, on January 28, 2022, a client account was registered "In ... C", through which B. carried out a transaction for the purchase and sale of cryptocurrency on June 3, 2022. The seller received payment in the amount of 1 million rubles, a financial asset in the amount of about 934 thousand rubles of cryptocurrency was credited to the account of the user "D... 28». L. carries out transactions for the purchase and sale of crypto, including using his account for money transfers. From November 15, 2021 to July 7, 2023, the number of completed transactions amounted to 3161 with 740 different counterparties, including "D... 28».
As the court pointed out, the evidence indicating that B. and A. entered into a conspiracy with unidentified persons aimed at stealing P.'s money on a large scale, by deception, deliberately contributed to the theft, is not contained in the case materials and is not cited by the public prosecutor. The fact that B. was registered on the Garantex exchange as of June 3, 2022 and A., at the request of the latter, asked to issue a card to O., which he issued and transferred to A. and to which P.'s funds were subsequently transferred, which were then transferred by O. at B.'s request to users of the exchange, does not indicate their intent to assist unidentified persons in committing fraud.
The defendants' arguments that they did not know about the origin of the funds received on June 3, 2022 from the user "D... 28" on the account of O., that A. decided to help his friend in drawing up the card by finding O., have not been refuted. On the contrary, the court noted, when signing the user agreement, A. agreed to its terms, according to which the user may not use the content or services of the exchange for any illegal purposes or otherwise, not mentioned in the terms, use the services of the exchange on behalf of or in the interests of any third party in any way.
The Dimitrovgrad City Court of the Ulyanovsk Region concluded that none of the evidence of the prosecution confirms the deliberate complicity of B. and A. in the commission of fraud, and acquitted them due to the absence of corpus delicti with the right to rehabilitation in their actions.
In a comment to AG, B. defender Roman Goncharov shared that the most difficult thing was to convey to the court how the crypto platform works and what P2P arbitration is. "At the stage of the preliminary investigation, all motions of the defense to obtain information from Garantex were cut off fromAn icebreaker. It was difficult for the lawyer to get information on his own, since crypto platforms have such a policy that they respond to requests only to law enforcement agencies and courts. Subsequently, the defense was still able to independently obtain the requested information, but already at the stage of consideration of the case by the court", he said. − Documents were received confirming the "purity" of the transactions carried out by my client, as well as the user agreement, which is mandatory for each user during registration, in the version in force at the time of the transaction with the unscrupulous buyer. These documents were carefully analyzed by the defense, and their essence was conveyed to the court (in addition to the documents themselves) in an easy-to-understand language. Witnesses for the defense were questioned, who made it clear in detail and clearly to more than one judge (the case was heard in court three times) that the seller of cryptocurrency has no obligation to find out from the buyer the legality of the origin of the money with which the buyer pays for crypto."
Roman Goncharov noted that initially the line of defense was built on the basis of the absence of intent on the part of the defendants to assist in the commission of fraud. "It was the totality of the evidence presented to the court by the defense that emphasized the argument that the acquitted had no intent to commit a crime", he concluded.
His colleague, defender A. Asim Alyev called the verdict more than fair: "It corresponds both to the circumstances of the events established during the investigation of the criminal case, and to the materials studied during the trial. The decision on the innocence of our clients once again proves that the principle of adversarial parties exists and is successfully applied in practice, especially if you are sure that you are right," he said.
Asim Aliyev noted that the crypto industry is actively developing in Russia and many young people do not suspect that they can end up in the investigator's office, and then in the dock. "Unfortunately, investigators, interrogating citizens without a lawyer, try to "catch" them, find some phrases in the interrogation that can simply be taken out of context, and build the accusation on this. A person, being not very versed in the intricacies of jurisprudence, as well as experiencing psychological pressure, is "led" by such not entirely correct methods of the investigator, thereby causing harm to himself and his future, "the lawyer said.
Asim Aliyev believes that law enforcement and judicial authorities need to be more attentive to the investigation of crimes, and especially to the collection of evidence. In addition, they must strictly comply with Article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code – the presumption of innocence, according to which the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, all doubts about guilt are interpreted in favor of the accused, and the verdict cannot be based on assumptions.
"In conclusion, I would like to say that for me as a lawyer, the prestige of our profession is very important, as well as the belief of citizens that a lawyer is really needed and he can help. Such verdicts contribute better than anything else to the formation of a decent level of public confidence in the institution of the Bar, and also, undoubtedly, increase the prestige of our noble profession," he concluded.
Source
