Translated by


<b>Kopeykin Alexey </b>
Kopeykin Alexey


In 2005 got an education in MTUCI, in 2012 finished also MESI.

Since 2011 works in Technoserv company. Was the account manager, then the head of department - the manager with key clients, the deputy manager of department. Since 2014 worked as the Head of Department. As of 2017 worked as the development director, and in 2019 - the director of the department of work with government institutions.

2019: Criminal case and detention

On July 11, 2019 TAdviser knew of excitation concerning Alexey Kopeykin of criminal case under Part 6 of Article 290, Part 4 of Article 291.1 and Part 5 of Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

During pretrial investigation it is established that for commission of especially serious crimes against the government and the interests of public service by Ivanov M.A., Kopeykin A.M. and other unidentified persons used servers and office equipment located in office spaces in the commercial organization "Redsis" to the address: Moscow, Rochdelskaya St., 15, building 43, said in the resolution on carrying out a search of July 9, 2019 signed by the Head of the investigation team of the Main Investigation Department of Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation captain of justice Maskaltsov G. V.

The investigator decided to carry out a search at office "Redsis" to find and withdraw the objects and documents important for criminal case.

Kopeykin as of July, 2019 is an employee of Technoserv, his acquaintance confirmed to TAdviser. "Ivanov M.A.", whose name appears in the resolution, this is probably the vice chairman of the board of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation Ivanov Alexey Mikhaylovich, considers a source of TAdviser. It connects an error in initials with the fact that the document prepared in a hurry.

Alexey Ivanov, according to TAdviser, was delayed on July 10, 2019. Alexey Kopeykin is also delayed, approved a source of TAdviser.

In Redsis told TAdviser that on July 10, 2019 to them law enforcement agencies made the inquiry relating to conducting business activities by the company. In response to the arrived request Redsis provided all necessary documents. Read more here.

The searches connected with the same criminal case were carried out in Technoserv. In Technoserv carrying out investigative actions at their offices was connected with activity of a team of the former chairman of the board of the company Alexey Ananyev. Read more here.


On July 12, 2019 Basmanny Court of Moscow sent under arrest of the director of the department of work with state structures of Technoserv Management company Alexey Kopeykin, Interfax reported.

Mediation in bribery is imputed to Kopeykin (Part 4 with. 291.1 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

According to the investigators, from April 28, 2017 to January 17, 2019 the deputy head of RPF Alexey Ivanov monthly got bribes from unidentified representatives of Technoserv - all to it was told by 4.4 million rubles what is qualified as a bribe in especially large size.

Kopeykin in court said that he is the only supporter in family with the newborn child and parents pensioners in dependence. He added that he is not going to break or prevent investigation.

During court session read characteristic on Kopeykin in which it was said that earlier he "worked in FSB and was positively characterized".

Protection insisted on Kopeykin's innocence as "he did not know what happens to his bank card" with which, according to the investigators, bribes were transferred to the deputy head of RPF.

Ivanov wants to avoid responsibility therefore gave evidences on Kopeykin, - one of the person involved lawyers told.

Alexey Kopeykin in court on July 12, 2019. Photo source: Vedomosti
Alexey Kopeykin in court on July 12, 2019. Photo source: Vedomosti
Alexey Kopeykin in court on July 12, 2019. Photo source: Vedomosti
Alexey Kopeykin in court on July 12, 2019. Photo source: Vedomosti

The deputy manager of the Rossiialeksey Pension fund Ivanov who was recognized in taking of a bribe according to the solution of the judge Natalya Dudar is arrested till September. According to the judge, the official can abscond or prevent him.

Plans to appeal against court's decisions

Basmanny Court told on July 16 TAdviser that Alexey Kopeykin's protection will try to appeal against the decision of the first instance on the conclusion it into custody. Consideration of this complaint is planned for July 29.

According to Basmanny Court, a complaint was filed by the lawyer Yurasova N.K. In court of first instance in addition to it Kopeykin's interests were represented by two more lawyers - Glukhov A.N. and Perov A.V. The source close to Technoserv told TAdviser that initially Technoserv provided to Alexey Kopeykin "one of the best lawyers of Moscow", but, after interaction with it, Kopeykin decided to involve other specialists. The source did not specify a name of the lawyer from Technoserv.

The petition for appeal about the decision of Basmanny Court was filed also by Alexey Ivanov's protection. Its consideration should take place on July 31. Read more here.

The court did not release Alexey Kopeykin under house arrest

On July 29 the Moscow City Court considered the petition for appeal of lawyers of Alexey Kopeykin on the decision of Basmanny Court who sent it to the pre-trial detention center on the case of bribery to the deputy head of the Pension fund Alexey Ivanov till the end of the investigation. Protection asked to change a measure of restraint to Kopeykin to house arrest, but the court upheld the solution of the first instance. In the solution which was announced by the judge Larisa Polyakova, it is said that Kopeykin will remain in the pre-trial detention center till September 9.

The meeting took place on a video conferencing. Kopeykin's interests in court were represented at once by three lawyers - Nadezhda Yurasova, Alexey Perov, Roman Sirotin (substituting at this meeting of the lawyer Alexander Glukhov), the correspondent of TAdviser from Moscow City Court tells. All of them are experienced lawyers who specialize in economic crimes. Before consideration of the complaint Kopeykin asked court to leave it alone with lawyers to confer.

In complaints lawyers referred to procedural violations which, according to them, were allowed during a search, interrogation, Alexey Kopeykin's delivery in investigating body and also during presentation of the status to it on case. According to protection, at first he witnessed, then became the suspect. And, the protocol on detention was issued only by 18 o'clock on July 9 though the search in Kopeykin's apartment began at 7 o'clock in the morning, and from now on it was deprived of a possibility of communication with someone, protection said. Even the lawyer Nadezhda Yurasova learned about the events only at 14 o'clock.

Alexey Kopeykin confirmed: "about what I the suspect, I learned on July 9 around 17 hours and since then actually I am in isolation".

Also lawyers gave as arguments for benefit of house arrest the factors connected with the residence of Kopeykin, ownership of property, a family situation (Kopeykin's wife is on a maternity leave with the child, presence of parents pensioners), lack of the foreign real estate and the residence permit abroad. Besides, during a search withdrew all international passports from it. Proofs that it can disappear, have an impact on the investigation, no, all lawyers claim.

All this, according to lawyers, guarantees that their client will not abscond and will cooperate with him.

The lawyer Yurasova placed a particular emphasis on the bank card which is considered by the investigation as the proof of participation of Alexey Kopeykin in crime: its surname is involved in case only as a surname on the bank card, and no other case papers prove that this card was used for implementation of criminal action, she told.

According to her, Kopeykin's participation in this crime does not find reflection in the evidence: Kopeykin and Ivanov met only on working meetings, did not discuss issues of transfer of money. And Ivanov's testimonies cannot be considered as the serious proof as Ivanov is connected to the case as the suspect, and cannot be considered as the eyewitness of events.

Yurasova finds contradictions in the facts which are put forward by the party of charge: affirms that Ivanov and Kopeykin agreed about criminal action, and the card was issued then. The lawyer emphasized that the bank card was issued earlier, openly, the fact of its presence at Kopeykin was not suppressed, and it had an opportunity to transfer her to other person, for example, for commission of any purchase. "Bank cards it was issued not for commission of a bribe. The lack of intention in bribery is available", - Yurasova is sure. Besides contracts of RPF with Technoserv were signed also before the considered time frame (April, 2017 – April, 2018), the lawyer adds, and these contracts have no relation to design of the card.

At a meeting on July 29 in case the new person – the employee of Technoserv company by the name of Kim appeared. It was mentioned by the lawyer Yurasova who performed as the first of lawyers with justification of the appeal. Referring to Kim's words, she mentioned that once he saw how on one of working meetings Kopeykin gave to Ivanov an envelope, however contents of this envelope are not known to Kim. The lawyer emphasized that criminal case is brought upon transfer of a bribe by company executives Technoserv to Alexey Ivanov from RPF. Yurasova notes: existence of Kopeykin on the bank card does not prove it to a role as intermediary in a bribe.

Lawyers drew the attention of court that in total on this case more than 15 search, including searches in places of full-time residence of Kopeykin and Ivanov were executed. At the same time, the lawyer Alexey Perov, in results of investigation and search operations which are brought into court noticed, only Kopeykin and Ivanov's job descriptions and also results of a research of the facts of money withdrawal from the bank card addressed to Kopeykin appear. According to Yurasova, in case papers there is nothing that confirms commission of crime by Kopeykin. Perov adds: Ivanov in the testimonies of Kopeykin obviously does not call, and Kim only states some assumptions.

One more moment to which all lawyers paid attention is formal, from their point of view, approach of the investigation and court of first instance to the choice of a measure of restraint. The lawyer Perov paid attention that by formal parameters the article under which there passes Kopeykin, - heavy however of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides under it different measures of restraint, among them detention is the most strict, it is applied in exceptional cases. A present case, Perov is sure, does not belong to the category of exclusive: harm is not done to none of people, asocial actions were not made.

In a debate the investigator Kolosova disproved procedural violations and formalistic approach to the choice of a measure of restraint. At the beginning of the meeting she asked to file the petition for change of the status of Kopeykin on "accused" and the protocol of his interrogation, as was made court. In the performance she asked to remand Kopeykina a measure of restraint in the form of the conclusion in custody, motivating it with the fact that at any other softer measure of restraint the suspect will have an opportunity to have an impact on proofs.

The prosecutor Potychko said that the court did not allow procedural violations, and case papers confirm Kopeykin's participation in crime commission. She disproved also formalistic approach to the choice of a measure of restraint. Concerning not each suspect such measure of restraint is chosen, the prosecutor emphasized. In this case it is reasonable, she considers. The prosecutor referred to the fact that this choice considers a stage of conducting criminal case and the period of active collecting of proofs.

Alexey Kopeykin during the meeting kept calm, and in a break – when the judge left to the consultative room for preparation of the solution – even encouraged the wife: they communicated via the video conference screen gestures and smiles. However, the wife's eyes, despite tranquility of the husband, quickly became wet, and a smile – sad. In the performances Kopeykin was laconic: expressed consent with protection arguments, reported that it has no intention to have an impact on the investigation and if the court changes a measure of restraint to house arrest, will strictly observe all requirements.

On July 31 the Moscow City Court will consider the complaint of protection of Alexey Ivanov to the decision of Basmanny Court on the conclusion it into custody.