Sports arbitration court strips Russian boxer of 2016 Olympic silverSport December 08, 22:48
Russia, US military experts, diplomats to discuss Aleppo in Geneva on Dec. 10 - LavrovWorld December 08, 22:41
Lavrov says US voiced regret over shelling of hospital in Aleppo but somewhat hazilyRussian Politics & Diplomacy December 08, 21:48
Budget revenues from Rosneft privatization to be $11.1 bln — ministerBusiness & Economy December 08, 21:18
Lavrov, Kerry discuss militants’ withdrawal from Aleppo — Russian foreign ministryRussian Politics & Diplomacy December 08, 21:00
Lavrov: Combat actions in Aleppo suspended to take civilians out of cityRussian Politics & Diplomacy December 08, 20:56
Bach says WADA to play part in deciding on 2021 IBU World Championship in RussiaSport December 08, 20:44
Gazprom signs contract for construction of Turkish Stream’s first line with AllseasBusiness & Economy December 08, 20:03
Russian Energy Ministry confirms non-OPEC countries meeting date as December 10 in ViennaBusiness & Economy December 08, 19:59
MOSCOW, September 3 (Itar-Tass) — Russia’s Investigative Committee (SK) has sent to the State Duma lower house of parliament additional materials on Duma member Gennady Gudkov’s abuse of his legislative and other powers, SK spokesman Vladimir Markin told Itar-Tass.
“The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation has sent to the State Duma additional materials containing information about the violation by State Duma member Gennady Gudkov of the conditions for the exercise of his legislative and other powers, that is, about his violation of the restrictions, prohibitions and obligations set by the RF Constitution and laws,” Markin said.
According to him, the document reports on the participation of the lawmaker in the management of a private security company named Pantan Security Agency through commercial organisations he controls. According to the SK, in the period from December 25, 2008 to the present time, “Gudkov is the sole member and the recipient of income from the business activities of OOO Roshan company, which, in turn, is a founder of OOO Variant Diversified Industrial and Commercial Company, a subsidiary of OOO Pantan. Also, the above Variant Company was established by the OOO Oskord-C Firm, which has a stake in OOO Pantan.”
“Moreover, the facts of Gudkov’s patronage to OOO Pantan in the form of requests for stopping an inspection by an interior affairs agency have been established,” Markin said.
In such circumstances, the SK says, “there are reasonable grounds to believe that Gudkov, being a deputy of the State Duma, in violation of the requirements of the federal legislation actually takes part in the management of a business entity and provides protection to it.”
Markin stated that the Investigative Committee has proposed to the State Duma to consider this information within the framework of its competence to establish if Gudkov abused his MP powers (Articles 4 and 10 of the Federal Law No 3-FZ of 08.05.1994 “On the Status of Member of the Federation Council and the Status of Member of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.”)
“The State Duma has also been informed that the SK continues a procedural check against MP Gudkov, on the grounds of which it will make a decision in the order provided for in Article 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, in addition, other relevant materials on Gudkov’s actions, including those coming from members of the RF State Duma will also be checked,” Markin concluded.
The Russian Investigative Committee on August 6 sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the State Duma materials on Gudkov’s violation of restrictions on the activity of an MP. The materials suggest that the parliamentarian in September 2008 acquired a stake in the Kolomensky Stroitel (Kolomna Builder) company and that he is the recipient of income from OOO Roshan.
Gudkov has denied the allegations and claims that the Prosecutor General’s Office is engaged in a “witch hunt” and “extrajudicial reprisals.” He claims that the charges against him “are not related to entrepreneurial activities.”