Criminal proceedings for warning Russians that Crimea is Ukrainian
A Moscow court has rejected Mikhail Anshakov’s appeal against an absurd criminal investigation lodged against him less some 3 months after his civic organization warned Russian tourists of the legal consequences of visiting Crimea under Russian occupation.
Anshakov was detained on Oct 1, with the police announcing that he was on the federal wanted list with respect to a charge under Article 312 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (unlawful actions with regard to property subject to inventory or seizure).
Anshakov was not in hiding, but living where he is registered, and the alleged offence.
The property in question had been inventoried for sale to pay a 50 thousand rouble fine imposed on an organization that Anshakov was working for, and the bailiffs left it with him. Nobody came for the property, and it just lay there.
Three years later, in April 2015, there was a repeat visit. The bailiffs did not find three old items, worth together 1500 roubles (24 USD). The bailiffs did not explain whether he needed to pay the amount they were worth, and promised to let him know what was to be done.
Instead, on Oct 1, while trying to catch a train to Samara, he had handcuffs clapped on him and was taken to a police station. The police planned to keep him overnight, but changed their mind after his lawyer arrived.
The organization carried out their own check of the property against the bailiffs’ list and found nothing missing. Anshakov wrote to the investigators asking them to inspect the allegedly missing items, but was ignored. On Oct 22, he asked the appeal court to inspect the items and the judge also refused. He had been placed on the wanted list because an investigator “tried to ring him a few times without success”.
The appeal against the criminal investigation was heard by the Khamovnichesky District Court in Moscow on Thursday. Anshakovthat during the hearing Judge Mishchenko received a phone call, after which she grabbed the file, announced a break and then headed off (running) to the court president Danilkin.
The appeal was rejected.
Anshakov has become well-known recently for his attempt to challenge Russia’s annexation of Crimea in the Russian Constitutional Court, and for the leafletprepared for Russian tourists considering visiting Crimea. Within hours of the leaflet being reported by independent media, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office and the website had been blocked.
Neither the threats of criminal prosecution for the leaflet, nor the dubious proceedings against Anshakov can alter the fact that every word in the leaflet was correct. The following is a brief summary of the leaflet which Russians have been stopped from viewing.
1. Legal status
According to the current international Agreement between the Russian Federation [RF] and Ukraine on the Russian-Ukrainian state border, the territory of Crimea, including Sevastopol, is a part of Ukraine. “The territorial integrity of Ukraine within existing borders is also confirmed by a number of other current international treaties and agreements. Five are given, including theof the Commonwealth of Independent States [CIS].
Yes, amendments were made to Article 65 of Russia’s Constitution, adding Crimea and Sevastopol, however Article 16 § 2 of that same document stipulates that constitutional provisions may not contradict the foundations of the Russian Federation’s constitutional order, and this states clearly (Article 15 § 4) that “generally accepted principles and norms of international law and RF international agreements are a component part of its legal system. If RF international agreements stipulate different rules from those envisaged by the law, then the rules of the international agreement take precedence. »
The document goes on to cite thewhich clearly stipulates inviolability of borders and territorial integrity of states as fundamental principles of international law. It quotes the section (IV under Principles guiding Relations between participating states, regarding territorial integrity, and gives the following in bold: “No such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal.”
“Russia has not abrogated the above-mentioned agreements which recognize Ukraine’s territorial integrity, nor has it declared war against Ukraine or signed a peace treaty which could legitimize the annexation of Crimea. Ukraine has not renounced sovereignty over the territory of Crimea.
The inclusion of the republic of Crimea and city of federal significance Sevastopol in the makeup of the Russian Federation is therefore a legal fiction. According to international law the said territory is under occupation, which has specific ramifications, including when carrying out business activities, including consumer relations.”
They go on to explain some of the risks about which they believe it their duty to inform consumers, and point out that tourist agencies as a rule do not inform their clients of problems that could arise.
2. According to Ukraine’s Law on Temporarily Occupied Territory, foreign nationals who do not require visas to visit Ukraine (including Russian nationals) may visit Crimea but only on condition that they passed into Crimea from existing checkpoints through the state border and with the relevant stamps in their passport or immigration documents.
Criminal liability, with sentences of up to 3 years imprisonment, have now been introduced (via Article 332-1 of the Criminal Code) for violations of this stipulation, as well as other penalties listed.
“A tourist visiting the occupied territory of Crimea without receiving the relevant permission from the Ukrainian authorities is thus violating Ukraine’s law on the status of occupied territory. In view of this sanctions could be applied either by Ukraine, or by other UN member states. In certain cases criminal prosecution and placement on the international wanted list are possible.”
Public Control advises Russians “needing to visit Crimea” to observe Ukrainian legislation and receive permission from Ukrainian border guards and cross into Crimea from Kherson oblast (in mainland Ukraine). It informs that if the tourist agency did not provide information about these requirements, then the tourist is entitled to compensation should problems arise, including prosecution by Ukraine or other states.
Beware of cruises!
Item 3 warns that any entry of Crimean ports is covered by Article 332 of Ukraine’s Criminal Code which envisages liability for organizing illegal crossing of Ukraine’s state border. “Although it is the captain of the vessel who bears criminal liability, problems could arise for passengers as well over illegal crossing of the state border.”
Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office informs that 97 criminal cases have been initiated over such actions (see, for example, Ukraine makes first arrest of boat illegally entering Crimean port ).
Public Control warns that a fun cruise could thus go badly wrong, and warns people to check with the tourist agency whether permission has been received from Ukraine. “If there is no permission, we recommend rejecting such cruises”.
Item 4 points out that any purchase of real estate in Crimea without this being carried out in mainland Ukraine could result in the action being deemed unlawful seizure of other people’s property and a criminal offence. Russians, they warn, could also simply be cheated if any deal is carried out without checking Ukraine’s database. The NGO advises Russian nationals to not try to purchase property, or if there is a burning need, to do it solely from mainland Ukraine and in strict compliance with Ukrainian legislation.
Public Control does not mention the numerous cases where property and businesses either owned by the Ukrainian state or by Ukrainian nationals have been seized by the occupation authorities.
Consumers buying goods in Crimea should also bear in mind that since the largest producers of consumer items and services have been forced to comply with international sanctions and terminate their business in Crimea, goods allegedly carrying their trademark could well be fakes, or illegally delivered. For this and other reasons, guarantees and service contracts are likely to not be available.
They advise consumers to avoid any such purchases unless absolutely required, and warn that any failure to inform the buyer of such restrictions is an infringement of their rights.
They ask consumers to bear in mind their advice and recommendations and if necessary contact their specialists.