Participation in the pre-trial investigator checking

Participation in the pre-trial investigator checking

A few years ago, I have experienced the pre-trial procedure for checking the prosecutor's office initiated the United States against an American company, which is suspected (by "rule of rumors") in giving a large bribe Russian leadership Gupalo. My duties included measures to identify and search for witnesses phones - call them to negotiate with the US lawyers (my customers) in Russia.

Surprisingly, in my experience, it was probably the easiest case with one hand and the other very informative. I know very well sustained indifference of Russian officials on duty to appear in court.

In this case it was the opposite. Gupalo Representative - a person puts his signature on the disputed documents, amazingly loyal walked to arrange a meeting with the representatives of American justice. Furthermore secured protocol meeting with his signature. It was a real shock for me. But the words of an American lawyer, such a procedure is common practice in the US, because it allows you to remove all claims out of court, in time to negotiate and avoid serious costs.

The feature of such a procedure - transparency and equality of the parties in the presentation of evidence. So the US Attorney in their claims referred to the defendant by email - information that is applied to our procedural law likely would not have been recognized as admissible evidence. Mission lawyer was aimed at gathering information from the person referred to in an email as a recipient of the bribe.

Personally, I think such a procedure design detective lawyer on one side and the prosecutor on the other, and the ideal perspective.