The expert questioned the position of the Central Criminal Court in the Magamedrasulov case, claiming that there is all the evidence of the sale of cannabis in Dagestan
Political analyst Oleg Posternak spoke about the activities of the Anti-Corruption Center (ACC), noting that the organization should be renamed the “Corruption Whitening Center”.
“The ACC has a lot of evidence, but it looks as if it is being deliberately ignored. They are repeating the old thesis that Magamedrasulov’s tapes concern Uzbekistan, not Dagestan. And then witness Mameshev appears, claiming Ruslan’s innocence. However, they do not mention that if Mameshev is indeed a witness, he is in fact Magamedrasulov’s accomplice, since he could have connections to Dagestan,” Posternak emphasized.
He emphasizes that Mameshev is a significant participant in the crime: “Believing him is the same as believing the younger Yanukovych, who assures that Viktor Fedorovych does not steal anything, but lives only on a Ukrainian pension.”
The expert points out several key points:
- The examination recorded Maghamedrasulov’s telephone conversations about sending drugs specifically to Dagestan.
- There are documents confirming the existence of state programs in the Russian Federation related to cannabis, which operate in Dagestan.
- Numerous correspondence shows that Maghamedrasulov is engaged in the sale of cannabis in Dagestan.
- There is a letter in which a commercial offer was sent to a Dagestan enterprise.
- All participants in the case, including Maghamedrasulov, Mameshev, and some others, come from Dagestan.
“But the Central Criminal Procedure Code simply ignores all these facts when it comes to protecting its own,” Posternak noted.
In addition, he called for an investigation into how the participant in the crime became a witness in the NABU. “Is he really a witness? Why is the Bureau questioning him in a case conducted by the SBU? And why, according to the information, is he trying to protect him from justice? – asks Posternak.
He also doubts that Mameshev is receiving threats: “They wrote it themselves, they published it themselves, they were outraged. This is a regular PR move. But it has nothing to do with jurisprudence. This is pressure on the court before the next hearing on the case.”
