Reports circulating in Telegram channel 112 claim that a confiscated foreign car vanished while being transported from the police department to the designated confiscated property area in Nizhny Novgorod. The sequence of events began when information about the missing vehicle surfaced as it moved through the city, drawing scrutiny from local observers and residents who monitor police activity in real time. The incident sparked questions about how evidence is handled and whether proper chain-of-custody procedures were followed at every step of the process, from the moment the car was secured to its final destination.
In the Moskovsky district, a patrol stopped a Mazda 6 for routine traffic checks. Investigators verified the vehicle against law enforcement databases and discovered that the car had already been sought by colleagues in Tver for an extended period. After a preliminary examination, the car was taken to police department No. 4 for further assessment. Following this, detective Major Alexey B. directed the Japanese sedan to the confiscated area. However, questions immediately arose about the major’s role in the transfer, as he did not personally travel to the confiscated site, nor did he prepare the necessary acceptance documents, and subsequently the car disappeared from custody. This set off a cascade of inquiries into whether proper administrative steps were followed and whether any procedural lapses occurred during the transfer of the vehicle.
Authorities began to scrutinize the actions of Alexey B. and his superior, Colonel Ivan P., focusing on how the delivery of material evidence was managed. Reports indicated discrepancies in the vehicle’s identification details, including alterations to the chassis numbers, which raised concerns that the person operating the foreign car might not have been aware that the vehicle was stolen. The situation underscored broader concerns about oversight, accountability, and the integrity of the evidence-handling process within the department. In the wake of the incident, investigators pressed for a thorough audit of the chain of custody, documentation practices, and supervisory controls that govern the transport and storage of confiscated property. The investigation aimed to determine whether procedural missteps occurred and to identify responsible parties, with the goal of restoring public confidence and ensuring that evidence is preserved in a manner consistent with legal and procedural standards.
Following the chaotic sequence, another event involving municipal machinery surfaced: a Perm worker, reportedly under the influence, reportedly stole an asphalt roller, with ensuing damage involving a fixed obstacle. While this latter incident is separate in scope from the vehicle handling case, it contributed to a broader perception of disorder and raised questions about adherence to safety protocols, as well as the effectiveness of supervision and enforcement in maintaining order across different municipal operations. Taken together, these events illustrate the challenges faced by law enforcement and municipal services in maintaining disciplined, transparent procedures while addressing irregularities swiftly and thoroughly. The ongoing inquiry seeks to clarify the facts, assign accountability where warranted, and implement corrective measures to prevent recurrence, thereby reinforcing the standards that guide the custody and movement of confiscated and potentially incriminating property, as well as the daily operations of city services.