“On April 2, at 11:10, the Court of Appeal of Kyiv should consider a complaint against the selected measure of a precaution by the commander of the 207 battalion Troy Victor Suska. The last February 20th this year, the State Bureau of Investigation and the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office in the Central Region’s defense were suspected of “abuse of power or office” (Part.”, – WRITE: www.pravda.com.ua
The last February 20 this year, the State Bureau of Investigation and the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office in the field of defense of the Central Region were suspected of “abuse of power or office” (Part 1 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The essence of the suspicion was that Yushko, as a commander in the 207th battalion TRO, where from February 2022 he served as the chairman of the Board of the Center for Anti-Corruption (CPC) Vitaliy Shabunin, issued an order for a business trip to the National Agency for Corruption (NAPC). According to the DBR, Yushko did it to obtain an undue benefit of an “intangible nature” from Shabunin, and this caused losses to the state in the form of saber money received by Shabunin. According to the DBR, the benefits of “intangible in nature, was expressed in Shabunin’s” links with representative offices of other countries “, which seemed to use Yushko in the future for a purpose not mentioned in the text of suspicion.
Advertising:
On March 11, the Judge of the Pechersk Court of Kyiv Sergey Vovk chose the pledge of 60 thousand UAH. The process of trial of this precaution was highlighted by a number of details of the case that indicate persecution and the artificial nature of the accusations. Below is a few points that can prove.
Unreasonable suspicion According to the investigation (which is described in the judicial decision and read excerpts of suspicion in court), Yushko, as if aware that it is subordinate to his subordination to the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NACC). As a result, the state, in the person of the military unit, allegedly suffered material damage, whereby the only social contribution (ESA) paid for Shabunin was included in Shabunin.
Investigators believe that the combat wanted to gain an undue benefit of intangible nature for themselves, using the possibilities of getting acquainted with Shabunin. Neither the prosecutor during the meeting nor other case files in any way indicate – what specifically is or could be such an “wrongful benefit”. Despite this, the text of suspicion is that Yushko allegedly had the intent to benefit. When, for what purpose and why Yushko allegedly was about to realize this intent – in no way indicates.
Also, first, from a legal point of view, a mandatory feature of a crime that is charged with a soup is the purpose of obtaining any undue benefit or good for yourself or another individual, using their official position. That is, the undue benefit must be specific and measurements.
Without the investigation established The purpose and self -interest motive, as well as information about what was the wrongful benefit of the crime is simply absent.
Secondly, this approach of the prosecutor’s office, investigation and court in fact means that the commanders of all units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, where known or influential people also intend or may intend to receive the same “undue benefit” automatically.
However, the plan of investigation and prosecutor’s office seems to be that Yushko quickly and not relying guilty and went to the investigation. The latter would allow the commander to unwind in return on a formal frivolous punishment. This is confirmed by the fact that during the delivery of suspicion, investigators suggested that the soup went to the deal. The latter provided for “shows” against Shabunin. Yushko refused, and only after that the prosecutor appealed to the election of a preventive measure.
Missing evidence and loss From the court hearing in the case and the court decision it became clear that the evidence of investigators and prosecutors has only:
- materials of service inspection of the military unit (for some reason the other military unit is indicated than the one in which Shabunin served);
- the readings of the lawyer Rostislav Kravts and Vladimir Boyko, who are applicants in this proceedings, but have nothing to do with the Sabunin soup, nor to the military unit in which they served;
- Certificate of the State Audit Office. However, this specialist does not even bear criminal liability in the case of providing him wrong information. Moreover, this certificate lists another military unit than the one in which Shabunin served.
That is, the materials of the military inspection of the military indicate that Shabunin, according to the inspectors, was seconded to the NAPC in violation of the law. The certificate of the State Judicial Service indicates that the money paid to him during a business trip is losses in the case.
However, all these “evidence” is mildly insufficient and do not prove the crime. When building a evidence base, investigators ignore other important components.
First, the question of intent, which in this composition of the crime can be exclusively direct, is generally ignored and has nothing to do.
Secondly, the losses set out by investigators with the specialist raise more questions, given that the business trip to the NAPC has not affected the amount of Shabunin’s remuneration. Another issue is that it is possible to consider part of these losses, paid to the budget (ESA).
It is difficult to comment on “evidence” in the form of an interrogation in the case only of applicants, but other witnesses of DBR detectives simply have not found.
In this case, the DBR was investigated from the fall of 2023 and during this time neither the DBR nor the prosecutors interviewed any witnesses except the applicants – Vladimir Boyko, who used to appear often on the air of TV channels, which Medvedchuk had previously owned, and now reports on his social network. National Anti -Corruption Bureau (NABU) in the case of judges of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv (OASK),.
In addition, Kravets is known to be demanding to recognize the CPC and the Dejure Foundation with “extremist organizations”. He also tried to cancel the new spelling through the same OASC, calling it “rape of the Ukrainian language” and feminists – a laugh.
The tailor constantly repeats Russian theses about “external management”. He believes that the management of the Specialized Anti -Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) was elected foreigners. They allegedly illegally work in the Ethical Council of the GRP. The lawyer also considers sanctions against three pro -Russian TV channels of the same Viktor Medvedchuk.
Manual litigation A request for a precautionary event was filed in s UJ only a few days after the suspicion. Probably waiting when the “necessary” judge gets into the car distribution, because in circumstances when Yushko decided to defend himself, only it could save the situation. As a result of the election of a preventive measure, a scandalous judge Sergei Vovk from the Pechersk court of Kyiv fell.
That is why the judges of the wolf who:
- obliged the Prosecutor General Venediktov to transfer the Tatarov case from NABU to the controlled DBR;
- made a decision in the interests of Portnov. In particular, in the case where the media and the CPC called him a “pro -Russian figure”;
- decided to close the case about part of the records from the cabinet of the head of Oaska Pavel Vovk;
- He withdrew from all the property of the holding of the sub -Russian of Igor Naumets “Unigran”. Because of which the budget did not receive property and assets for more than UAH 1 billion.
By the way, by the way, the Office of the Prosecutor General filed a complaint against the Wolf to the High Council of Justice (GRP). It is interesting that the consideration of this complaint of the prosecutor’s office was appointed the day after the election of the suspicion of the soup, which can additionally indicate that the wolf is “in the pocket” in the prosecutor’s office.
In addition, the wolf is clearly biased against Shabunin and the CPC. He has repeatedly considered the claims against Shabunin and the CPC, and in all cases he satisfied the claims, however, his decisions were further canceled by the higher courts. Because of this, the defender Yushka stated the judge withdrawal. However, the defenders were refused.
At the same time, in the Pechersk court during the week they could not appoint a judge to consider the petition of lawyer Yushka about the dismissal of Judge Vovk. When the judge was finally determined, the same day a redistribution of the case was redistributed to another judge – Roman Novak.
Judge Novak considered his dismissal without the participation of both the defender and the soup himself, although they were in the court. This fact was known to the court and the prosecutor, however, the defense party did not knowingly reported the beginning of the meeting and considered the application without them.
Thus, from the moment of suspicion to the election of a preventive measure, more than 2 weeks have passed. Whereas the law of a preventive measure should be considered in 72 hours. During this time, neither the prosecutor nor the investigator recorded any risks from Yushka. That is, there were no attempts to evade the process, to influence witnesses or to destroy evidence. In itself, this situation has clearly demonstrated that the risks of the prosecutor should confirm for such a strict preventive measure as a pledge is simply no.
In addition, when considering the request, the prosecutor did not provide any evidence that confirms the risks. Moreover, the prosecutor noted that he has no evidence of risks, but there are such risks.
But despite that, at the hearing, the prosecutor continued to insist on a pledge of 224 thousand UAH. This amount is more than allowed by law for a serious crime that is charged with a soup.
Considering the unjustified suspicion that we wrote above, the court had not to choose a measure of restraint.
However, in the end – despite all the arguments of the defense party, the Wolf partially granted the prosecutor’s request and chose the pledge of the soup of 60 thousand UAH and put his duties on him:
- arrive at the investigator of the court prosecutor;
- not to leave the settlement in which it is;
- report a change in place of residence;
- refrain from communicating with witnesses;
- hand over a foreign passport.
The latter have surpassed themselves in the drawn criminal cases and legal arbitrariness by the DBR and the Pechersk court, but in this criminal proceedings.
Against the background of huge problems with investigations of criminal offenses against the established order of military service, a key law enforcement agencies in this area – DBR – during the war, banally pursues the military commander only to force the latter to give false testimony against the disagreeable power of the activist.
Marina Havrylyuklawyer, managing partner of Junior JSC “
A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The point of view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.