The NAB sent a suspect email, it does not meet the requirements of the legislation a lawyer about the case “VAB Bank”

НАБУ отправило подозрение почте, это не соответствует требованиям законодательства - юрист о деле "VAB Банка"

Tatiana Kozachenko believes that law enforcement officers are required to act solely in the statutory method.

Member of the Board of public control of NABOO, the lawyer Tatiana Kozachenko commented on the business “VAB Bank”, which held high-profile arrest like Bank managers and officials of the NBU, as well as information to the NEB and the ARS of receipt of suspicion.

As reported in the NEB, 13 Nov 2019 detectives from the National Bureau under the procedural guidance of prosecutors SAP announced the actual owner and ex-head of the Board of PJSC “VAB Bank” on suspicion of misappropriation of UAH 1.2 billion of a stabilization loan provided by the National Bank of Ukraine, said the financial institution. Since the whereabouts of these persons is not yet established, delivery of written communications about suspicion is in order, established by article 135, 278 code of criminal procedure (mailed and handed over housing-maintenance organization at the place of registration of suspects), informs

The publication contacted a lawyer Tatiana Kozachenko, who called such actions of the security forces from sending in the mail suspicion in violation of the law.

“Act only in accordance with terms specified by law is not right, but the duty of law enforcement. NABOO announces the number of suspects in the case of the so-called “assignments” of the loan to the NBU, at the same time, it is known that some of these persons had not received notice of the charges. The document delivered in person to the person, he explained to the relevant procedural law, it changes the status of the individual in criminal proceedings is the beginning of the criminal prosecution. Information about NABOO that the message was sent simply by mail without confirmation that the person was received by persons who do not comply with the law and is premature. This is a real example of manipulation of information, the implementation of non-procedural influence on behalf of the state, it does not meet the standards of the ECHR and unacceptable,” – said Kozachenko.