Moscow court reviews bribery case against St. Petersburg officials
The Khamovnichesky Court of Moscow has begun examining the merits of a criminal case initiated by the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs against three St. Petersburg generals. Sergei Umnov, Ivan Abakumov and Alexey Semenov stand accused of accepting bribes. At the initial hearing, the defendants rejected the charges, asserting their innocence.
Umnov, a former deputy head of the Internal Affairs Ministry, told the court that he does not admit guilt and that the accusation lacks specificity, leaving him unclear about the precise nature of the alleged bribe.
According to Kommersant, investigators allege that the defendants received 11 bribes totaling about 65 million rubles. The money, the investigation states, came from St. Petersburg businessmen Vladimir Platonov, Oleg Ivanov, Andrei Tsarnets and Nadezhda Smirnova.
The prosecution maintains that Umnov initiated the corrupt scheme and later recruited colleagues to participate. The group allegedly oversaw the placement of UGIBDD branches responsible for vehicle registration and related processes in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region. Registrars reportedly transferred a portion of the profits to a non-profit foundation described as the Foundation for Assistance to the Programs of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate.
Throughout Umnov’s six-year service with the Main Directorate, prosecutors say the foundation received around 65 million rubles from registrars. The funds, according to the investigation, were used to acquire premium vehicles, including models such as the Toyota Land Cruiser 200.
Earlier reports noted the repentance of a colonel from the Russian Defense Ministry who acknowledged involvement in bribery.
These developments unfold as investigators continue to detail the chain of payments, the roles of the individuals involved, and the channels through which funds moved within the system. The case highlights ongoing concerns about corruption risks in the area of vehicle registration and related services in major Russian cities. The court has requested further documentation and witness testimony to clarify the timeline of events, the exact nature of the alleged bribes, and the specific contributions attributed to each defendant.
Observers note that this case fits into a broader pattern of corruption investigations involving senior officials and civil servants who oversee critical administrative functions. Legal experts say the outcome will hinge on the strength of documentary evidence, witness credibility, and the ability of prosecutors to demonstrate the connection between the alleged payments and favorable actions within the registration process.
The proceedings also raise questions about how non-profit entities are used in relation to official duties and whether such organizations were employed as intermediaries for bribe transfers. Courts are expected to consider procedural aspects, including any defenses raised by the defendants and the presentation of financial records tied to the alleged illicit benefits.
As the case progresses, the public awaits further updates on the charges, the defendants’ responses, and the court’s rulings on motions and evidentiary issues. The outcome will likely have implications for similar investigations involving metropolitan administration and law enforcement personnel in Russia.