Dolgikh: "I beg for mercy"

      The tense atmosphere was felt as soon as we crossed the threshold of the regional court. An extremely thorough search by the bailiffs, an awkward silence in the lobby on the second floor, interrupted only by the slight chirping of lawyers "about their own", and hurried steps into the hall after the announcement that it was possible to enter. Everything indicated that the defendant today was a difficult lawyer, Anton Dolgikh, who was a "bone in his throat" and a lover of provocations. In a rather small but richly furnished courtroom, the defendant was housed in a glass cage. He and his listeners found themselves under the close supervision of as many as four law enforcement officials.

      After waiting for lawyer Violetta Volkova to appear in the courtroom of the Moscow City Court, with whom there was a videoconference, the court announced the beginning of the meeting. One of the petitions belonged to Valentin Karelin, who asked the court to record audio, photo and video recordings of the meeting. During the discussion, Anton Vitalievich stated that he "hates" him, therefore he is against it. The lawyers and the prosecutor, who, by the way, was also at the hearing in the case of Viktor Tarasov, left the decision for consideration by the court, which, in turn, refused.

      At the beginning of the meeting, Anton Vitalievich's lawyers stated that in this case there is a "double imputation", which contradicts the principles of justice. Pavel Rozuvan and Violetta Volkova insisted that Dolgikh had confessed and admitted the fact of giving a bribe. "For this act, he must undoubtedly be punished. However, an attempt to involve him also under an article providing for a more severe punishment, based on the fact that the bribe was allegedly given for illegal actions, is, in my opinion, an unacceptable duplication of charges," said Volkova.

      According to them, the crime of "giving a bribe" already implies the possibility of an official committing any illegal actions in the interests of the bribe giver. In their opinion, imputing an additional article based on the same fact means actually punishing twice for the same act.

      Special attention was paid to Article 285, Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for liability for abuse of official authority, which entailed grave consequences. The defense was perplexed on what basis the court of first instance came to the conclusion that these very "grave consequences" existed. The question of whether Dolgikh is an official was also raised. According to Violetta Volkova, Anton Vitalievich is accused not only of a crime that is carried out by an official, but also allegedly by a group of people. In the end, she stated that the case could not be initiated and should be terminated immediately.

      The lawyer himself began his speech by thanking the court for the opportunity to be in the courtroom. Interrupting Dolgikh, the court noted that he was familiar with the case materials, so he asked not to start "a speech about who is taking revenge on whom, who won and who lost."

      "I dare to hope that you will sort out my case like 15 years ago," the defendant began his speech. He stated that thanks to a "positive" decision in the past, he had children, a family, he showed his adequacy. Then he told me point by point what he disagreed with.:

      He did not sell the apartment, he did not have an account on Avito. He stressed that he had nothing to do with the sale of any real estate.

      The court did not assess the fact that he is not an administrator of social media accounts, he does not have remote access to them. In addition, he uses a push-button phone. Dolgikh emphasized the technical impossibility of committing the actions he is accused of due to limited access to modern technologies.

      He did not threaten the employees of the Russian Post, moreover, there is no information about threats in the case file at all. Also, Shushakova, whom he allegedly bribed, is under state protection.

      Dolgikh continued by stating that he was looking for tickets to Karelia and Turkey in 2024 to organize a summer vacation. "This proves that I had plans for the future, and I wasn't going to hide anywhere," he said. Then he stated that he had never intended and was not going to hide from the investigation and the court. He also always understood that the state could crack down on anyone, but hoped that this would not happen to him, as he always played by the rules.

      "I understand that my detention causes my family unbearable pain and suffering," Dolgikh continued. He mentioned his large family, expressed his love for his common-law wife and the mother of his children, Tatiana Makarova, and stressed the importance of being present in their lives. "Every minute here is torture, not only for me, but also for my family. I beg for mercy, admit my mistake, and ask for generosity." Dolgikh ended his speech with an appeal to the court: "Return me to my family. I beg you to save and spare my family."

      Then they gave the floor to the prosecutor. Unlike the defendant, she spoke softly and emotionlessly. The prosecution denied everything that the defendant had said before. She also refused the house arrest that Anton Vitalievich had begged for. Speaking about the family, the prosecutor said that the children have a mother who works and can safely support them. After that, the court went to the conference room.

      The defendant's mother and wife began to communicate with him both with words and gestures. It was obvious that Dolgikh, who had been looking lovingly at Tatyana Makarova throughout the meeting, was enjoying the conversation. However, it didn't last long. The stern bailiff stopped the chirping with a rude "Enough talking."

      After that, the court returned, and the courtroom heard: "The decision of the Pervomaisky court should remain unchanged." The feeling of tension turned to despair. The bailiffs drove the stunned listeners out of the hall like a herd.