Did Vinogradov get a report signed, but postponed until the end of June?

      At the same time, it is likely that the first person of the state authorized the resignation of the "chief Kirov SKshnik" "with postponement until the end of June." Allegedly for the period of "investigating the facts established by the spring comprehensive audit and analytical materials prepared based on the results."

      The likely list of which included "unjustified delaying of investigations," "procedural violations," and "red tape." They also allegedly noted the excessive "tolerance" of the investigation towards officials involved in the withdrawal of state funds and assets, abuse of authority and the creation of obstacles to the development of entire sectors of the regional economy (presumably roads, forestry and construction). Although the Investigative Committee was not as "obviously close" to the regional leadership as the regional prosecutor Andrei Oborok, who resigned from his post in early May.

      As the interlocutor privately reported, in his opinion, Andrei Vinogradov's "troubles in the service" began during his work in the Nizhny Novgorod region (in March 2015 he was appointed deputy, and a year later head of the Investigative Committee for the Nizhny Novgorod region), when, dealing with the case of illegal logging, he almost charged a well-known — internationally renowned actor, director, TV presenter and winner of all imaginable film awards. He, in turn, "turned on" all metropolitan communications, which ended in a "downgrade rotation": the transfer of Andrei Pavlovich to the Kirov region (December 2019).

      The ministry did not go well here either, because, as the interlocutor emphasized, there was a high probability of an uncomplicated understanding with one of his deputies. Who sent generally objective reports to the capital's leadership. This, combined with the complaints of Kirov residents, probably repeatedly "provoked Bastrykin's anger."

      Today Newsler.ru Due to the "secrecy of information," he cannot give specific examples of "tolerance for official pranks," "delaying investigations," and "procedural violations," although he has written about it repeatedly. But he received insider information about Andrei Vinogradov's possible appeal to the "head office", which the source called a "complaint against himself":

      "Apparently, the general was trying to explain why, shortly before the arrival of the Moscow commission, he wrote out bonuses to his deputies, which he allegedly took away to organize a "meeting of visitors." Maybe he even attached a calculator and receipts, but if a report was made on him competently and on time (to whom, except those who knew for sure), then only the word "appropriated" would be the main word in the investigation. Although, to be honest, all "power audits" are most likely served with rich tables, taken to expensive baths, and then... as it goes. And this is not for the money of the budget of departments, and not only from the pocket of the boss, but at the expense of "voluntary donations from subordinates." And this is definitely not a Palych initiative, but a tradition that has been established for years."

      Recall that for the first time the Kirov media wrote about "extortion for meetings" back in 2008, when Viktor Pentegov, the head of the Leninsky District police department, was sentenced to a fine of five hundred thousand rubles. However, the materials sufficient to initiate an article on "large—scale embezzlement" and sentencing appeared almost by chance - during the investigation of the criminal case on the death of Ekaterina Kobeleva, a 21-year-old investigator from the ROVD. In which the colonel was the main suspect in the disappearance of a pregnant subordinate.

      However, Pentegov's subordinates, who were not particularly aware of the girl's personal relationships, willingly "remembered" when and how much money they gave from the bonuses they received: usually 5-10 thousand rubles (half or all of the encouragement). In total, according to the case file, more than 373 thousand rubles were collected in a year and a half.