[ad_1]
On December 14, the Kiev Pechersky District Court ordered the Prosecutor General to transfer the investigation of the criminal proceedings, in which the Deputy Head of the Office of President Oleg Tatarov, of the NABU appears to another investigatory body. The Attorney General and the defense of one of the defendants in the case tried to appeal this decision on appeal and cassation, but the Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court indicated that the decision of the investigating judge to change the jurisdiction of investigation was not appealable.
The Supreme Court of Justice (CS) concluded that the determination of the investigating judge on the obligation to change jurisdiction in criminal proceedings No. 52020000000000655 is not appealable, reported court press service on Facebook December 25th.
The report does not indicate suspects in this case, but the Attorney General of Ukraine, Iryna Venediktova, pointed out that it is about the seizure of assets of the National Guard, includes a former employee of the company Ukrbud, and now the deputy head of the Office of President Oleg Tatarov.
On December 14, the Pechersky District Court of Kiev, where the lawyer for one of the defendants in the case, Volodymyr Lysenko, appeared, ordered the Attorney General to resolve the jurisdiction dispute in this criminal proceeding and entrust the investigation to another investigatory body (at the time the complaint was filed, the investigation was being carried out by the National Anti-Corruption Office). The lawyer complained that the NABU was conducting an investigation “in serious violation” of the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure and asked to refer the case to the State Investigation Office. Investigating Judge Sergei Vovk concluded that, given the positions of the defendants in the case and the amount of damages, the NABU cannot be a pre-trial investigative body in this criminal proceeding, it must be handled by investigators from the National Police, security agencies or the RRB. The ruling stated that it was not subject to appeal.
Despite this, the attorney general and attorney Lysenko filed appeals. oneOn December 8, the Kiev Court of Appeal refused both Venediktova and the lawyer to initiate proceedings, as their complaints were filed against the decision, which is not subject to appeal. Subsequently, the plaintiffs turned to the Supreme Court, and on December 23, the Supreme Court’s Court of Cassation refused to open proceedings on these cassation complaints.
“As stated in the definitions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, Articles 307 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, a list of determinedthe investigating judge who can be appealed during the investigation of the trial. At the same time, these articles do not provide an opportunity to appeal definition the investigating judge on the satisfaction of the complaint about the inaction of the prosecutor and the obligation to carry out certain actions ”, explained the court.
In December, the media reported that Tatarov was involved in the fraud case with the purchase of apartments for the National Guard (the main defendant is the former people’s deputy and former president of the Ukrbud corporation Maxim Mikitas). On December 1, 2020, the former people’s deputy and the state expert, who, according to the investigation, ensured the issuance of an opinion on the minimum difference between the cost of apartments in the center and on the outskirts of Kiev, were informed of a suspected 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 said that when Tatarov worked as a lawyer at “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.
According to the head of NABU, the suspicion was signed with the deputy head of the President’s Office in early December, but it was not delivered: the document was signed by the prosecutor, who had already lost the status of prosecutorial leader in the case (Venediktova changed the group of procedural leaders, NABU claimed it did so in secret). 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.
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. The deputy head of the President’s Office denied any involvement to crime. The official said that the “anti-Ukrainian forces” they are seeking his resignation.
On December 24, it was learned that the Attorney General’s Office had transferred the Tatarov case from the National Anti-Corruption Office to the Security Service.
Supreme Anticorruption Court On December 28, the official must choose a preventive measure. Prosecutors will request the arrest with the possibility of posting bail of 10 million UAH.
[ad_2]
