Cloned Boy
Professional
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 1,330
- Points
- 113
CARDER STOLE A MILLION $.
Hackers and carders, what's the difference? What terms are "handed out" to cybercriminals, and how do prisoners live in the 21st century. Should we be afraid of a modern prison and what else is better not to say never. Interview with Sergey Pavlovich, the most famous carder in the post-Soviet space and accomplice of the famous American hacker Albert Gonzalez. CarderPlanet and other modern carder forums.
Enjoy reading!
Contents:
Reference:
Our guest is Sergey Pavlovich, who is also known as Police Dog, Fallen Angel, Diplomaticus, one of the most famous carders in the post-Soviet space. In 2008, he was among the eleven defendants in the largest theft of personal information in the history of the United States, an accomplice of the famous hacker Alberto Gonzalez, the author of the books "How I Stole a Million" and "Confessions of a Repentant Carder".
Who is carder Sergey Pavlovich?
Interviewer:
Good evening. Today we have a very interesting person as a guest. Yes, Sergey?
Pavlovich:
I hope so.
Interviewer:
So, today it is now half past six in the evening. Early this night, at about twelve o'clock, I read the title of this book "How I Stole a Million". And somewhere around seven in the morning I read the last sentence about Katerina, who was the wife. Well, that is, Sergey, you know, somehow like that, on a binge.
In seven hours it all went down the drain. Of course, I could have read it even faster, but there was something to think about. And so, to put it mildly, it is impressive, that is my opinion. Impressive. Probably, as a person who is also somewhere very far from you in some ways, and like many of us, bachelors, these are people with some kind of entrepreneurial streak, who always come up with something new.
Pavlovich:
Adventurism, quickly.
Interviewer:
Probably adventurism, it is right here somewhere nearby. And when you give birth to all this in your head, all the time you are somewhere at the junction of something that is already clear, well, like in a factory there, you go, saw it out, grind it out, everything is clear, you will not be judged. And somewhere else, when you started to come up with something, this phrase, while I was reading the book, the phrase was spinning in my head all the time, an old, maybe hackneyed, but nevertheless. Something from the mind, yes, prison.
Pavlovich:
Never say never.
Interviewer:
Never say never. Yes. That's actually what I'm talking about. And I just shared my impressions of the book I read. I literally never thought I'd even read it. You know, I had this feeling that we'd probably take it, we'd have an interview, I'd talk about it, I have questions from people who've already read the book, I want to ask them today. But then I came up with my own. And, actually, I, as a bachelor, as an entrepreneur, as a person who also understands what adventures are, came to this conclusion for myself, that when you read the book, especially at the end, you begin to understand.
Was the beautiful life worth 10 years in prison?
Interviewer:
Guys, everything is great, of course, but was it worth it, you have a phrase like that in the book, but were these years that I lived like this worth it, were they worth it, so that I could then end up where you were? That's my opinion. Now tell me, why did you actually write it?
Pavlovich:
Well, I wrote for many reasons. Firstly, it simply helped me to distract myself, somehow immersed myself in my memories, and simply escaped from these gray everyday life of the pre-trial detention center, the camp, firstly. And secondly, it was like a summary of some experience that I already had. And, naturally, in short, an exposition of conclusions. An exposition of the conclusions that I came to.
And, probably, this is the greatest desire. That is, I would like others, if possible, to come to the same conclusions of readers. That is, to give some specific advice, probably, and show by personal example that if you do this, you will have such a result, so, therefore, differently.
Interviewer:
So the question is like this, and how much in total did you manage to spend, failed, and how much, damn, did you have to spend in places not so remote in total?
Pavlovich:
Well, 10 years.
Interviewer:
10 years in total, right? It was 2. Right? You know, we sometimes say, people who, in a country where every fourth person, I think, has served time, have such a saying, yes, our prison slang sometimes very smoothly weaves into our everyday speech. But is it right to say that these are “two stints”? Is there such a word?
Pavlovich:
Is that so? Yes?
Interviewer:
That’s absolutely normal, right? Yeah. Is there such a word as “got out”?
Pavlovich:
Yes.
Interviewer:
Yes?
Pavlovich:
Got released.
Interviewer:
Got released, yes. So, how long ago did you get out?
Pavlovich:
A year ago.
Interviewer:
A year. A year already here. Well. Then I had such a question. I think even you answered it. That is, when you write, you somehow organize it, you speak, and you would like to warn, to tell about something there, right? There is also such a psychological, as it were, some kind of such phenomenon. A person writes something on paper, then burns it, as if everything is gone, freed. You didn’t burn anything, you, on the contrary, here it is.
Pavlovich:
Well, not exactly, because by writing it I also put a period, that is, at this criminal stage of my life’s journey. That is, I wrote, and as if, that is, put a period in the book, and as if I turned that page.
Interviewer:
In principle, I didn’t burn it, but put a period, yes, probably .
Pavlovich:
That was also. That is, I summed it up, that is, the events there are described over 3 years, somewhere also more than 10 years, such a fairly long period of life.
Interviewer:
I don’t remember the definition of the word “novel”, but, in my opinion, where a lot of people and a lot of events are described, yes, in relation to a long period – that’s a novel.
Pavlovich:
Yes. We are holding a novel in our hands. For the most part, yes. Clearly not a story.
Interviewer:
And about the book itself, you have a fairly long period there, a long, no, not a period, that is, a large chunk in your book, a large block, where you describe your conversation with the first lawyer, where you tell him a lot of terminology. Is this a literary device or did you really have to tell the lawyer everything from scratch?
Pavlovich:
Well, it is a literary device, of course, because how can I convey a certain amount of terminology to the reader in an easily accessible form. Well, naturally, I also had to prompt the lawyer. In any case, elementary things, what the process looks like, what a credit card is and so on, how to write to it and how they steal from it, well, of course, I had to explain.
About prison, what happens when you get there?
Interviewer:
In the book, there is another opinion from one reader that in the book you appear to be a fairly experienced person in prison matters. That is, right off the bat, when you read it, and the book is good because, probably, you try on some things, yes, and so I read, I thought to myself, I wonder how I would behave in such a situation, so you go into a cell for the first time, yes, you brought a blade there somewhere, where did all this experience come from, where did you get it, what kind of preparation did you have?
Pavlovich:
Yes, this is mostly from literature, naturally, from some TV series, which in most cases do not correspond to reality, because many people there are afraid of prison from the very beginning, because of such rituals that used to be absolutely wild, there are medieval rituals, like registration, for example, when they ask all sorts of provocative questions to an arriving person, depending on the answers to them, they determine his position in the internal hierarchy, but now this has long been gone, and this, in principle, is suppressed, and there is no bullying of excessive cruelty there either.
With the overseers themselves or... Yes, it is suppressed by both the overseers and the people from the outside, so all these wild rituals have become a thing of the past, and that's one thing, and secondly, it's not just criminals who are sitting there, but also businessmen, and people
from the academic community, who are grabbing all sorts of people, and this has probably diluted this contingent of exclusively criminals and somehow everything is already so intelligent, normal for mutual understanding, and I think there is nothing to be afraid of in a modern prison.
Interviewer:
There is simply no freedom, there is simply no opportunity. You see, you also wrote about wild things that might seem like something to a person sitting outside, in the warmth, opening a book. About the fact that twice a month, when you already had ORSh, when you can only talk twice a month for 15 minutes, you couldn't talk, they can punish you with a conversation. That is, it's a little wild.
What was the wildest thing for you behind bars?
Interviewer:
And what was the wildest thing in this system, even if it is no longer like in the movies, but what seemed the wildest to you during this time?
In general, in all 10 years?
Pavlovich:
The wildest, probably, you can’t say right away, but, probably, still the limitations of individual employees of the system. That is, when they give you, well, like an example of wild, probably, some things and relationships, when they give you one, it turns out, a disposable razor for nine people. And as if it doesn’t bother us, but tomorrow you have to shave yourself.
And at the same time, there are people sick with HIV and hepatitis in the cell.
Interviewer:
Yes.
Pavlovich:
Well, how is this even possible in the 21st century?
Interviewer:
That is, somehow elementary, even elementary, not to say something about some human rights.
Pavlovich:
We are not asking there, we are not asking for something supernatural, but provide what you must. But in general, well, in the entire prison system, let's say in Belarus, the most, probably, unfair moment, global injustice, is that the game is played in one company.
Prisoners are required to comply with absolutely all regimes, all sorts of regulatory rules, and the administration itself allows itself not to comply with them, that is, they do not report food to us, for example, they do not fulfill a certain amount, they do not give out soap, the same machines, toilet paper, they demand everything.
Interviewer:
Well, look, this is if we talk about places of detention, right? But in general, the entire system itself, I would also like to ask you a similar question. And in the system itself, what is it called? Penitentiary?
Pavlovich:
Penitentiary, yes.
Interviewer:
This is a penitentiary system of cold testimony. Criminal-executive. Criminal-executive the entire system, yes. There, where it concerns the investigator, the lawyer, the courts, but what there? You also feel, well, damn,
Pavlovich:
You don’t feel killed or humiliated, but you feel a little powerless, because you really understand that a lawyer, for example, can’t help you in any way. Yes, he can suggest something, but he won’t be able to really get you out. Because, again, from this side, the game is played by one gate. For example, a policeman.
Allows himself to completely ignore the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Criminal Procedure Code, let’s say, is the main book that regulates the entire investigation process, and any violation of the Criminal Procedure Code automatically, especially if gross, entails the termination of the criminal case, that is, you obtained evidence, but you obtained it in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code, accordingly, as it would be in the West.
Interviewer:
Here in the book, it’s a laptop that was taken away, not sealed.
Pavlovich:
That is, the evidence is not packed, not sealed in the presence of witnesses, excuse me, but in the West they would simply close this criminal case and that's it. And next time the police would learn to work in accordance with their own manuals, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.
Interviewer:
In this book you periodically write about how, as they say, one is strong only in one's mind. And here you didn't think it through a little, yes, and here you screwed up, because none of this could have happened, right?
Pavlovich:
It could have.
Would you like to change anything in your past?
Interviewer:
Do you think it would be worth it today? Or is it just the way the stars align? Or is it really that you didn't think something through? Would you change anything if you could go back 10 years, maybe even more, would you have been more careful somehow?
Pavlovich:
Yes, in general, I simply wouldn't get involved in crime, that's all.
Interviewer:
Well, that's a more philosophical question. And so, you know, that's why I asked, not for the camera, I don't know how. You know, when you think with your mind alone, yes, there are situations when you would have done this-this-this, yes, but you got caught doing something that wasn't even in your head. It wasn't even in your subconscious, yes, that you could get into trouble here. But there are situations when, damn it, you didn't think of it yourself, because you knew it there, right. How was it for you here? You knew all this, you just relaxed a little, as they say?
Pavlovich:
Yes, yes, yes.
Interviewer:
But you knew all this, that you could get burned on this, on this. Well, although, in principle, yes, if you read the book, it's clear,
Pavlovich:
That... Yes, you're involved in crime in any case, it's constant tension, and it lets you know that there is a needed relaxation somewhere. And at that moment… Relaxed too much, huh? Yes.
Interviewer:
Got it right away, yes. Yes, it was very interesting, when these… You know, these things that even I, maybe a person who is far from… Especially in prison, don’t say never, yes, but nevertheless, there were also conversations with the authorities, you also sometimes understand that… But here, to say, well, you just don’t need to do anything there, yes, no matter how stupid it may seem, when they tell you that look, the facts are all like this, no, guys, I don’t know anything, this is not for me. Something like that.
Do you remember the situation when you gave the password during your second arrest?
Pavlovich:
Yes. This was the biggest global mistake, and I still can’t understand what the trigger was, what the trigger was, that I did it. That is, I acted absolutely logically, not expecting this from myself. Yes. Something happened.
Why do you “get stupid” in the zone, how to fight it?
Interviewer:
Tell me, please, you also write something there, probably interesting for those who are now free. So you end up in the zone, you wrote about how you get dumber. You get dumber, you notice over time that it is difficult even to talk to the outside. It is difficult somehow to speak different languages. How long does it take for this to come, this feeling, how quickly is it restored?
Pavlovich:
Somewhere around two years.
Interviewer:
Two?
Pavlovich:
Well, from the moment of detention, yes. One and a half to two years, and you understand that your speech is not as coherent as before, that it is already more difficult to communicate with relatives, even somewhere you can’t insert some kind of swear word into your speech, and so on. That is, you have to watch this. Because, well, naturally, the environment, the surroundings leave their mark. You talk as if to yourself and so on. That’s it. But you can, naturally, resist this, constantly watch your speech, your thoughts.
That’s it. Well, naturally, you need to develop, that is, read more.
Interviewer:
Were you already writing there at that time?
Pavlovich:
Yes, I did. I wrote from the first week, basically, after I was locked up.
Interviewer:
And does it help? Does that help?
Pavlovich:
It helps. Yes, writing, of course, helps.
Interviewer:
And after how long, after you got out, did you feel adequate here? I mean in terms of communication.
Pavlovich:
About 2-3 weeks later. Because it still strengthens right away. But it comes back quickly, right? Yes, yes, very quickly.
Interviewer:
Look, I have a question. What worries me so much, you know, although, so to speak, it worries, interests me. The book is very realistic, very realistic. Lots of names, positions, history. This one did this, that one did that. Tell me, have you laid out all this here, right? If I'm not mistaken, it's at the end... I read the electronic version.
Pavlovich:
Yes.
About the BadB carder, how did your "colleagues" react to the book?
Interviewer:
Yes, yes, yes. Nothing has changed here. It is what it is, that's how it is. And then at the end here, you just don't get it, did these people you write about here read the book?
Pavlovich:
Yes, they did, mostly their own.
Interviewer:
Many of them. And the comrades from the authorities who are mentioned here?
Pavlovich:
Well, I don't know, I haven't talked to them.
Interviewer:
Thank God, yes.
Pavlovich:
I see.
Interviewer:
And aren't there any problems in this sense, such as, you know, at the level, the legal level, yes, that there are no requirements, this is allowed?
Pavlovich:
No, absolutely not, but I get some feedback from America, guys, the same BadB is sitting there afterwards, or rather getting it, he is finishing serving his sentence in America. He was unhappy there that I, they say, wrote about him, but listen, first of all, if you make claims against me, well, the claims are not official, they are already at the conversation level, if you make claims against me, well, let's make claims against every journalist who wrote about you, against every forum where information about you is posted.
All the guys about whom it is written there, this information is essentially from open sources, their guilt is proven by the court verdict. Yes, he may be innocent there, but there is a verdict that the journalists were guided by, which I was guided by as well.
I did not disclose anything that would not be known to the general public, some confidential information known only to me, that is, there is essentially nothing to reproach me for.
Interviewer:
So, it turns out that this is a bit of a journalistic work.
Pavlovich:
Yes, yes, yes, by and large.
Why were you imprisoned in Belarus, although you did not cause it any harm?
Interviewer:
In this sense, yes. What other question did I have? Look, I understood that today I was going to meet a person who, as we say, had served time. But I have absolutely no... And before this, I grew up in a slightly gangster area. In the eighth grade, a classmate of mine was imprisoned for rape. That is, I know what a criminal case is, it is a very pleasant criminal case, and I also had to communicate with them a little.
And you know, I never had the desire to continue communicating with people who had served time. But when I was coming here, to this meeting, when I read your book, I realized that the person had not done anything bad in the Republic of Belarus. Please explain this situation with who has any claims against you, how did this happen?
Pavlovich:
Yes, indeed. Despite the fact that I did not cause any damage to any citizen or organization of Belarus, I sat here. And I sat for quite a long time, 10 years. The main victim is America, the United States. And the United States had claims against me, and still have them. That is, I am still wanted there. And this is such a global gap in international law.
That is, the States do not care one bit that you served time somewhere there. Do you understand? They say that it was you, they say, Europeans, who came up with the idea that you cannot serve time for the same thing twice. You can serve time in the States. Accordingly, I served time in Belarus without causing it any damage. And America had claims against me, and still has them.
Interviewer:
That is, now they can find you somewhere in any country.
Pavlovich:
Close the world, extradite to America and try for the same thing. Because America recognizes you only if you were imprisoned either on their territory or, at worst, in Great Britain. That's all.
Interviewer:
Great. So now it's better for you to spend the rest of your life somewhere here.
Pavlovich:
Yes.
Interviewer:
That's already clear, right? Because no one needs such risks anymore.
Pavlovich:
Naturally. And Belarus does not extradite its citizens. That is, of course, it would probably be more strategically correct if they sent me there, I would serve time there for what I did, and no one would have any claims against me, but as it is, I served time and am effectively tied hand and foot.
Interviewer:
Please tell me a hypothetical question, what if you were really asked whether to stay here or go and serve time there?
Pavlovich:
Well, I have asked myself this question more than once, well, of course, I would go there. Yes, the answer is probably obvious. Besides the fact that there would be no claims against me automatically after serving my sentence, I would also, naturally, know English there at an excellent level and that’s it.
Interviewer:
Well, and perhaps the relationships, or is there still enough swinishness and brutality in America in places?
Pavlovich:
There is enough of everything there, yes, it naturally depends on the correctional institution itself, that is, as here, that is, the atmosphere and order in general in each correctional institution is very different, even despite the fact that they all exist according to the same rules, it depends very much on the head. One zone is red, the other is black.
Interviewer:
You wrote about Valadarka and Orsha, right?
Pavlovich:
Yes, but it’s normal… Oh, and Zhodino is not, Orsha has it.
Interviewer:
Also a zone.
Pavlovich:
Yes, if we take the pre-trial detention center, then Valadarka and Zhodino. Naturally, the penitentiary rules are the same, but the conditions are completely different.
About your book, how was it published, where can I buy it?
Interviewer:
Well, that's an interesting story. I don't like reading books one by one, but today it just happened, all at once, and, frankly, it really touches you, touches you.
Pavlovich:
Many people said the same thing, that they read it all night under the covers, almost like in childhood, but this means that I simply managed to write it easily, it's an interesting read, and the previous chapter grabs you and makes you read the next one.
Interviewer:
This is in development, so to begin with I recommend, let's say this advertising phrase, bachelors recommend the book by Sergei Pavlovich "How I Stole a Million", because we will talk about the repentant Carder in our next issue, and for now, finishing the conversation about the book, I wanted to ask the same very life-like question, tell me, please, how did you manage to publish it?
So you found a publishing house, it came out, I keep it in How did you manage to do all this?
Pavlovich:
Well, I sent it from the zone using, again, prohibited mobile phones, for which I was in solitary confinement there more than once. I sent it to the publisher simply in electronic form. And somehow a few days later they contacted, said, well, what, in principle, interests you, here, we can publish it.
Interviewer:
The book was published in St. Petersburg, right? Yes. That is, you somehow simply sent it into the atmosphere somewhere there, right? Did St. Petersburg accept it?
Pavlovich:
No, I sent it to the St. Petersburg publishing house by e-mail. I sent to about 15 publishers, but the Russians have a very big problem, Russians practically do not use email.
Interviewer:
What do they use?
Pavlovich:
You have to call Russians. Doing business in the CIS in general, if in the West I sent an email to a publisher, a literary agent, it doesn’t matter who, a potential business partner, a lawyer, I am sure that they will answer me in any case, that is, they will answer me in 2 hours or in 2 days, but they will answer you, sending an email to Russians on any issue, you are not sure that you will get an answer in six months, so you always have to call.
It’s such a paradox.
Interviewer:
Did you call the St. Petersburg publication or did they answer themselves?
Pavlovich:
No, they answered themselves. Did they answer themselves?
Interviewer:
Well done. Now tell me, where can I buy it?
Pavlovich:
You can buy it, for example, on ozon.ru
Interviewer:
There is such a thing as a bookstore, does it exist yet? Are they in bookstores?
Pavlovich:
It happens, yes.
Interviewer:
You can find it, yes?
Pavlovich:
It happens.
Interviewer:
That's the kind of book. That's the kind of book. That's the kind of guest Sergei Pavlovich is, how he stole a million.
Hackers and carders, what's the difference? What terms are "handed out" to cybercriminals, and how do prisoners live in the 21st century. Should we be afraid of a modern prison and what else is better not to say never. Interview with Sergey Pavlovich, the most famous carder in the post-Soviet space and accomplice of the famous American hacker Albert Gonzalez. CarderPlanet and other modern carder forums.
Enjoy reading!
Contents:
- Who is carder Sergey Pavlovich
- Was the beautiful life worth 10 years in prison?
- About prison, what happens when you get there?
- What was the wildest thing you experienced behind bars?
- Is there anything you would like to change about your past?
- Why do you "get dumber" in prison, and how can you fight it?
- About the carder BadB, how did your "colleagues" react to the book?
- Why were you imprisoned in Belarus, even though you did not cause any harm to it?
- About your book, how was it published, where can I buy it?
Reference:
Our guest is Sergey Pavlovich, who is also known as Police Dog, Fallen Angel, Diplomaticus, one of the most famous carders in the post-Soviet space. In 2008, he was among the eleven defendants in the largest theft of personal information in the history of the United States, an accomplice of the famous hacker Alberto Gonzalez, the author of the books "How I Stole a Million" and "Confessions of a Repentant Carder".
Who is carder Sergey Pavlovich?
Interviewer:
Good evening. Today we have a very interesting person as a guest. Yes, Sergey?
Pavlovich:
I hope so.
Interviewer:
So, today it is now half past six in the evening. Early this night, at about twelve o'clock, I read the title of this book "How I Stole a Million". And somewhere around seven in the morning I read the last sentence about Katerina, who was the wife. Well, that is, Sergey, you know, somehow like that, on a binge.
In seven hours it all went down the drain. Of course, I could have read it even faster, but there was something to think about. And so, to put it mildly, it is impressive, that is my opinion. Impressive. Probably, as a person who is also somewhere very far from you in some ways, and like many of us, bachelors, these are people with some kind of entrepreneurial streak, who always come up with something new.
Pavlovich:
Adventurism, quickly.
Interviewer:
Probably adventurism, it is right here somewhere nearby. And when you give birth to all this in your head, all the time you are somewhere at the junction of something that is already clear, well, like in a factory there, you go, saw it out, grind it out, everything is clear, you will not be judged. And somewhere else, when you started to come up with something, this phrase, while I was reading the book, the phrase was spinning in my head all the time, an old, maybe hackneyed, but nevertheless. Something from the mind, yes, prison.
Pavlovich:
Never say never.
Interviewer:
Never say never. Yes. That's actually what I'm talking about. And I just shared my impressions of the book I read. I literally never thought I'd even read it. You know, I had this feeling that we'd probably take it, we'd have an interview, I'd talk about it, I have questions from people who've already read the book, I want to ask them today. But then I came up with my own. And, actually, I, as a bachelor, as an entrepreneur, as a person who also understands what adventures are, came to this conclusion for myself, that when you read the book, especially at the end, you begin to understand.
Was the beautiful life worth 10 years in prison?
Interviewer:
Guys, everything is great, of course, but was it worth it, you have a phrase like that in the book, but were these years that I lived like this worth it, were they worth it, so that I could then end up where you were? That's my opinion. Now tell me, why did you actually write it?
Pavlovich:
Well, I wrote for many reasons. Firstly, it simply helped me to distract myself, somehow immersed myself in my memories, and simply escaped from these gray everyday life of the pre-trial detention center, the camp, firstly. And secondly, it was like a summary of some experience that I already had. And, naturally, in short, an exposition of conclusions. An exposition of the conclusions that I came to.
And, probably, this is the greatest desire. That is, I would like others, if possible, to come to the same conclusions of readers. That is, to give some specific advice, probably, and show by personal example that if you do this, you will have such a result, so, therefore, differently.
Interviewer:
So the question is like this, and how much in total did you manage to spend, failed, and how much, damn, did you have to spend in places not so remote in total?
Pavlovich:
Well, 10 years.
Interviewer:
10 years in total, right? It was 2. Right? You know, we sometimes say, people who, in a country where every fourth person, I think, has served time, have such a saying, yes, our prison slang sometimes very smoothly weaves into our everyday speech. But is it right to say that these are “two stints”? Is there such a word?
Pavlovich:
Is that so? Yes?
Interviewer:
That’s absolutely normal, right? Yeah. Is there such a word as “got out”?
Pavlovich:
Yes.
Interviewer:
Yes?
Pavlovich:
Got released.
Interviewer:
Got released, yes. So, how long ago did you get out?
Pavlovich:
A year ago.
Interviewer:
A year. A year already here. Well. Then I had such a question. I think even you answered it. That is, when you write, you somehow organize it, you speak, and you would like to warn, to tell about something there, right? There is also such a psychological, as it were, some kind of such phenomenon. A person writes something on paper, then burns it, as if everything is gone, freed. You didn’t burn anything, you, on the contrary, here it is.
Pavlovich:
Well, not exactly, because by writing it I also put a period, that is, at this criminal stage of my life’s journey. That is, I wrote, and as if, that is, put a period in the book, and as if I turned that page.
Interviewer:
In principle, I didn’t burn it, but put a period, yes, probably .
Pavlovich:
That was also. That is, I summed it up, that is, the events there are described over 3 years, somewhere also more than 10 years, such a fairly long period of life.
Interviewer:
I don’t remember the definition of the word “novel”, but, in my opinion, where a lot of people and a lot of events are described, yes, in relation to a long period – that’s a novel.
Pavlovich:
Yes. We are holding a novel in our hands. For the most part, yes. Clearly not a story.
Interviewer:
And about the book itself, you have a fairly long period there, a long, no, not a period, that is, a large chunk in your book, a large block, where you describe your conversation with the first lawyer, where you tell him a lot of terminology. Is this a literary device or did you really have to tell the lawyer everything from scratch?
Pavlovich:
Well, it is a literary device, of course, because how can I convey a certain amount of terminology to the reader in an easily accessible form. Well, naturally, I also had to prompt the lawyer. In any case, elementary things, what the process looks like, what a credit card is and so on, how to write to it and how they steal from it, well, of course, I had to explain.
About prison, what happens when you get there?
Interviewer:
In the book, there is another opinion from one reader that in the book you appear to be a fairly experienced person in prison matters. That is, right off the bat, when you read it, and the book is good because, probably, you try on some things, yes, and so I read, I thought to myself, I wonder how I would behave in such a situation, so you go into a cell for the first time, yes, you brought a blade there somewhere, where did all this experience come from, where did you get it, what kind of preparation did you have?
Pavlovich:
Yes, this is mostly from literature, naturally, from some TV series, which in most cases do not correspond to reality, because many people there are afraid of prison from the very beginning, because of such rituals that used to be absolutely wild, there are medieval rituals, like registration, for example, when they ask all sorts of provocative questions to an arriving person, depending on the answers to them, they determine his position in the internal hierarchy, but now this has long been gone, and this, in principle, is suppressed, and there is no bullying of excessive cruelty there either.
With the overseers themselves or... Yes, it is suppressed by both the overseers and the people from the outside, so all these wild rituals have become a thing of the past, and that's one thing, and secondly, it's not just criminals who are sitting there, but also businessmen, and people
from the academic community, who are grabbing all sorts of people, and this has probably diluted this contingent of exclusively criminals and somehow everything is already so intelligent, normal for mutual understanding, and I think there is nothing to be afraid of in a modern prison.
Interviewer:
There is simply no freedom, there is simply no opportunity. You see, you also wrote about wild things that might seem like something to a person sitting outside, in the warmth, opening a book. About the fact that twice a month, when you already had ORSh, when you can only talk twice a month for 15 minutes, you couldn't talk, they can punish you with a conversation. That is, it's a little wild.
What was the wildest thing for you behind bars?
Interviewer:
And what was the wildest thing in this system, even if it is no longer like in the movies, but what seemed the wildest to you during this time?
In general, in all 10 years?
Pavlovich:
The wildest, probably, you can’t say right away, but, probably, still the limitations of individual employees of the system. That is, when they give you, well, like an example of wild, probably, some things and relationships, when they give you one, it turns out, a disposable razor for nine people. And as if it doesn’t bother us, but tomorrow you have to shave yourself.
And at the same time, there are people sick with HIV and hepatitis in the cell.
Interviewer:
Yes.
Pavlovich:
Well, how is this even possible in the 21st century?
Interviewer:
That is, somehow elementary, even elementary, not to say something about some human rights.
Pavlovich:
We are not asking there, we are not asking for something supernatural, but provide what you must. But in general, well, in the entire prison system, let's say in Belarus, the most, probably, unfair moment, global injustice, is that the game is played in one company.
Prisoners are required to comply with absolutely all regimes, all sorts of regulatory rules, and the administration itself allows itself not to comply with them, that is, they do not report food to us, for example, they do not fulfill a certain amount, they do not give out soap, the same machines, toilet paper, they demand everything.
Interviewer:
Well, look, this is if we talk about places of detention, right? But in general, the entire system itself, I would also like to ask you a similar question. And in the system itself, what is it called? Penitentiary?
Pavlovich:
Penitentiary, yes.
Interviewer:
This is a penitentiary system of cold testimony. Criminal-executive. Criminal-executive the entire system, yes. There, where it concerns the investigator, the lawyer, the courts, but what there? You also feel, well, damn,
Pavlovich:
You don’t feel killed or humiliated, but you feel a little powerless, because you really understand that a lawyer, for example, can’t help you in any way. Yes, he can suggest something, but he won’t be able to really get you out. Because, again, from this side, the game is played by one gate. For example, a policeman.
Allows himself to completely ignore the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Criminal Procedure Code, let’s say, is the main book that regulates the entire investigation process, and any violation of the Criminal Procedure Code automatically, especially if gross, entails the termination of the criminal case, that is, you obtained evidence, but you obtained it in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code, accordingly, as it would be in the West.
Interviewer:
Here in the book, it’s a laptop that was taken away, not sealed.
Pavlovich:
That is, the evidence is not packed, not sealed in the presence of witnesses, excuse me, but in the West they would simply close this criminal case and that's it. And next time the police would learn to work in accordance with their own manuals, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.
Interviewer:
In this book you periodically write about how, as they say, one is strong only in one's mind. And here you didn't think it through a little, yes, and here you screwed up, because none of this could have happened, right?
Pavlovich:
It could have.
Would you like to change anything in your past?
Interviewer:
Do you think it would be worth it today? Or is it just the way the stars align? Or is it really that you didn't think something through? Would you change anything if you could go back 10 years, maybe even more, would you have been more careful somehow?
Pavlovich:
Yes, in general, I simply wouldn't get involved in crime, that's all.
Interviewer:
Well, that's a more philosophical question. And so, you know, that's why I asked, not for the camera, I don't know how. You know, when you think with your mind alone, yes, there are situations when you would have done this-this-this, yes, but you got caught doing something that wasn't even in your head. It wasn't even in your subconscious, yes, that you could get into trouble here. But there are situations when, damn it, you didn't think of it yourself, because you knew it there, right. How was it for you here? You knew all this, you just relaxed a little, as they say?
Pavlovich:
Yes, yes, yes.
Interviewer:
But you knew all this, that you could get burned on this, on this. Well, although, in principle, yes, if you read the book, it's clear,
Pavlovich:
That... Yes, you're involved in crime in any case, it's constant tension, and it lets you know that there is a needed relaxation somewhere. And at that moment… Relaxed too much, huh? Yes.
Interviewer:
Got it right away, yes. Yes, it was very interesting, when these… You know, these things that even I, maybe a person who is far from… Especially in prison, don’t say never, yes, but nevertheless, there were also conversations with the authorities, you also sometimes understand that… But here, to say, well, you just don’t need to do anything there, yes, no matter how stupid it may seem, when they tell you that look, the facts are all like this, no, guys, I don’t know anything, this is not for me. Something like that.
Do you remember the situation when you gave the password during your second arrest?
Pavlovich:
Yes. This was the biggest global mistake, and I still can’t understand what the trigger was, what the trigger was, that I did it. That is, I acted absolutely logically, not expecting this from myself. Yes. Something happened.
Why do you “get stupid” in the zone, how to fight it?
Interviewer:
Tell me, please, you also write something there, probably interesting for those who are now free. So you end up in the zone, you wrote about how you get dumber. You get dumber, you notice over time that it is difficult even to talk to the outside. It is difficult somehow to speak different languages. How long does it take for this to come, this feeling, how quickly is it restored?
Pavlovich:
Somewhere around two years.
Interviewer:
Two?
Pavlovich:
Well, from the moment of detention, yes. One and a half to two years, and you understand that your speech is not as coherent as before, that it is already more difficult to communicate with relatives, even somewhere you can’t insert some kind of swear word into your speech, and so on. That is, you have to watch this. Because, well, naturally, the environment, the surroundings leave their mark. You talk as if to yourself and so on. That’s it. But you can, naturally, resist this, constantly watch your speech, your thoughts.
That’s it. Well, naturally, you need to develop, that is, read more.
Interviewer:
Were you already writing there at that time?
Pavlovich:
Yes, I did. I wrote from the first week, basically, after I was locked up.
Interviewer:
And does it help? Does that help?
Pavlovich:
It helps. Yes, writing, of course, helps.
Interviewer:
And after how long, after you got out, did you feel adequate here? I mean in terms of communication.
Pavlovich:
About 2-3 weeks later. Because it still strengthens right away. But it comes back quickly, right? Yes, yes, very quickly.
Interviewer:
Look, I have a question. What worries me so much, you know, although, so to speak, it worries, interests me. The book is very realistic, very realistic. Lots of names, positions, history. This one did this, that one did that. Tell me, have you laid out all this here, right? If I'm not mistaken, it's at the end... I read the electronic version.
Pavlovich:
Yes.
About the BadB carder, how did your "colleagues" react to the book?
Interviewer:
Yes, yes, yes. Nothing has changed here. It is what it is, that's how it is. And then at the end here, you just don't get it, did these people you write about here read the book?
Pavlovich:
Yes, they did, mostly their own.
Interviewer:
Many of them. And the comrades from the authorities who are mentioned here?
Pavlovich:
Well, I don't know, I haven't talked to them.
Interviewer:
Thank God, yes.
Pavlovich:
I see.
Interviewer:
And aren't there any problems in this sense, such as, you know, at the level, the legal level, yes, that there are no requirements, this is allowed?
Pavlovich:
No, absolutely not, but I get some feedback from America, guys, the same BadB is sitting there afterwards, or rather getting it, he is finishing serving his sentence in America. He was unhappy there that I, they say, wrote about him, but listen, first of all, if you make claims against me, well, the claims are not official, they are already at the conversation level, if you make claims against me, well, let's make claims against every journalist who wrote about you, against every forum where information about you is posted.
All the guys about whom it is written there, this information is essentially from open sources, their guilt is proven by the court verdict. Yes, he may be innocent there, but there is a verdict that the journalists were guided by, which I was guided by as well.
I did not disclose anything that would not be known to the general public, some confidential information known only to me, that is, there is essentially nothing to reproach me for.
Interviewer:
So, it turns out that this is a bit of a journalistic work.
Pavlovich:
Yes, yes, yes, by and large.
Why were you imprisoned in Belarus, although you did not cause it any harm?
Interviewer:
In this sense, yes. What other question did I have? Look, I understood that today I was going to meet a person who, as we say, had served time. But I have absolutely no... And before this, I grew up in a slightly gangster area. In the eighth grade, a classmate of mine was imprisoned for rape. That is, I know what a criminal case is, it is a very pleasant criminal case, and I also had to communicate with them a little.
And you know, I never had the desire to continue communicating with people who had served time. But when I was coming here, to this meeting, when I read your book, I realized that the person had not done anything bad in the Republic of Belarus. Please explain this situation with who has any claims against you, how did this happen?
Pavlovich:
Yes, indeed. Despite the fact that I did not cause any damage to any citizen or organization of Belarus, I sat here. And I sat for quite a long time, 10 years. The main victim is America, the United States. And the United States had claims against me, and still have them. That is, I am still wanted there. And this is such a global gap in international law.
That is, the States do not care one bit that you served time somewhere there. Do you understand? They say that it was you, they say, Europeans, who came up with the idea that you cannot serve time for the same thing twice. You can serve time in the States. Accordingly, I served time in Belarus without causing it any damage. And America had claims against me, and still has them.
Interviewer:
That is, now they can find you somewhere in any country.
Pavlovich:
Close the world, extradite to America and try for the same thing. Because America recognizes you only if you were imprisoned either on their territory or, at worst, in Great Britain. That's all.
Interviewer:
Great. So now it's better for you to spend the rest of your life somewhere here.
Pavlovich:
Yes.
Interviewer:
That's already clear, right? Because no one needs such risks anymore.
Pavlovich:
Naturally. And Belarus does not extradite its citizens. That is, of course, it would probably be more strategically correct if they sent me there, I would serve time there for what I did, and no one would have any claims against me, but as it is, I served time and am effectively tied hand and foot.
Interviewer:
Please tell me a hypothetical question, what if you were really asked whether to stay here or go and serve time there?
Pavlovich:
Well, I have asked myself this question more than once, well, of course, I would go there. Yes, the answer is probably obvious. Besides the fact that there would be no claims against me automatically after serving my sentence, I would also, naturally, know English there at an excellent level and that’s it.
Interviewer:
Well, and perhaps the relationships, or is there still enough swinishness and brutality in America in places?
Pavlovich:
There is enough of everything there, yes, it naturally depends on the correctional institution itself, that is, as here, that is, the atmosphere and order in general in each correctional institution is very different, even despite the fact that they all exist according to the same rules, it depends very much on the head. One zone is red, the other is black.
Interviewer:
You wrote about Valadarka and Orsha, right?
Pavlovich:
Yes, but it’s normal… Oh, and Zhodino is not, Orsha has it.
Interviewer:
Also a zone.
Pavlovich:
Yes, if we take the pre-trial detention center, then Valadarka and Zhodino. Naturally, the penitentiary rules are the same, but the conditions are completely different.
About your book, how was it published, where can I buy it?
Interviewer:
Well, that's an interesting story. I don't like reading books one by one, but today it just happened, all at once, and, frankly, it really touches you, touches you.
Pavlovich:
Many people said the same thing, that they read it all night under the covers, almost like in childhood, but this means that I simply managed to write it easily, it's an interesting read, and the previous chapter grabs you and makes you read the next one.
Interviewer:
This is in development, so to begin with I recommend, let's say this advertising phrase, bachelors recommend the book by Sergei Pavlovich "How I Stole a Million", because we will talk about the repentant Carder in our next issue, and for now, finishing the conversation about the book, I wanted to ask the same very life-like question, tell me, please, how did you manage to publish it?
So you found a publishing house, it came out, I keep it in How did you manage to do all this?
Pavlovich:
Well, I sent it from the zone using, again, prohibited mobile phones, for which I was in solitary confinement there more than once. I sent it to the publisher simply in electronic form. And somehow a few days later they contacted, said, well, what, in principle, interests you, here, we can publish it.
Interviewer:
The book was published in St. Petersburg, right? Yes. That is, you somehow simply sent it into the atmosphere somewhere there, right? Did St. Petersburg accept it?
Pavlovich:
No, I sent it to the St. Petersburg publishing house by e-mail. I sent to about 15 publishers, but the Russians have a very big problem, Russians practically do not use email.
Interviewer:
What do they use?
Pavlovich:
You have to call Russians. Doing business in the CIS in general, if in the West I sent an email to a publisher, a literary agent, it doesn’t matter who, a potential business partner, a lawyer, I am sure that they will answer me in any case, that is, they will answer me in 2 hours or in 2 days, but they will answer you, sending an email to Russians on any issue, you are not sure that you will get an answer in six months, so you always have to call.
It’s such a paradox.
Interviewer:
Did you call the St. Petersburg publication or did they answer themselves?
Pavlovich:
No, they answered themselves. Did they answer themselves?
Interviewer:
Well done. Now tell me, where can I buy it?
Pavlovich:
You can buy it, for example, on ozon.ru
Interviewer:
There is such a thing as a bookstore, does it exist yet? Are they in bookstores?
Pavlovich:
It happens, yes.
Interviewer:
You can find it, yes?
Pavlovich:
It happens.
Interviewer:
That's the kind of book. That's the kind of book. That's the kind of guest Sergei Pavlovich is, how he stole a million.
