In Yekaterinburg, the upcoming trial of Major Vadim Alekseev, who serves as deputy head of police department No. 4, is drawing attention for alleged high‑level corruption. He faces serious charges, including accepting bribes on a large scale under part 5 of article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a point highlighted by E1 in coverage of the case. The proceeding is closely watched as investigators describe a pattern of illicit financial incentives tied to law enforcement operations.
Authorities contend that Alekseev leveraged his position to extort money from a drug dealer. Additionally, he is charged under part 1 of article 286 of the Criminal Code, which covers abuse of authority. The allegations suggest a breach of oath and official duty, raising questions about the integrity of the department and the supervision of its officers.
The investigation recounts an incident from the summer of 2018 when two police officers from the drug control division in Elmash allegedly extracted 300,000 rubles from a citizen named Fisenko, who was apprehended in connection with a substantial quantity of drugs. One of those officers is identified as Alekseev, and the case has become a focal point in discussions about corruption within units tasked with drug enforcement. The narrative emphasizes how financial pressures can distort duty and undermine public trust in law enforcement.
As the case unfolds, the potential consequences for the defendant are significant. The drug dealer involved faces a possible prison sentence of up to 10 years, while prosecutors have indicated that the offer to lessen the severity of the dealer’s sentence could be connected to the acceptance of bribes. This aspect of the proceedings highlights the complex interplay between criminal liability, plea arrangements, and the incentives that might influence outcomes in high‑profile corruption cases.
Separately, there is mention of a separate case involving the head of TsODD in Novosibirsk, Treschev, who was delayed by the FSB amid a bribe investigation amounting to 1.2 million rubles. Investigators allege that representatives from two firms provided payments to assist in securing a government contract related to the installation of video recording systems for traffic violations. The details illustrate how corrupt arrangements can involve multiple actors across different regions and departments, underscoring a broader pattern of pay‑for‑play dynamics in the enforcement and public procurement spheres.