The Moscow Basmanny Court has detained three former employees of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, amid accusations of a series of official offenses. This information was communicated by the court’s press service through RIA News.
According to the press service, Rustam Mansurovich Yusupov, Sergei Konstantinovich Romodanovsky, and Andrei Semenovich Zhiryutin were taken into custody as a preventive measure, with detention extended until January 10. The authorities indicated that, based on their respective roles, the suspects are charged with forming a criminal group, accepting bribes, manipulating evidence, enabling illegal arrests or detentions, and knowingly causing an innocent person to be charged or initiating a criminal case unlawfully. These accusations underscore the gravity of the alleged offenses and the court’s commitment to ensure an independent review of the case.
Open-source records note that Yusupov previously led the Khoroshevsky interregional investigation department of the Investigative Committee. Romodanovsky held the position of head of the investigation department for the North-West Administrative District within the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in Moscow. Zhiryutin, on the other hand, is described as having worked as a researcher within the organization.
On 8 November, a Moscow court made headlines by arresting Rufat Ismailov, the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs and head of the Investigation Department for the Republic of Dagestan. The case centers on bribery and abuse of power. During the hearing, the investigator asserted before the Basmanny Court that Ismailov and his subordinate, Dalgat Abdulgapurov, collectively accepted bribes totaling 1.3 million rubles, highlighting a potentially systemic level of misconduct within the ranks involved in this matter.
In a separate development, earlier reports described a case involving an official from Murmansk who received a suspended sentence for bribery linked to a coffee machine—an illustration of how diverse the spectrum of corruption-related cases can be within the broader justice framework. These incidents reflect ongoing efforts by Russian authorities to address corruption and hold officials accountable, irrespective of rank, with the aim of reinforcing public trust in law enforcement and judicial processes.
Observers note that investigations of this kind often involve complex layers of evidence, personnel movements, and interdepartmental coordination. The ongoing legal proceedings are likely to reveal more details about how alleged schemes operated and who else might be implicated. The court’s decisions, together with subsequent judicial actions, will continue to shape perceptions of integrity and accountability within Russian institutions dedicated to law enforcement and public prosecution. For readers following this topic, further developments from official court communications and reputable news agencies will be essential to understanding the full scope and implications of these cases.