TITLE: ARBITRARY JUSTICE: COURTS AND POLITICS IN POST- STALIN RUSSIA. Report #4. TRANSITION YEARS: ECONOMIC CRIMES AUTHOR: YURI FEOFANOV and DONALD BARRY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARCH TITLE VIII PROGRAM 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 NCSEER NOTE This is the fourth in a series of Council Reports which, in all, will contain a book, by the same authors and probably with the same title, forthcoming, M. E. Sharpe. This Report contains Part III: an introductory essay, Transition Years: Economic Crimes by Donald Barry; and three chapters by Yuri Feofanov: Ch.4, A House with a Mezzanine: Ch.5, Politics Guards the Socialist Economy; and Ch.6, The Transition Year of Yuri Andropov. Subsequent Reports in the series, numbered sequentially, will contain the remaining Parts IV - VII, and will carry the same main title and the subtitle of the Part contained. PROJECT INFORMATION:1 CONTRACTOR: Lehigh University PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Donald Barry COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER: 808-02 DATE: October 6, 1995 COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Individual researchers retain the copyright on work products derived from research funded by Council Contract. The Council and the U.S. Government have the right to duplicate written reports and other materials submitted under Council Contract and to distribute such copies within the Council and U.S. Government for their own use, and to draw upon such reports and materials for their own studies; but the Council and U.S. Government do not have the right to distribute, or make such reports and materials available, outside the Council or U.S. Government without the written consent of the authors, except as may be required under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. 552, or other applicable law. The work leading to this report was supported in part by contract funds provided by the National Council for Soviet and East European Research, made available by the U. S. Department of State under Title VIII (the Soviet-Eastern European Research and Training Act of 1983, as amended). The analysis and interpretations contained in the report are those of the author(s). III. TRANSITION YEARS: ECONOMIC CRIMES Donald D. Barry The word transition comes in handy in discussing Soviet and post-Soviet politics. The stability of the Brezhnev era gave way to several transitions after that leader's death, as four people (Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev) sat in the General Secretary's chair in a period of about twenty-eight months. The whole Gorbachev period was also a transition of sorts, as the Soviet system itself was dramatically transformed before its disintegration in the space of less than seven years. And now Russia (along with the other former Soviet republics) is proceeding through a series of transitions, as the attempt is made to create a political democracy with a market economy. It makes sense, therefore, that Feofanov would use the word transition in Chapter Six, on the Andropov period. But even the cases in that chapter, although initiated under Andropov, were not concluded until after his death. Similarly, the cases in Chapter Four, on illegal housing construction, run from the Khrushchev era into the Brezhnev period and beyond. And the matters discussed in Chapter Five, "Politics Guards the Socialist Economy," also span the period of more than one leader. In fact, all had their origins in the Brezhnev period, but were not finally resolved until the Gorbachev years. These cases, then, transcend the organizational principle followed in the book up to now, based on the tenure of a particular leader. But all of the cases referred to (as well as those in Chapters Seven through Nine) have at least two characteristics in common. First, all have to do with economic crimes, actual or alleged. And second, all have a direct connection to the Brezhnev era. Those in Chapter Four began or ended under Brezhnev. Chapter Five's cases involved activities initiated during the Brezhnev years for which, as the courts finally ruled, the principals were wrongfully prosecuted. The cases in Chapters Six through Nine have to do with acts carried out in the Brezhnev era — involving political and economic corruption — that could not be prosecuted until Brezhnev had left the scene. "The House With a Mezzanine" involves two cases of allegedly illegal housing construction by individuals. In both instances a reasonable measure of common sense finally prevailed, in Feofanov's view, but not without considerable grief for the families who sought to build comfortable homes for themselves. The ideological stigma against "privatism." he shows, affected both the state bureaucracy and a considerable portion of the public. In "Politics Guards the Socialist Economy" three cases are presented, all involving individuals accused of economic activity beyond the bounds of what was legal. But unlike the Rokotov case in Chapter Two. the defendants here were not charged with making large personal gains at the state's expense. In fact, their acts brought benefit to the socialist economy, and the pay they received for their labor was in line with standard rates. Their "crimes" bordered on the ideological, in that their initiatives were seen as challenges to the strict control over economic activity asserted by the system. In all three cases the defendants were eventually vindicated by the courts, but only after harassment by the authorities and incarceration. For Johannes Hint, the vindication came only after his death. The Kudinovskaya Plant case presents a theme that Feofanov returns to later in the book: the harsh provisions of the criminal procedural code, at least as interpreted by investigatory officials, that made possible the securing of apparently false confessions without violating the law. A pattern of behavior is described, and emerges again in subsequent chapters, in which a defendant confesses while in detention - sometimes under conditions of solitary confinement -- and then retracts the confession upon release. The Zhandybaev case is a classic example of a "verdict by command" — on the order of higher authority. It is also one of several cases involving a republic of former Soviet Central Asia. In this instance a decision of the highest court of the USSR was required to secure Zhandybaev's release. The most well-known of the three cases in the chapter is the Hint case. Hint was an Estonian scientist and inventor with an international reputation. A doctor of technical sciences and laureate of a Lenin Prize, he was the head of a special design and technological bureau named "Dezintegrator." Hint and other employees of the bureau were arrested in 1981 and accused of embezzlement, forgery and other crimes. After numerous interrogations he and the others confessed, but all later retracted their confessions. A lower court sentenced them to long prison terms, a decision that was affirmed by the Criminal Collegium of the Estonian Supreme Court in 1983. Two documents related to the Hint case are included at the end of the chapter: "The Last Word of Johannes Hint," his statement to the lower court before sentencing; and the special ruling1 of the USSR Supreme Court issued in connection with the decision of the Court rescinding the sentences against Hint and his fellow defendants and ordering their full rehabilitation. An interesting sidelight to this case is the fact that part of the investigation was conducted by Telman Gdylian, the procuracy investigator who made a name for himself (and a political career) by bringing charges against a number of well-known officials and alleged mafia operatives, particularly in Uzbekistan. Feofanov has a considerable amount to say about Gdylian and his colleague Nikolai Ivanov in Chapter Seven, on the Churbanov case. Gdylian's investigative tactics against Hint were widely criticized in the press.2 And the USSR Supreme Court special ruling referred to above is a stinging criticism of the way the Hint case was conducted, including Gdylian's role in it. Yuri Andropov's tenure as leader was so short (November 1982-February. 1984) that it is difficult to discern what his broad policy goals would have been if he had held the top post longer. There is general agreement, however, that fighting corruption was high on his agenda, as a number of initiatives in his first months in office indicate.3 It is also clear that the Soviet leadership had grown sufficiently concerned about the magnitude of corruption to begin moving against it even during the last years of Brezhnev.4 An apparent sign of the weakened position of Brezhnev during his final years was the initiation of criminal investigation proceedings against some personal associates of Brezhnev, as well as people connected with members of his family.3 But the anti-corruption campaign became more concerted under Andropov. According to Leslie Holmes. Andropov "made the drive against corruption a top priority almost as soon as he became the new General Secretary."6 The effects of the campaign can be seen in a number of ways. Perhaps the most significant was that Nikolai Shchelokov, long a close associate of Brezhnev and head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was dismissed about a month after Andropov took over. A year later, in December 1993, when it appeared that he would be tried for corruption himself. Shchelokov committed suicide (his wife had committed suicide in March 1993). Another sign of Andropov's initiatives was the commencement of a number of corruption trials. The two cases presented in Chapter Six involve corruption charges against middle-level apparatchiks, one a deputy minister and the other a former secretary to Leonid Brezhnev. Feofanov comments in the course of the discussion that the level of officials who could be prosecuted for corruption at this time was still rather low.