[ad_1]
The National Anti-Corruption Office is investigating the change of the Attorney General of Ukraine Irina Venediktova in the group of procedural leaders in criminal proceedings, in which the deputy head of the Office of the President Oleg Tatarov appears, as interference in the work of the agencies in charge of enforce the law, Acting said. Head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Maxim Grischuk.
The National Anti-Corruption Office has opened a criminal proceeding due to the change of the Attorney General of Ukraine, Irina Venediktova, in the composition of the trial leaders in the case, in which the deputy head of the Office of the President Oleg Tatarov appears.
About this performance The head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, Maxim Grischuk, said in an interview with hromadske, published on December 25.
“Production [открыто. Данные в Единый реестр досудебных расследований] introduced in connection with interference in the work of law enforcement agencies. [Расследует] NABU “, – he said.
Grishuk emphasized that NABU and SAP on December 2 accidentally learned of the change in the composition of the prosecutor’s group.
“The prosecutor of the group that was [изначально], went to court to support the request to choose a preventive measure. When he was already in court, it turned out that the group had changed. At first we thought it was a mistake, we wanted to go to the Attorney General, then we realized that this was not a mistake, that it was a deliberate action, “Grischuk said.
Due to the change in prosecutors, he said, it took two weeks for the new group to become familiar with the materials in the case, after which they turned over a revised suspicion to Tatarov. Following the change of group of prosecutors on December 2, NABU charged Venediktova with interference, so detectives were unable to inform the accused of the suspicion.
He noted that the initial draft of the Tatarov suspicion was modified by about 20%. According to Grischuk, we are talking about “procedural moments”.
The legality of changing the composition of the group of prosecutors is the responsibility of the attorney general, Grischuk stressed.
“I would say this: in Art. 37 [Уголовного процессуального кодекса, на которую ссылалась Венедиктова в решении о смене группы] the circumstances that made the change possible [состав прокуроров]”, – He noticed.
In December, the media reported that Tatarov was involved in a fraud case with the purchase of apartments for the National Guard (the main defendant is the ex-deputy of the People and ex-president of the Ukrbud corporation Maxim Mikitas): on December 1, 2020, The former People’s Deputy and State Expert, who, according to an investigation, assured the issuance of an opinion on the minimum difference between the cost of apartments in Pechersk and on the outskirts of Kiev, reported a suspicion of bribery. The investigation believes that the expert provided an unreliable examination in exchange for a parking space worth 250 thousand UAH.
The expert was arrested with the possibility of depositing one million UAH in bail. As the prosecutor said in the court session, Tatarov could have negotiated a bribe.
NABU director Artem Sytnyk stated that when Tatarov worked as a lawyer in Ukrbudi, “in fact, together with Mikitase, he gave a bribe.” The NABU director said detectives have correspondence between the OPU deputy director and other people involved in the production. Tatarov, in response, demanded to refute false information or publicly demonstrate evidence and said he was suing the NABU director.
Tatarov denied any involvement in the crime. The official said that “anti-Ukrainian forces” are seeking his resignation.
On December 18, NABU handed over suspicions to Tatarov under Part 3 of Art. 369 (offer, promise or provision of illicit benefits to an official) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
On December 24, it became known that the Attorney General’s Office had transferred Tatarov’s case from the National Anti-Corruption Office of Ukraine (NABU) to the Security Service. Venediktova said that she was not involved in this.
The NABU emphasized that the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court was supposed to consider a petition to choose a preventive measure for Tatarov that day (the investigation called for detention with an alternative to bail of 10 million UAH). WACS eventually postponed the meeting.
[ad_2]
