On February 20, 2019, in the apartment of a resident of the city of Kolomna, Abramov O.A. Police officers carried out operational activities. During the search, 757 items were confiscated from the citizen. The investigator who carried out the operational activities indicated in the report, “at the place of residence of Abramov O.A. objects were discovered that, according to their external features, were archaeological. ” Please remember this phrase, it will be useful to us in the further analysis of the case under consideration.
As we can understand, from the available data on the court case, law enforcement officials monitored the activities of citizen Abramov on the Internet for several months. It was known in advance that citizen Abramov was registered on the website ReviewDetektor.ru under the nickname “Kolomensky”. It is also known that on the day of the search, Abramov closed the deal for the sale of the lot “scrap plastic – crosses, a propeller, including fragments of antique crosses” on the auction site of the site. As a result of the search, not only items (presumably archaeological ) were confiscated from citizen Abramov, but also a home computer, a check of which confirmed that the sale of presumably archaeological items was carried out from this computer.
A random image taken from the website ReviewDetektor.ru is not related to the administrative case described in the note
Briefly and to the point of the case. The case materials were transferred by the investigation to the Kolomna City Court. The judge, having examined the case, returned it to the investigation due to violations committed in the case. The violations were corrected, the case was accepted for consideration on June 19, 2019. During the review, it turned out that the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility had expired (which is three months), so the case was closed.
To be honest, it’s not just closed, there are a lot of nuances and legislative subtleties. What is the fact? The defense strategy built by lawyer Obukhov turned out to be a failure. Most of the case under consideration revolved around the fact that Abramov sold on the website ReviewDetektor.ru a lot “scrap plastic – crosses, a propeller, including fragments of ancient crosses” and a lot “a set of equipment from the 15th-17th centuries.” The materials of the court decision do not contain information about how law enforcement officers monitored Abramov. But it’s not difficult to guess.
Lawyer Obukhov based his defense in court on the admission that the items seized from Abramov’s house were archaeological , but they (the items) were purchased privately from unidentified persons 10-15 years ago. This means that, according to the lawyer, these items cannot be covered by Article 7.15.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. “Illicit trafficking in archaeological objects.” To which Judge Sineeva pointed out that in this case, citizen Abramov was obliged to register the archaeological objects he had no later than September 1, 2016 as part of the non-state part of the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation
It was also stated that, according to the existing legislation of the Russian Federation, a citizen who owns archaeological objects has the right to alienate them only if they are transferred to the state. Any sale, donation, transfer for temporary use, transfer for restoration, and so on are actions that are a violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation. (By the way, this small clarification will be interesting for those who sell supposedly archaeological objects via the Internet, indicating in the description of the lot that this is not a sale, but a transfer for temporary storage or restoration)
A random image taken from the website ReviewDetektor.ru is not related to the administrative case described in the note
Another interesting character in this court hearing was a certain expert (data seized) who issued a written conclusion that some of the items from Abramov’s collection are archaeological objects. Then, like the other part of the objects, they do not belong to those. It was not possible to find a copy of this expert opinion in open sources. It would certainly be interesting to study it. Especially how exactly the expert defined the sources of information identifying archaeological objects. (Whoever is familiar with the legal nuances will understand what we are talking about)
A small funny nuance from the expert’s opinion. The expert did not recognize the items from that same lot as archaeological: “scrap plastic – crosses, a propeller, including fragments of ancient crosses”
As we understand, the whole case was based on the testimony of this nameless expert, so I quote the court’s conclusion on his work in full.
Quote: The court has no reason to distrust the conclusion of a specialist who, in his conclusion, confirmed by him at the court hearing, indicated that the objects in question are archaeological, despite the fact that he was presented only with photographs of these objects. The specialist has special knowledge in the field under consideration and has experience in researching similar subjects. Based on certain signs, the specialist confidently explained that the objects depicted on the Internet page are archaeological , representing historical and cultural value.
What is the essence of the trial? The judge rejected the lawyer's arguments, then decided to terminate the administrative case due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and to turn the archaeological objects seized from the accused into favor of the state.
Second trial.
Disagreeing with the decision of the city court, Abramov and his lawyer filed a complaint with the higher court. The Moscow Regional Court, having considered the complaint on September 3, 2019, ruled. The decision of the Kolomna City Court was left unchanged and the complaint was not satisfied.
And there is a very interesting formulation here.
Quote: Since the city court decision of June 19, 2019 terminated the proceedings in the case, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility, the possibility of resuming the proceedings in the case and legal assessment of the actions of the person against whom the case of an administrative offense was initiated, on the subject proof of an administrative offense has been lost after the statute of limitations has expired.
That is, the judge made it clear that it is no longer possible to establish the innocence of citizen Abramov. How do you like this?
Analysis of the situation.
The actions of citizen Abramov and his lawyer Obukhov cannot be called stupid or unprofessional. This is clearly visible from the number of arguments and legislative justifications that the judge of the Kolomna City Court had to provide. Including the involvement of that same unknown expert to establish the characteristics of archaeological objects.
However, in my opinion, the line of defense initially had to be built on the fact that the seized items were not archaeological . And, indeed, proving the connection of seized items with archaeological excavations is unrealistic, especially if these same excavations did not take place. It is not clear to me whether Abramov signed the seizure protocol and whether this acknowledged the wording “objects were discovered that, according to their external features, were archaeological .” Or did he somehow make adjustments? But, judging by the materials of the trial, it is clear that Abramov and his lawyer, before the start of the first trial, filed a petition for the return of the seized items, while using the wording “ archaeological objects ”
Quote: At the court hearing Abramov O.A. He did not plead guilty, showing that he acquired the archaeological items confiscated from him through various sources, which he could not indicate, he did not sell these items, he placed an advertisement for their sale on the Internet, he just wanted to find out their value,
Also, the lawyer tried to build a defense strategy on the fact that archaeological objects were purchased by Abramov from unidentified persons 10-15 years ago, before the introduction of Article 7.15.1. Illicit trafficking in archaeological objects . Thus, once again confirming the agreement that the seized items are archaeological . This means that the accused directly confirmed that these items were originally obtained as a result of legal or illegal archaeological excavations.
Conclusion.
Here it is, in fact, a very short and concise presentation of a very interesting, voluminous and revealing court case. And, interestingly, this is not the only similar case on a similar topic over the past 2019. There is another exactly the same case regarding a private historical museum on the territory of a safari park in the Krasnodar Territory. There, in the same way, a collection of presumably archaeological objects was confiscated. Then, the case was closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the exhibits were refused to be returned. And, there, just like here, no one even tried to challenge the very fact of the statement that the exhibits are archaeological objects .
If anyone is interested in independently studying the decisions of two court hearings, here are links to the website of judicial acts of the Russian Federation
First meeting
Second meeting
