- Even If Patriot Act Expires, Government Will Keep Spying On All Americans 2015-05-29 00:16
- Free Financial Markets Are A Hoax 2015-05-27 22:50
- DOD Admits Supporting ISIS, Buffer Zones In Syria 2015-05-27 12:59
- Chinese State Paper Warns “War Will Be Inevitable” Unless U.S. Stops Meddling In Territorial Dispute 2015-05-26 23:46
- ISIS Planning US Nuclear Attack In Next 12 Months: Report 2015-05-25 21:57
- DIA Docs: West Wants a “Salafist Principality in Eastern Syria" 2015-05-25 21:34
- Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US “Created” ISIS As A “Tool” To Overthrow Syria’s President Assad 2015-05-25 21:20
- George Soros Warns "No Exaggeration" That China-US On "Threshold Of World War 3 2015-05-22 23:27
How to get rid of Trapsh for 100 000 rubles2012-01-18 12:23
Southern Federal University (SFU) of Rostov has been involved in a big corruption scandal for six months. The story started last July when a criminal case was opened against the dean of the History Faculty Nikolay Trapsh accused of acceptance of a bribe. GTimes tried to go into details of this complicated process.
Last July, a 35-year-old dean of the History Faculty at Southern Federal University Nikolay Trapsh was accused of accepting a bribe from two applicants. The case was opened according to the article "For a large bribe" of the Russian Criminal Code. Further events developed in the course of the investigation.
On one hand, it is an everyday corruption episode at a higher educational institution. But if we go into details, we can see that the process against Trapsh has been actively initiated within several months, which means the story contains something being "out of sight".
Trapsh almost got arrested in July after a so-called operational experiment, or, in other words, a provoked bribery. Two "applicants" were sent to the dean of the History Faculty who transferred 100 thousand rubles each to the account of Trapsh's secretary. The dean did not use the money. We will not go into details of the University's bookkeeping but will briefly explain why the historian was "taken in" by the money.
The faculty is actually on self-repayment and, among all, exists due to the income from paid educational services. An applicant is given help in enrollment, a contract being signed for such services (they are rendered in the form of extra courses, consultations and etc.). This was just the case. The situation with extra services can be interpreted differently; the point is whose position is stronger: that of the prosecutor's or that of the attorneys'. In Trapsh's case, attorneys were stronger. Leaving the numerous details aside, we can say that the two-month resistance between Trapsh's defenders and those who would like to see him behind the bars resulted in attorneys' victory. They managed to prove to the investigation that the enrollment of applicants and the organization of the entrance exams do not fall within Trapsh's official duties. It means he could have been accused solely of fraud but so long as Trapsh did not take any money it was just "attempted fraud".
That time, the process ended in the following way: Trapsh could have proved innocence to the trial jury under an article "For bribery". But since the trial jury may return a verdict of both guilty and non-guilty (and does not award conditional sentences), the historian decided to take no risks, for the article implies a sentence of seven years of imprisonment. After the case was diverted, the attorneys got in touch with the so-called victims who wrote a petition not to hold Trapsh criminally liable. The case was closed. But it was just the beginning. Since the criminal case was initiated, the media of Rostov started publishing materials on disclosing Trapsh, a bribetaker and corrupt official. On December 27, he got a wonderful New Year present: the court of cassation cancelled the verdict returned by the regional court and scheduled a new legal investigation on January, 24. The hero of the story refused to discuss the current situation with GTimes, having added that he would provide comments only after the court's verdict. The situation is complicated; the dean's attorneys have already been told in court that there are no "suicides" and the case would not be closed for the second time.