The prosecutor's office in Sochi confirmed the facts of the delays with Abramova's statements.

The police's refusals to initiate cases based on the statements of Ekaterina Abramova, who has been recognized as a victim in the case of embezzlement of funds from shareholders, were deemed illegal by the prosecutor's office of the Central District of Sochi. Abramova herself believes that the document was backdated.

As reported by "complained about the delays: the Prosecutor General's Office and the Investigative Committee did not make a procedural decision on her statement for a year, and an employee of the Krasnodar prosecutor's office even blocked Abramova on WhatsApp*. In correspondence with the Investigative Committee, she also could not get an answer to her question about the whereabouts of her crime report submitted in person to Alexander Bastrykin in June 2025.

Moscow resident Ekaterina Abramova received a response from the prosecutor's office of the Central District of Sochi on October 28. According to the letter, a copy of which is in the possession of “Caucasian Knot”, the supervisory authority recognized the actions of Sochi police and investigators regarding her appeals as illegal. The document is dated August 10, 2026, and is signed by the acting deputy prosecutor of the district.

The prosecutor's office checked Abramova's appeal from July 27, 2026, and revealed a chain of procedural violations. The reason for the appeal was the years of inaction by law enforcement agencies.

Content of the letter from the prosecutor's office

The prosecutor's response confirms that Abramova's statement about the illegal actions of Kansuzyan and Bazikyan was registered in the police department of the Central District of Sochi on July 23, 2022. Investigator Djishkariani refused to initiate a case on August 2, 2022, due to the absence of a crime composition. The prosecutor's office only four years later called this decision “illegal and unfounded”, canceled it, and sent the materials for additional verification.

In a similar manner, the prosecutor's office acted on Abramova's repeated statement from August 23, 2025: investigator Ilyashenko refused to initiate a case on January 29, 2026, and on July 10, 2026, the prosecutor's office canceled this ruling and demanded that the head of the police department eliminate violations of the law on reasonable timeframes for judicial proceedings.

On February 27, 2026, an investigator initiated a fraud case against Kansuzyan in a particularly large amount (part 4 of article 159 of the Criminal Code of Russia). The case received the number 12601030067000398. It was joined with 14 other criminal cases, including a case from the Khostinsky district, in which Abramova was recognized as a victim.

On July 2, 2026, the investigator suspended the investigation of the combined case: Kansuzyan signed a contract for service in the Armed Forces of Russia (basis – paragraph 3.1 of part 1 of article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia). On August 3, the district prosecutor recognized the suspension as illegal, canceled it, and submitted a demand to the head of the investigative department.

The prosecutor refused to assess Abramova's arguments that the actions of the subjects should be qualified as organizing a criminal community (article 210 of the Criminal Code of Russia). It stated that “a legal assessment will be given during the investigation.”

The applicant doubted the dates

Ekaterina Abramova associates receiving the response dated August 10 only at the end of October with her complaints against high-ranking officials. “Finally, they sent at least some response, but for some reason it was received only on October 28, although dated August 10,” she told a correspondent of “Caucasian Knot”.

She believes that the document was prepared backdated. During this period, Abramova claims that she submitted statements about possible official crimes by the prosecutor of the Krasnodar Territory, Elisei Platonov, an employee of the Prosecutor General's Office, Sosnovsky, employees of the Investigative Committee, and investigators of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for two weeks. According to her, the Investigative Committee employees register her statements not as reports of crimes, but as “citizen appeals.”

At that time, Abramova claims that all her appeals to the prosecutor's office for the last two years disappeared from her personal account, and the ability to communicate with the “Gosuslugi” operator was blocked. She considers the prosecutor's response, which arrived after four years, as confirmation that her complaints against officials yielded results.

“In this letter from the prosecutor's office, there is already enough information to check for signs of official crimes: it is confirmed that the statements were received, but there was no reaction to them for years. Moreover, the initiated case was combined with the cases of other victims, but there is still no real investigation,” the applicant emphasized.

Abramova intends to continue her legal battle. Her immediate plans include a statement to the Investigative Committee regarding the agency's employees due to the possible removal of her crime reports from the documentation, and then a statement against the Ministry of Internal Affairs employees.

Lawyer's assessment

Independent lawyer Elena Pavlova in a comment to “Caucasian Knot” called the scenario in the document typical for cases with a large number of episodes and victims. According to her, when reporting a crime, law enforcement agencies are obliged to conduct an investigation strictly in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code and make a specific procedural decision within 30 days.

“In practice, however, registered appeals are often processed under Federal Law No. 59-FZ ‘On the Procedure for Considering Citizens' Appeals’, which gives agencies the opportunity to provide vague interim responses and transfer documents from instance to instance without launching the criminal procedural machinery,” the lawyer explained.

In her opinion, the regular cancellation of refusals recognizes systemic errors in the investigation but does not guarantee progress in the case. “The situation where the district prosecutor's office cancels police refusals year after year as ‘illegal’ and sends them for additional verification is called ‘procedural shuttle’ in the legal community. Formally, the prosecutor responds and satisfies complaints, but in reality, the process loops back,” Pavlova believes.

The suspension of the case due to the subject's departure for a special military operation was called a relatively new but already widespread practice by the lawyer. If the prosecutor canceled such a suspension, it means that the investigator either did not provide confirming documents from the Ministry of Defense or committed procedural violations, Pavlova believes.

“I would advise everyone who encounters such delays to file complaints about the inaction of investigators and operational staff in accordance with article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in court, not just to the higher prosecutor. A court ruling obliges to eliminate violations within strictly established deadlines,” she said.

Pavlova also advises documenting each submission of a statement in the crime report register with the receipt of a notification ticket. In case of systematic substitution of the code with Law No. 59-FZ, she recommends submitting a statement about signs of a crime (article 285 of the Criminal Code of Russia – abuse of official powers, article 293 – negligence) to the central office of the Investigative Committee and the special prosecutor's office.