A novelty from the justice of peace: “absence of the fact of reconciliation” as an aggravant

“The acquittal on this case is symbolic for us not only because the deliberations took more than 1,5 years, but also because we managed to get a fair verdict only in the second instance court, after an accusatory ruling,” – Alexander Salamov, Advocate of the Law Firm "YUST" and representative of the accused, said.

Private accusers – two public figures (one of them – an ex-member of a municipal assembly) – demanded to rule that accusations against them of appropriation of the citizens’ funds, of fraud and of falsification of minutes of meetings of a Moscow residence owners’ partnership were slander.

A total of 15 witnesses were called, and only five of them – by the defense. But the ruling of the first instance court failed a review by the second instance. Federal Judge Anatoly Khokhlov revoked the accusatory sentence for a motive, which is very rare for this category of cases –inconsistency between the court’s conclusions to the actual circumstances of the case. Besides, he discovered material procedural violations:

• The imputed actions were not concretized;
• The motives of actions were not found out;
• The witnesses’ statements were not critically assessed.

Also, the justice of peace mentioned as an aggravant “the absence of the fact of attempts by the accused to reconcile”. Despite the fact that the list of aggravants is fixed by the Penal Code, and no judge is entitled to extend it or change it in any other way.

Advocate Alexander Salamov believes that the claimants will file an appeal against the district court’s decision. “But we are confident of our success,” he said “because the second instance court has discovered all material circumstances of the case and has given a motivated legal evaluation of them”.