[ad_1]
The National Anticorruption Bureau said that on February 8, for the third time, an attempt was made to recover the materials of the criminal process, in which the head of the Presidency, Oleg Tatarov, appears, since the previous two were ignored in the process. Office of the Attorney General. The General Prosecutor’s Office responded that the case is being investigated by the Security Service of Ukraine.
The detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Office mistakenly believe that they should investigate the criminal proceedings in which the deputy head of the Office of the President Oleg Tatarov appears. This is stated in a statement from the Attorney General’s Office, published on February 8.
This is how the UCP commented on the NABU’s request to transfer the Tatarov case to them. The office stated that on February 8, for the third time, an attempt was made to recover the materials from the criminal proceedings, since the previous two were ignored at the Attorney General’s Office.
The NABU believes that the requalification of production is not a basis for transfer to another pre-trial investigative body.
“This opinion is refuted by the fact that the offenses provided for in Part 3 of Art. 369 and Part 2 of Art. 384 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which are investigated in said criminal proceeding, are the result of the commission of The same actions, and were discovered precisely during the pre-trial investigation in this criminal proceeding, whose jurisdiction has already been determined for the main investigative department of the Security Service of Ukraine, “said the UCP.
In December 2020, the media reported that Tatarov was probably involved in the case of the former people’s deputy and former owner of the construction company Ukrbud Maxim Mikitas: on December 1, 2020, the former people’s deputy and state expert, who, according to the investigation , issued an opinion on the minimum difference between the cost of apartments in Pechersk and on the outskirts of the city, reported a suspicion of bribery (the investigation believes that the expert, in exchange for a parking space worth 250,000 UAH, provided Mikitas with an unreliable examination).
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 Sytnik stated that 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 Tatarov suspicions 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 emerged that the Attorney General’s Office had transferred Tatarov’s case from NABU to the SBU.
On February 8, the NABU reported that the suspicion was reclassified to Part 2 of art. 384 (deceiving a court or other authorized body) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Change the composition of the trial leaders in this case NABU evaluated as interference in the work of a law enforcement agency and the opening of criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine recognized that the criminal process, whose defendant is Tatarov, was being investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Office, declared in NABU.
However, on February 8, the Attorney General’s Office announced that they had transferred the case to the SBU, following the decision of the Kiev Pechersk District Court. Prosecutor General Irina Vnediktova challenged it in the Kiev Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, but both cases were confirmed, the statement said.
“Despite the definition of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings for the SBU, as well as numerous letters from the management of the Attorney General’s Office, NABU employees refuse to send the materials of such proceedings to both the prosecutor and the prosecution agency. preliminary investigation, as a result of which the prosecutor in the criminal process is deprived of the opportunity to evaluate the proceeds in the case of evidence and to prepare the examination of the petitions presented to the court and the prosecutor (on the choice of a preventive measure, extension of the preliminary investigation) ”, added the UCP.
[ad_2]
