“Instead of suspicion – silence: how the investigation against the chief lawyer of the NBU got bogged down in inactionThe investigation into abuse of power by the director of the NBU’s legal department, Oleksandr Zima, is effectively frozen.
Despite the demands of the prosecutor’s office, no active investigative actions are being carried out.”, — write: unn.ua
Despite the public outcry and the seriousness of the possible offenses of the NBU’s chief lawyer, as well as the recognition of the victims in the case, active investigations are still not being conducted.
We are talking about criminal proceedings opened at the end of 2023 under Part 2 of Art. 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – abuse of power or official position, which caused serious consequences. According to UNN, the basis for opening the case was an official letter signed by the chief lawyer of the NBU, Oleksandr Zima, who is also the chairman of the Administrative Board of the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals, addressed to the Fund. In the document, the official, on behalf of the National Bank of Ukraine, gave a “recommendation” to the DGF to withdraw from the court the lawsuits filed against the NBU by representatives of Concord Bank even before the start of its liquidation process. In the lawsuits, “Concord” challenged fines in the amount of almost 63.5 million hryvnias imposed by the regulator.
The Fund followed the recommendation-instruction, which, according to the co-owner of the bank, Olena Sosiedka, deprived the bank’s shareholders of their constitutional right to a fair trial.
After the transfer of the investigation of the criminal proceedings to the Pechersk Police Department in the city of Kyiv, the co-owners of Concord, Olena and Yulia Sosiedka, were recognized as victims. According to lawyers, this means that the investigators recognized that Oleksandr Zima’s actions caused real significant damage.
In response to a request from UNN, the police reported that during the investigation they plan to interrogate the chief lawyer of the National Bank, and then consider the possibility of applying to the court for his removal from office.
In response to a request from UNN, the Pechersk District Prosecutor’s Office of Kyiv actually confirmed that the investigation in the criminal proceedings is being conducted sluggishly.
The procedural supervisor sent instructions to the Pechersk Police Department of the National Police in Kyiv in order to intensify the pre-trial investigation
Despite this, active investigative actions are not being carried out, and the case is actually in a “frozen” state. The circle of victims in the case has already been determined, but no notices of suspicion have been issued yet. Lawyers interviewed by UNN advise victims to demand the activation of the investigation through complaints to the prosecutor’s office and the court.
Experts also draw attention to the risk of manipulation in situations where the investigation is being delayed.
According to the President of the All-Ukrainian Association of Retired Judges, Denys Neviadomskyi, in this case we can talk not just about delays, but about the complete absence of an investigation.
Of course, the case is not being investigated, and the absence of suspicion allows the investigator to keep this case motionless indefinitely, since the procedural terms during the war in cases in which suspicion has not been served are suspended until the end of martial law
In turn, the founder of the law firm “Kasyanenko and Partners” Dmytro Kasyanenko reminded that inaction in the investigation of criminal proceedings contradicts the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The lawyer also believes that investigators may be deliberately delaying the investigation of the case of the NBU’s chief lawyer.
There are reasonable suspicions of deliberate delays in the investigation. According to the current version of Art. 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the term of pre-trial investigation is calculated not from the moment of entering information into the ERDR, but from the day the person is notified of suspicion. However, this does not release the investigator from the obligation to take the necessary measures to establish the circumstances of the crime. Inaction in such proceedings directly contradicts Art. 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which guarantees the right to a reasonable time for criminal proceedings
Lawyer Oleksandr Zolotukhin noted in a comment to UNN that the outlined situation looks like the investigators’ desire to close the criminal proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Only a small hope for light at the end of the tunnel was given by lawyer Oleh Shram. According to him, the absence of interrogation of Oleksandr Zima in this case may indicate the preparation of a notice of suspicion for him.
If a potential suspect, he can be interrogated only as a witness. If this person is served with a notice of suspicion in the future, then this interrogation protocol as a witness will not have legal significance, will be inadmissible evidence and cannot be used in any case by either investigators, prosecutors, or the court. Is there a need to interrogate a person first as a witness, and then, knowing that there may be a notice of suspicion in the future… here are the features of each criminal proceeding – tactics, techniques, investigation plans
At the same time, it can be stated that time is running out, and despite the fact that we are talking about a possible serious official crime by an official of a strategically important institution of the state – the National Bank of Ukraine – its figure is still in office, has access to official documents and continues to influence the legal policy of the regulator.