The defense claimed the case against the head of the Khasavyurt traffic police department was falsified.

Ibrahim Baibulatov, the head of the Khasavyurt District Traffic Police, recently suspended from his post, has been arrested for three months on charges of bribery. However, the case contains no evidence of any money being transferred to Baibulatov personally or to any other traffic police officer.

Aidemir Ismailov, a lawyer from Khasavyurt representing Baibulatov, claims that the prosecution of his client is being conducted in violation of basic procedural rules. He suggested that the case against the district traffic police chief was a plot by "dishonest" employees of another law enforcement agency who were dissatisfied with Baibulatov's integrity.

"Because Baibulatov's conversation with the FSB officer was heated, and there's an audio recording. He refused—and not for the first time—to hold their man accountable. And they were apparently waiting for the right moment," Ismailov told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

All investigative actions are based on assumptions and are being conducted with procedural violations, the lawyer pointed out. "The gist of the case is this: traffic police officers catch a violator, draw up a report revoking his driver's license, but after some time, they release him from administrative liability. Officers from another law enforcement agency contact the violator, and he explains that he tried to resolve the issue for some time—and resolved it through a third party, not a traffic police officer, by transferring some money. Moreover, the third party denies receiving any money from the violator or transferring it to anyone. And no investigative experiment was conducted to establish the bribery. Nevertheless, a criminal case is opened against two Khasavyurt traffic police officers. Against this backdrop, their supervisor, the head of the traffic police, Baibulatov, is summoned to give an explanation regarding his subordinates," said Aidemir Ismailov.

According to the lawyer, Ibrahim Baibulatov refused to appear to testify on behalf of his subordinates, after which a separate criminal case was opened against him and he was detained. "The investigator didn't conduct any procedural actions: he simply filed some materials from the previous file, a couple of copies of interrogations, and the new case was ready. But he didn't conduct any procedural review as required. And then Baibulatov was arrested. In accordance with Article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the materials presented to the court must usually state the grounds for doing so: that he might abscond from the investigation, continue to engage in criminal activity, exert pressure on witnesses, and so on, and this information must be supported by written materials. In response to my question, the investigator replied: 'The grounds are that he is the head of the Khasavyurt traffic police,'" said lawyer Ismailov. The investigation presented no evidence against Baibulatov personally. "The only witness says he didn't transfer the money to him or anyone else, and my client confirms the same." There's a traffic police officer who claims the traffic police chief verbally instructed him to alter the report, but even this doesn't provide any basis for bribery charges. The fact is, the case file was put together hastily, hastily; first-graders would have done a better job. There were no investigative measures, no wiretaps, nothing, not to mention no recording of the actual bribe-giving process—just record it, catch him red-handed. Instead, they simply arrested the man, detained him, and charged him," the defense attorney believes.

The lawyer claims that his client is currently under pressure. "The courts are holding him in custody without any direct basis." "They don't allow legal visits with my wife; they state outright: 'Until you admit guilt, we won't allow you,'" Ismailov noted.

Lawyer Timofey Shirokov, who is not involved in this case, considers it rare for the head of a law enforcement agency to be charged for something his subordinates could have done.

"I don't know the circumstances of this case, but he can only be held accountable for culpable actions, not innocent ones. A superior is responsible for his subordinates, but he is also subject to disciplinary liability. On what basis are they imprisoning someone for actions they didn't directly organize and that they weren't involved in? That's strange. The fact of organizing a bribe and transferring it is always recorded by law: the person is "led," and the transfer of funds is recorded. If we're talking about influencing employees to, for example, change a protocol that isn't related to a bribe, then the most we can theoretically talk about is abuse of power," he told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.