It is generally accepted that the legal profession, like many other fields, is a profession reserved only for men. What if we prove you wrong? We spoke with Tatyana Romanova, who has been a lawyer for over 15 years, and shared with us the details of the high-profile case she is currently handling.
Tatiana Romanova
How and why did you enter the profession? Is there discrimination in your job because you are a woman? How do you select cases?
I have been a lawyer for more than 15 years and I can say that there is no discrimination in this profession, men and women are equal. I choose the cases myself; I have been working on economic issues for the last eight years.
Which of your cases would you say is the most interesting?
Perhaps the most interesting cases in the last two and a half years are those related to the objects “Reconstruction of the Rakitnaya drainage system, Ivanovo region, Amur region” and “Reconstruction of the Dimskaya drainage system, Tambov region, Amur region”.
The criminal case on the implementation of a series of works on the project “Reconstruction of the Dima drainage system in the Tambov district of the Amur region” within the framework of the Federal target program “Development of agricultural land reclamation in Russia for 2014 -2020” is currently being considered by the city court of Blagoveshchensk in the Amur region.
“Ivanovo district of the Amur region, reconstruction of the Rakitnaya drainage system, my client AA Yaremenko and the second defendant in the case, TI Tokarev, were found guilty of crimes under Part 4 of the Blagoveshchensk City Court of the Amur Region. of your art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The subject of the accusation on which the Blagoveshchensk City Court of the Amur Region based its decision was as follows.
In the period after the signing of state contract No. 01-2015 on January 27, 2015 and at the latest until May 28, 2015 in the city of Blagoveshchensk, Amur Region, Yaremenko AA, financial, economic and production activities of Amurmelioration LLC for the purpose of making a profit, as well as Federal He serves as the director of the State Budgetary Institution “Amurmelivodkhoz Management” and, by virtue of his position, carries out organizational and administrative administrative and economic activities. Functions, including the management of all affairs of the institution and the use of funds on the account for personal gain, were carried out jointly with the chief engineer of the project – head of the department of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Amurmelivodkhoz”. Management” Tokarev IA Theft of funds from the federal budget of the Russian Federation on a particularly large scale, allocated within the framework of the Federal Target Program “Development of Agricultural Land Reclamation in Russia for 2014-2020” for the purpose of fulfilling the state contract dated January 27, 2015 No. 01-2015.
Thus, according to the investigation and the court, Yaremenko AA and Tokarev IA, acting by a group of individuals with prior conspiracy, caused material damage to the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation in the amount of 8,472,369 rubles. 00 kop.
As the main evidence of the guilt of Yaremenko AA and Tokarev TI, the court cites the expert opinion presented by the prosecutor’s office, which was carried out in violation of existing legislative norms, which was repeatedly pointed out by the defense.
Firstly, the type of road surface was incorrectly determined and, accordingly, the methodology for determining the annual wear of macro-rough road surfaces was incorrectly applied; this does not apply to the object of review, since the road surface at the “Reconstruction” stage. The object “Rakitny Drainage System” refers to on-farm roads of local importance, made of a mixture of sand and gravel. Secondly, the service life of highways before major repairs (three years) was ignored. Thirdly, the prosecutor’s experts did not take into account the fact that the roads on the site were completed in different time periods – by law the expert was required to calculate the wear of the road surface separately for each road and, accordingly, there would be no damage. Additionally, the P-9 road is included in the damage amount, but the first instance court did not take into account that the P-9 road was constructed with a route change.
Therefore, Yaremenko AA and Tokarev TI did not reconstruct the macro-rough road surface; The reconstruction was carried out in accordance with the state contract for the field road using a sand-gravel mixture. The investigation and the court ignore this fact because the case was opened and the crime scene was checked three years later. If the examination was carried out in accordance with the law, Yaremenko AA and Tokareva TI It had to be justified, since it was not possible to hold an examination after three years.
A similar situation is developing in the criminal case regarding the project “Reconstruction of the Dima Drainage System”, but the court does not hear and does not listen to us.
In a criminal case involving the implementation of a number of works on the project “Reconstruction of the Rakitnaya drainage system in the Ivanovo district of the Amur region” within the framework of the Federal target program “Development of agricultural land reclamation in Russia for 2014 – 2020” was decided and appealed.
Why does the work you are doing now deserve special attention?
Yaremenko AA and Tokareva IA were found guilty and accused of not building the P9 road. In fact, the road has been built, even the witnesses say this, but the court ignores this fact. It is also worth noting that according to the state contract, a number of works were required to rebuild the field road from a mixture of sand and gravel, but AA Yaremenko was brought and held criminally responsible. and Tokareva IA due to the failure to complete some studies and the failure to determine the road surface as macro-uneven.
For better understanding, it should be clarified that a macro-rough road surface is also an element of a highway with an asphalt surface laid on asphalt. Since asphalt pavement is not used on agricultural roads of this category, it is impossible to use “road macro roughness” in these areas.
Also noteworthy is the fact that sampling for examination must be carried out by experts from construction laboratories, using special equipment, in the presence of a researcher.
However, sampling for the objects “Reconstruction of the Rakitnaya drainage system” and “Reconstruction of the Dimskaya drainage system” was carried out by a surveyor, which is a gross violation of existing legislative norms.
What steps do you plan to take regarding this issue from now on?
In the first case on the object “Reconstruction of the Rakitnaya drainage system” – appeal in the case of the object “Reconstruction of the Dimskaya drainage system” – file a petition with the court to send the case to the prosecutor, if not, ask for reconsideration after sending.
What precautions do you think should be taken to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future? Now what is the real mistake?
When signing the charges, the prosecution must read the case materials and the main evidence and arguments presented by the defense, read the entire examination, and not just look at the conclusions. If the supervisory authority had read the review and review of the expert opinion, it would have immediately seen the article on the use of methods for macro rough roads.
As a lawyer, what are you looking for in your current case?
Acquittal or sending the case to the prosecutor for further investigation.
What deadlines are you currently setting for yourself to resolve the case?
Unfortunately, they are not predictable.
Source: People Talk
Mary Crossley is an author at “The Fashion Vibes”. She is a seasoned journalist who is dedicated to delivering the latest news to her readers. With a keen sense of what’s important, Mary covers a wide range of topics, from politics to lifestyle and everything in between.
