The Investigative Committee began checking after the publication of information about the falsification of evidence in the case of Vladimir Vorontsov, the creator of the «Police Ombudsman» public page. This is reported by TASS with reference to the department's documents.
There are 14 episodes in the case of the former policeman: two are about extortion, three — o distribution of pornography, one is about libel and eight about insulting a representative of the authorities.
According to investigators, in October 2017, Vorontsov extorted 300,000 rubles from an ex-policeman from Moscow “for not distributing his intimate photographs.” Without receiving the money, he published these pictures in one of the publics, the department claimed. In addition, according to the UK, in September 2018, as well as in February 2020, he also came with a photo of another security official.
Krivolingus is controlled by Kolokol. How supporters of the «police ombudsman» deceived the investigation in order to prove falsifications in his case
In October 2021, a video “A film about how a lawyer from Penza, a housewife from Saransk and a massage therapist from Volgograd exposed a whole gang in uniform” appeared on YouTube. In it, ex-police officers Vasily Fedorov and Evgeny Moiseev told how a former police officer Irina Andina, whom Vorontsov helped to protest the decision to dismiss her from the police due to the publication of an intimate video, reported a fictitious episode of extortion by Vorontsov.
Companions of the accused sent information to the group in conflict with the «Police Ombudsman» that Andina was offended by Vorontsov, as she paid him for reinstatement, but lost in court. The next day, she was contacted by the CSS, the woman was promised a job in the police in exchange for testifying against Vorontsov. When the security forces did not fulfill the agreement, Andina promised to publicly talk about the deal, then 10 thousand rubles came to her card.
As a result, those who tried to prove Vorontsov's innocence revealed their strategy in court. Lawyer Fyodor Aksenenko said at the meeting: “Our defense position is this: we know that Vorontsov did not commit extortion, because he provided real assistance to her, and he took payment for each action, and when we got acquainted with her testimony, it was not reflected.
“If the check ends with the initiation of a criminal case, the court, acting legally, is obliged to return the case to the prosecutor for further investigation due to newly discovered circumstances. After all, if information about violations is confirmed, this will mean that the judge is considering evidence that was obviously obtained illegally, which cannot be eliminated during trials, and it is impossible to give an objective assessment of this, as required by law, which means that the verdict will be unjust,” Vorontsov's lawyer Alexander Samukhov noted in a conversation with TASS.