The defense insists on his innocence
The criminal case against the former chairman of the Siberian Branch (SB) of the Russian Academy of Sciences Academician Alexander Aseev, accused of illegally privatizing a departmental cottage in Akademgorodok, is nearing completion . According to the defense, the accusatory part is very lame — the prosecution does not bother to either prove the guilt of the accused or refute the arguments of the defense.
Alexander Aseev. Photo courtesy of Nauchnaya Rossiya
First, a few words about the accused. Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Aseev is a world-famous scientist. Created under his leadership at the Institute of Semiconductor Physics. A.V. Rzhanov SB RAS devices are the basis for strategically important micro-, opto- and nanoelectronics for defense and medical purposes.
When the notorious reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences broke out 10 years ago, during which all academic institutions were removed from under the academy, handing them over to officials, Aseev was one of the active critics of such a “perestroika”, wrote many appeals to higher authorities, in which he assessed the actions of the reformers as “ ill-conceived and catastrophic.» And this principled, respected academician, at the wave of the prosecutor’s hand, is accused under the article “Fraud”…
In fact, he is charged with the fact that after the announced privatization in the Novosibirsk Academgorodok, he, like 60 other members of the Siberian department of the Russian Academy of Sciences, re-registered the housing in which he lived with his family on the basis of a social tenancy agreement. More precisely, he registered the house on his daughter, since he himself had the privatization right (it is given once in a lifetime) was used earlier.
Searches and interrogations began in 2019. Alexander Leonidovich called what was happening “complete lawlessness”, connected the fact that he alone was “not forgiven” for the officially authorized privatization of housing, with his uncompromising position related to the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Yes, the house was registered to my daughter, and she, according to the decision of two courts — the district and regional courts, was recognized as its legal owner,” Aseev said earlier in an interview with MK. We have all legal documents. As compensation for the privatized cottage, we transferred to the treasury a 4-room apartment in Novosibirsk, which was transferred to the fund of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The case has been pending in court for almost two years, the sessions have been postponed and postponed many times. Aseev was charged under Part 4 of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Fraud committed using one’s official position on an especially large scale”), the prosecution asks for a sentence of five years of suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of 3 years and a fine of 500 thousand rubles. In addition, the academician was offered to return to the state a privatized cottage in Akademgorodok.
The defense naturally insists on the academician's acquittal and recognition of his right to rehabilitation for unfounded criminal prosecution.
One of the main statements that immediately gives a “criminal” color to all further actions of Alexander Aseev is “Statement No. 1”, according to which Aseev had “the intent to scam in relation to the cottage” since October 2009, that is, 5 years before privatization.
“In view of this, all subsequent actions of Alexander Leonidovich related to this cottage were automatically transferred by the investigator to the category of criminal ones related to preparation for fraud,” says one of his lawyers. – At the same time, the prosecution does not provide evidence of “intent”. And by themselves, actions related to the acquisition by the defendant and members of his family of the housing right to use a service cottage do not constitute fraud, since the right to use residential premises in this case cannot be the subject of theft.
— Until 2013, Alexander Leonidovich was just a tenant of official housing, which he needed as a prominent scientist to receive guests, colleagues from other countries. The idea to privatize the cottage arose only at the end of 2013, after the very reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, when the property of academic institutions began to be transferred to FASO (Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations. -). In order not to lose the rented housing, the academician and his family decided to privatize it for their daughter, who had the right to do so. In September 2014, the Presidium of the SB RAS, and these are 40 respected scientists, allowed the privatization of the service cottage in which Aseev lived with his family. But for some reason, the decision of the Presidium of the SB RAS of 2014 is presented in the indictment along with evidence of my client's guilt.
— Alexander Leonidovich with his wife and daughter were considered tenants of this housing, and the daughter, of course, had the right to participate in the privatization of the cottage. I specifically specified: at that time in Akademgorodok there were already 11 cases of such privatization of cottages not by academicians, but by members of their families.
– Yes, it is. The expensive apartment on Kaptyuga Street, where the whole family of Alexander Leonidovich lived, with his daughter and grandson, was immediately transferred to the balance of the SB RAS. Instead, they occupied the cottage from which they are now, in fact, being driven out into the street.
“According to a court order, the house was arrested for theft, but the Aseev family continues to live in it. Whether they will be able to continue living in this house depends on the final decision of the court in the criminal case.
— For example, the prosecutor talks about the forgery of one power of attorney, which was provided to the court on behalf of the daughter , although the notary who was invited to the court does not deny its authenticity. Ignoring the fact that Alexander Aseev donated his apartment in exchange for the privatization of the cottage is outrageous. At first, the prosecution pushed it into extenuating circumstances, now the prosecutor says that this is not an extenuating circumstance, but a way to justify privatization. This is completely incomprehensible! It is also unclear where they got the indicated amount of damage from. The Plenum of the Supreme Court directs us to the actual value of the property, since it can be very different from the market value. In this case, it is actually much less than the market one.
— Now the meeting has been postponed, until June 13.