On November 24, the Zamoskvoretsky District Court rejected an appeal by Yevgeny Adamov's defense to send his case back to the Prosecutor General's Office to correct shortcomings in the investigation and clarify the charges, and scheduled a hearing for December 5.
But the hearing was postponed until December 11, as Vyacheslav Pismennyi, a co-defendant in the case, failed to attend due to his packed business agenda.
This time, Pismennyi has been forced to cancel due to illness, according to his lawyer Dmitry Kharitonov.
"My client was hospitalized on December 7 with acute heart failure," Kharitonov said.
Prosecutors have accused the defense team of deliberately delaying the trial.
Adamov, 67, has been charged with leading an organized criminal group which caused damages to the Russian budget, enterprises and organizations totaling over 3 billion rubles (about $110 million).
He is being prosecuted along with two co-defendants, Pismennyi, former director of the Troitsky research center, and Revmir Freishut, former director of TechSnabExport.
The ex-minister was originally arrested in Switzerland in May 2005 at the request of the United States, where authorities accuse him of misappropriating $9 million given to Russia for nuclear safety projects. Had he been convicted in the U.S., Adamov would have faced 60 years in prison.
He was extradited to Russia in early 2006 to face charges but was released by the Russian Supreme Court July 21, after a total of 15 months in prison, to await trial.
Adamov, who served from 1998 to 2001 as Russia's nuclear power minister, said in October he will insist on a trial in a U.S. court, although the U.S. authorities have accused him of a crime they said was committed in Russia.
On October 16, the Moscow City Court canceled the Zamoskvoretsky District Court's earlier decision to send Adamov's case back to the Prosecutor General's Office for a clarification of the charges.
The city court thereby upheld an appeal by prosecutors against the district court decision. Prosecutors demanded that the case should instead be sent for retrial in the district court.
