The story of one "violation" of copyright. Part 2
The story continues.
Meanwhile, while the investigator could not manage to turn in the case to the prosecutor, department K and the prosecutor's office actively pressured Peter, inclining him to a special order. The operative several times, without any summons, pulled Peter out of work and took him to a conversation either to the investigator, now to the head of department K, then to the prosecutor, while talking to Peter himself and sometimes the head of the operatives of the department was present K. The essence of the conversations was one and the same, Peter was told that if he did not go on a special order, then they would seek a real life, he would ruin his life, etc. Peter was promised assistance in concluding a peace agreement with a representative of the right holders.
Peter has already acted on the principle of "be what will be" and gave categorical refusals, insisted on his innocence, asked to stop worrying about his life and said that the court would decide everything. After several such visits to Peter’s work, the lawyer threatened the operative that the next time Peter did not go anywhere without a summons and there would be a complaint addressed to the Minister of the Interior, after which the visits stopped.
In the summer of 2008, Peter finished his studies, and also changed jobs, settled down to a larger local provider, who also then became Transtelecom's “daughter”. Just a couple of months, he rose to the position of the lead system administrator and quietly doing his favorite thing.
')
In November 2008, a preliminary hearing was held, at which the judge decided to take the case to court and consider it by a panel of three judges. Then there was essentially an introductory meeting, after which one of the judges was replaced, after which the panel was composed only of men. In January 2009, the first serious meeting was finally held. Another representative of the victim appeared there - the company ASCON (the KOMPAS distribution was found on the computer), which filed a civil claim for compensation of 82,500 rubles. (the lawsuit in paper form was already familiar with the materials of the criminal case). Then he said on the net, if Peter had pleaded guilty, he would not have demanded money from him.
In general, about the ASCON company it is worth making a small digression. Peter's mom was a designer and has been actively using KOMPAS for several years, and also conducted work training courses in this program. Peter worked as a laboratory assistant in his engineering graphics room, where he also actively used KOMPAS. In the summer of 2008, he also participated in a competition held by ASCON, went to Moscow for this (before leaving, he wrote a petition to the prosecutor, because he was under house arrest). Back in late 2007, when Peter's mom approached a representative of the company ASCON, whom she had previously encountered at work (there was another representative in court) asking for a license for COMPASS, he only grinned and said that the license would be given her free Thus, at the time of the court hearing, Peter had an agreement with ASCON on the use of the COMPASS program for free. This, of course, caused a lot of uncomfortable questions from the court to the representative of the victim present.
Then Peter wanted to use his right to testify first and told his view of the charges, explained everything about the files on the file sharing service, traffic data, information portal, said that he installed some software on the computer, but only as a trial, purpose of temporary use.
Literally the next day after the meeting, the operative came to Peter's new job (apparently, the investigation only found out at the trial that Peter had changed his job). Fortunately, here too the leadership sided with Peter. The operative was again aggressive and angry, demanding the dismissal of Peter, threatened with checks. The lawyer kept his word and the complaint about the visits of the operative addressed to the Minister of the Interior was sent. Deal with the complaint was entrusted to the deputy. head of department K, who collected written explanations from all the persons mentioned. At the end of the trial, complaints to Peter were informed that no evidence was found to support the described facts. However, the operative called, said that he was no longer an operative, asked him not to involve him anymore. He remained to work with someone at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but he no longer did operational work.
The trial lasted about six months. Many viewers, trainees came, because the case was interesting, in addition the judicial board is a rare case. The defense has never regretted that it declared the case of the collegiums. All three judges actively participated in the process, so the case was considered as thoroughly as possible. The operative could not really explain the flaws in the case file, but showed aggression towards the defense, for which he received several warnings from the court. The expert behaved during interrogations as inadequate as in the examination. Interrogated a bunch of people who were interrogated during the preliminary investigation, they did not say anything new. As a result, they did not interrogate everyone, the court decided that it was meaningless, the prosecutor explained this number of interrogations with the fact that Peter refused to testify, it was necessary to collect material. An additional examination was appointed. The second expert turned out to be an adequate, very careful person. He did not draw any conclusions that he could not 100% substantiate. He found on the computer distributions of programs, found cracks and keygens, which, when examined, allowed him to bypass the licensed protection, but did not classify them as malicious. He said that it was impossible to determine whether these distributions or licensing protection circumvention tools were used. He also said that he could not determine the licensedness of the installed programs, since does not have the original licensed distributions.
In July 2009, a court debate took place. The prosecutor suddenly dropped the charges on two episodes: under art. 146, paragraph 3b and art. 273, paragraph 1, since the expert was unable to establish that the software was used by Peter, and also concluded that the submitted crack and keygens are not malware. From the charges for the first episode, the mention of distribution was removed, i.e. only the use was left, and the software list was reduced to 3 programs (apparently, if only the amount of damage of 50 thousand rubles was collected, necessary for criminal prosecution). Peter only explained that of these three programs he did not have one at all, and the other two were not installed, only distributions were found, according to the expertise. The lawyer asked to acquit Peter. The court retired for a decision.
The pronouncement of the sentence was postponed several times, and, as a result, took place in September 2009. At one of the planned announcements, department head K and the prosecutor informed Peter that the representative of the victim Adobe himself wished to reconcile with Peter without asking for any money. Peter continued to stand his ground and replied: “You can only put up with those with whom you quarreled. I did not quarrel with anyone. Strongly not, let the court decide. "
Finally, the sentence was pronounced. JUSTIFIED. Under article 24, paragraph 1.1. Of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (absence of a crime event). With the right to rehabilitation and return of seized evidence. In December, the cassation appeal of the prosecutor's office to the Supreme Court was considered, the decision of the court was left unchanged.
During 2010, Peter received compensation for material damage, i.e. money given for the provision of legal assistance in the amount of 200 thousand rubles, compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 100 thousand rubles. of the stated 1.2 million rubles. The decision of the court on compensation for material damage was appealed to the supervisory authority immediately by the Ministry of Finance, the complaint was examined by a panel of seven judges of the Supreme Court headed by the Chairman of the Supreme Court, the court's decision was left unchanged, the complaint was not satisfied. During the trial with moral harm, an operative was questioned, who eventually said that the visits to Peter were made on the oral instructions of the head of department K and the prosecutor.
Peter never received a written apology from the prosecutor's office. Probably have to go to court again. Now Peter is ready to file a lawsuit and support him in court ...
Meanwhile, while the investigator could not manage to turn in the case to the prosecutor, department K and the prosecutor's office actively pressured Peter, inclining him to a special order. The operative several times, without any summons, pulled Peter out of work and took him to a conversation either to the investigator, now to the head of department K, then to the prosecutor, while talking to Peter himself and sometimes the head of the operatives of the department was present K. The essence of the conversations was one and the same, Peter was told that if he did not go on a special order, then they would seek a real life, he would ruin his life, etc. Peter was promised assistance in concluding a peace agreement with a representative of the right holders.
The representative of the right holders is a well-arranged person :) For a certain reward, he signed a reconciliation with the defendant and the punishment sharply decreased. He sat in another city for 200 km and represented the interests of several rightholders at once: Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk. By the way, he never appeared at the court hearing.
Peter has already acted on the principle of "be what will be" and gave categorical refusals, insisted on his innocence, asked to stop worrying about his life and said that the court would decide everything. After several such visits to Peter’s work, the lawyer threatened the operative that the next time Peter did not go anywhere without a summons and there would be a complaint addressed to the Minister of the Interior, after which the visits stopped.
In the summer of 2008, Peter finished his studies, and also changed jobs, settled down to a larger local provider, who also then became Transtelecom's “daughter”. Just a couple of months, he rose to the position of the lead system administrator and quietly doing his favorite thing.
')
In November 2008, a preliminary hearing was held, at which the judge decided to take the case to court and consider it by a panel of three judges. Then there was essentially an introductory meeting, after which one of the judges was replaced, after which the panel was composed only of men. In January 2009, the first serious meeting was finally held. Another representative of the victim appeared there - the company ASCON (the KOMPAS distribution was found on the computer), which filed a civil claim for compensation of 82,500 rubles. (the lawsuit in paper form was already familiar with the materials of the criminal case). Then he said on the net, if Peter had pleaded guilty, he would not have demanded money from him.
In general, about the ASCON company it is worth making a small digression. Peter's mom was a designer and has been actively using KOMPAS for several years, and also conducted work training courses in this program. Peter worked as a laboratory assistant in his engineering graphics room, where he also actively used KOMPAS. In the summer of 2008, he also participated in a competition held by ASCON, went to Moscow for this (before leaving, he wrote a petition to the prosecutor, because he was under house arrest). Back in late 2007, when Peter's mom approached a representative of the company ASCON, whom she had previously encountered at work (there was another representative in court) asking for a license for COMPASS, he only grinned and said that the license would be given her free Thus, at the time of the court hearing, Peter had an agreement with ASCON on the use of the COMPASS program for free. This, of course, caused a lot of uncomfortable questions from the court to the representative of the victim present.
Then Peter wanted to use his right to testify first and told his view of the charges, explained everything about the files on the file sharing service, traffic data, information portal, said that he installed some software on the computer, but only as a trial, purpose of temporary use.
Literally the next day after the meeting, the operative came to Peter's new job (apparently, the investigation only found out at the trial that Peter had changed his job). Fortunately, here too the leadership sided with Peter. The operative was again aggressive and angry, demanding the dismissal of Peter, threatened with checks. The lawyer kept his word and the complaint about the visits of the operative addressed to the Minister of the Interior was sent. Deal with the complaint was entrusted to the deputy. head of department K, who collected written explanations from all the persons mentioned. At the end of the trial, complaints to Peter were informed that no evidence was found to support the described facts. However, the operative called, said that he was no longer an operative, asked him not to involve him anymore. He remained to work with someone at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but he no longer did operational work.
The trial lasted about six months. Many viewers, trainees came, because the case was interesting, in addition the judicial board is a rare case. The defense has never regretted that it declared the case of the collegiums. All three judges actively participated in the process, so the case was considered as thoroughly as possible. The operative could not really explain the flaws in the case file, but showed aggression towards the defense, for which he received several warnings from the court. The expert behaved during interrogations as inadequate as in the examination. Interrogated a bunch of people who were interrogated during the preliminary investigation, they did not say anything new. As a result, they did not interrogate everyone, the court decided that it was meaningless, the prosecutor explained this number of interrogations with the fact that Peter refused to testify, it was necessary to collect material. An additional examination was appointed. The second expert turned out to be an adequate, very careful person. He did not draw any conclusions that he could not 100% substantiate. He found on the computer distributions of programs, found cracks and keygens, which, when examined, allowed him to bypass the licensed protection, but did not classify them as malicious. He said that it was impossible to determine whether these distributions or licensing protection circumvention tools were used. He also said that he could not determine the licensedness of the installed programs, since does not have the original licensed distributions.
In July 2009, a court debate took place. The prosecutor suddenly dropped the charges on two episodes: under art. 146, paragraph 3b and art. 273, paragraph 1, since the expert was unable to establish that the software was used by Peter, and also concluded that the submitted crack and keygens are not malware. From the charges for the first episode, the mention of distribution was removed, i.e. only the use was left, and the software list was reduced to 3 programs (apparently, if only the amount of damage of 50 thousand rubles was collected, necessary for criminal prosecution). Peter only explained that of these three programs he did not have one at all, and the other two were not installed, only distributions were found, according to the expertise. The lawyer asked to acquit Peter. The court retired for a decision.
The pronouncement of the sentence was postponed several times, and, as a result, took place in September 2009. At one of the planned announcements, department head K and the prosecutor informed Peter that the representative of the victim Adobe himself wished to reconcile with Peter without asking for any money. Peter continued to stand his ground and replied: “You can only put up with those with whom you quarreled. I did not quarrel with anyone. Strongly not, let the court decide. "
Finally, the sentence was pronounced. JUSTIFIED. Under article 24, paragraph 1.1. Of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (absence of a crime event). With the right to rehabilitation and return of seized evidence. In December, the cassation appeal of the prosecutor's office to the Supreme Court was considered, the decision of the court was left unchanged.
During 2010, Peter received compensation for material damage, i.e. money given for the provision of legal assistance in the amount of 200 thousand rubles, compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 100 thousand rubles. of the stated 1.2 million rubles. The decision of the court on compensation for material damage was appealed to the supervisory authority immediately by the Ministry of Finance, the complaint was examined by a panel of seven judges of the Supreme Court headed by the Chairman of the Supreme Court, the court's decision was left unchanged, the complaint was not satisfied. During the trial with moral harm, an operative was questioned, who eventually said that the visits to Peter were made on the oral instructions of the head of department K and the prosecutor.
Peter never received a written apology from the prosecutor's office. Probably have to go to court again. Now Peter is ready to file a lawsuit and support him in court ...
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/113246/
All Articles