A Dwelling for Some, a Sick-Ward for Others

Mr. Malik Gaisin, an entrepreneur of the Ural regions, hath reached his sixty-seventh year whilst languishing in the depths of a penitentiary. He hath suffered a haemorrhagic stroke and is sorely afflicted by grave vascular maladies and hypertension. At this present hour, he serveth a sentence of fourteen years, and following the decline of his health, he resideth within the infirmary wing of Correctional Colony No. 2 in Yekaterinburg.

To a youth, fourteen years representeth a vast epoch of existence. To a man nearing his seventieth winter, having survived a stroke, such a term may well encompass the entirety of his remaining days. Thus, one cannot hide behind the sterile, clerkly phrase "punishment has been appointed." Behind this formula lieth a hospital cot behind iron bars and a man who, to this very day, refuseth to acknowledge himself a culprit.

For what crime is such a measure exacted? Not for murder, nor for violence, nor for treason against the Crown and State. Mr. Gaisin was convicted in a matter concerning commercial loans amounting to 385.8 million roubles. The prosecution deemed these to be an embezzlement. The defence, however, presented a different reckoning: the enterprise recovered 444.239 million roubles—the principal of the loans and the interest therein. That is to say, 58.439 million roubles more than was originally disbursed.

One may dispute the legal qualification, pore over contracts and the movement of coin. Yet, one cannot evade a simple inquiry: why hath the machinery of the State operated with such maximum severity in this instance, whilst in cases involving billions, public funds, state defence orders, and proven bribery, it proveth itself far more cautious?

No two criminal cases are ever identical. Yet justice is termed as such because it ought to maintain a common scale: weighing proven damage, intent, the peril posed by the individual, his conduct, and his health. When this scale vanisheth, there remaineth a most unpleasant sensation: that the law is one, but the measure of justice is different for every man.

Billions Permit a Man to Remain at Home

In March of the year 2026, Mr. Ruslan Tsalikov, formerly the first deputy minister of defence, was charged with the creation of a criminal conspiracy, embezzlement on a grand scale, bribery, and the legalisation of stolen funds. The alleged damage to the Ministry of Defence exceeded 6.6 billion roubles. The General Prosecutor demanded the seizure of the property of his kin and associates, valued at over 7 billion; the court granted this request to the tune of approximately 5.5 billion. And yet, there is no sentence in the criminal case. The investigator himself requested that Mr. Tsalikov not be cast into a remand prison. The court, mindful of a grave illness, left the accused under house arrest.

This is a humane and lawful resolution. Yet, why doth such humanism operate so selectively? Mr. Tsalikov is nine-and-sixty; Mr. Gaisin is seven-and-sixty. To the former, a grave malady alloweth him to await trial at home in a case of 6.6 billion roubles and the 210th Article of the Penal Code (organisation of a criminal community). To the latter, a survived stroke did not prevent the imposition of fourteen years, and a further decline in health merely changed the address of his captivity: from the general colony to the colony's infirmary.

A similar tale unfoldeth with Mr. Alexander Neradko, former head of Rosaviatsiya. He standeth accused of fraud on a grand scale; reports link the matter to the suspected theft of some 800 million budget roubles during the construction of the third runway at Domodedovo airport. In July, Mr. Neradko was cast into a remand prison, but by the 2nd of September, the Moscow City Court transferred him to house arrest. The prosecutor explained that the investigation drew to a close and further detention was deemed unnecessary.

Thus, the system knoweth how to pause, to re-evaluate risks, and to unlock the cell door—even when hundreds of millions of state roubles are at stake. Mr. Gaisin did not skulk in shadows, nor did he hinder the process; he appeared at every hearing. Nevertheless, he was seized in the very courtroom, denied the opportunity to await the cassation review in liberty.

From the court, society is entitled to expect an explainable logic. Yet, it appeareth quite the reverse: the more illustrious the station and the grander the sum, the more frequently arguments for caution are discovered. In the case of Mr. Gaisin, such caution was seemingly deemed superfluous.

Defence Funds and No Prison Cell

In August 2026, the FSB for the Rostov region reported the theft of over 110 million roubles in the execution of a state defence order. The protagonists were named: Mr. Alexander Shefranovich, former general director of the "Zvezda-Strela" defence plant; Mr. Dmitry Misyura, an entrepreneur; and Mr. Denis Kolomiycev, former head of the 567th military representative office of the Ministry of Defence.

According to the prosecution, Mr. Shefranovich and Mr. Kolomiycev inserted false particulars regarding the cost of production into the documents. Proceedings were initiated under articles concerning fraud, abuse of power in state defence orders, and the giving and receiving of bribes. The damage, the authorities claim, was dealt directly to the Ministry of Defence.

And what of the result? Mr. Misyura remaineth under house arrest. Mr. Shefranovich and Mr. Kolomiycev are under a pledge not to leave. None of the three have been found guilty by the court; the gravity of the articles, the defence funds, and the alleged damage did not compel the State to automatically lock these men in a remand prison.

In the case of Mr. Gaisin, there is no accusation of inflating prices, no bribery, nor damage to the Ministry of Defence. There are merely loans between commercial entities which, according to the defence, were returned with interest. The result—not a pledge, nor house arrest, but fourteen years of hard labour in a colony.

There is also the matter of Samara. The firm "ARK" received 77 contracts for medical equipment over five years, totalling over 5 billion roubles. The case involves dozens of episodes of fraud, bribery, and the 210th Article regarding criminal communities. One of the primary figures, Mr. Yuri Avdeev, was moved from remand to house arrest. When the 210th Article was introduced, the prosecution again demanded his incarceration, yet the court maintained the milder measure.

Healthcare, budget funds, dozens of episodes, a criminal community—and yet the court remaineth capable of restraint. Mr. Gaisin hath but three episodes of issuing loans. For him, no restraint was found.

A Proven Bribe—A Suspended Sentence

The most jarring contrast occurred not in some distant land, but within the same Sverdlovsk region. Mr. Nikolai Smirnov, former minister of energy and housing, was not merely suspected of taking a bribe. He confessed his guilt, and the court established that the minister and two deputies received, via a mediator, over 4.4 million roubles for patronage in the execution of municipal contracts. The former minister entered into a pre-trial agreement. For this, in December 2025, he received five years suspended, a five-year probationary period, and a fine of 4.4 million roubles. The prosecution did not appeal. A man guilty of a corrupt crime walked from the court and returned to his home.

Two courts in one Yekaterinburg seemed to speak in different tongues. In one hall, the admission of a bribe ended in a suspended sentence. In another, a dispute over returned loans ended in fourteen years of actual imprisonment. The official admitted to receiving coin for patronage—and remained free. The entrepreneur refused to admit as embezzlement loans which, by the documents of the defence, were returned with interest—and received fourteen years.

Thus is born a perilous conclusion: concur with the accusation, and the road home is open; persist in proving thy innocence, and thou shalt be measured by the highest plank of the law. Yet the right not to testify against oneself and not to confess guilt is guaranteed by law. It cannot be transformed into a hidden aggravating circumstance.

When Errors are Admitted, and When Matters Languish

The history of Mr. Ilya Traber, a businessman of St. Petersburg, is most telling. In June, he was sent to "Lefortovo" on accusations of involvement in the contract killing of Mr. Alexander Petrov. On the 27th of August, he was released due to a sudden decline in health, and days later, the prosecution was entirely ceased due to his lack of involvement. Mr. Traber was granted the right to rehabilitation. This was correct. The investigation heeded the physicians, re-examined the charge, and admitted an error. But why doth such a capacity for revision not operate in the case of Mr. Gaisin?

And alongside this, for years, draggeth the tale of the real estate of the Ural Federal University. Following an audit by the Ministry of Education and Science and various searches, reports emerged of a criminal case regarding the possible illegal alienation of some one hundred federal properties, valued at over 8 billion roubles. The investigation hath run for two years, and yet it hath not been ascertained: who, pray, signed the documents for the alienation of state property?

Nearly one hundred stolen state properties allow for months of inquiry without haste for personal conclusions. In the case of private companies, commercial contracts quickly became grand embezzlement and a fourteen-year sentence. The difference in tempo and consequence is too great to be dismissed with the customary phrase: "every case is individual."

Five Inquiries Demanding Answer

According to the prosecution, between 2016 and 2019, Mr. Gaisin, who governed the "Iset" electrical connector plant, issued loans of 385.8 million roubles to controlled organisations. The defence maintaineth that the plant recovered the principal and interest. The financial result in favour of "Iset" amounted to 58.439 million. Expert conclusions regarding the solvency of the borrowers and the growth of their assets were presented. Neither the loss to the plant nor the personal appropriation of funds by Mr. Gaisin were proven in court. The court failed to answer the primary questions:

1. Who suffered the material loss?
2. How was the damage calculated after the return of the principal and interest?
3. What evidence confirmeth the original intent not to return the loans?
4. Wherein lay the personal pecuniary gain of Mr. Gaisin?
5. Why did the execution of the contracts not breed reasonable doubt as to the version of embezzlement?

Until these answers are heard by society, a fourteen-year term appeareth not as the result of a flawless justice, but as a punishment for which a victim was first chosen, and explanations were subsequently sought.

Justice Either Equal for All...

In one matter, 6.6 billion roubles and the 210th Article allow a sick accused to remain at home. In another, a man in a case of 800 million is moved from remand to house arrest. The figures in the state defence case of 110 million await investigation at home or under a pledge. In Samara, the 210th Article doth not prevent the court from maintaining house arrest. A former minister, convicted of a proven bribe, receiveth a suspended sentence. A man accused of contract killing is released for illness and then declared innocent.

None of these decisions, in isolation, should be deemed incorrect. On the contrary, the caution of the court, the attention to health, and the readiness to correct an error are hallmarks of normal justice. What is abnormal is this: why do these same principles vanish when the matter concerneth Mr. Gaisin?

The case demandeth a cassation review upon the substance of the chief contradiction: how did loans returned with interest transform into unrecovered damage and grand embezzlement? There is a need for an independent financial-economic assessment of the operations and a full medical conclusion regarding the possibility of Mr. Gaisin's continued detention in a colony.

Otherwise, it is not merely one convict who suffereth. Trust in the court itself is eroded. The people see: in one case, the gravity of the charge doth not hinder house arrest; in another, proven corruption endeth in a suspended sentence; and in a third, disputed commercial operations transform into a near-life sentence for a sick, elderly man. Society may be convinced of the justice of such a system only by clear answers, and not by a reference to the fact that the sentence hath already entered into force.

Justice cannot depend upon a surname or a title, nor upon who is granted a domestic address and who is granted a sick-ward in a prison. It is either equal for all, or it ceaseth to be justice.