The case was opened because of the alleged misuse of funds of the refinancing.
Leading experts in the field of law argue that judges VAKS still have the ability to stop the accumulation of errors and illegalities in the case against Oleg Bakhmatyuk. The appeals chamber of the WAX is not entitled to consider and resolve the complaint NABU and SAP on the decision of Pechersky court about closing of business of VAB Bank.
“Delovaya Stolitsa” published the comments of leading experts in the field of law in the high-profile case against Oleg Bakhmatyuk. Recall that the Pechersky district court of Kiev declared the resumption of the business of VAB Bank Deputy Prosecutor General Vitaliy KASKO illegal, the General Prosecutor’s office quashed that decision. However, NABU and SAP refused to implement it and sent the appeal to the Appeals chamber of the WAX.
The Institute of state and law named after V. M. Koretsky of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine gave an official conclusion on this case: officials of JSC “VAB Bank” and national Bank of Ukraine acted solely within the limits of the legislation operating for that period, the resolution of the investigator on closing of criminal proceedings is the official final decision on behalf of the state of Ukraine in relation to these facts. This decision is mandatory and it is his responsibility to fulfill the state bodies of Ukraine, their officials and officers of. NABU and SAP are not party to these proceedings and cannot appeal.
Senior partner of the Attorney Association “Tymoshenko and partners” Vladimir Timoshenko said that the repeated closing / opening of criminal proceedings and its restoration is a violation of common standards of human rights. “The key for understanding disorders are the illegality of the resolution KASKO”, – writes Tymoshenko. “Since the ruling of the investigating judge Pidpaly made legal, the appeals chamber WACHS has no right to take to appeal a violation of jurisdiction. Going beyond the limits of jurisdiction of WAX, which in this case is unquestionable, contrary to the General principles of criminal proceedings and the requirements of article 6 of the ECHR (a human right to a fair trial), ” said the lawyer.
Lawyer Yevhen Solodko of law firm “Sayenko Kharenko” also believes that the uncontrolled opening and closure of criminal proceedings – a direct violation of common human rights standards that define the “Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms”, “the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union” and “Convention on the implementation of the Schengen agreement”. Sweet notes that jurisdiction is defined correctly. This complaint really should be filed with the Pechersk district court. Kiev and addressed him by the investigating judge. Moreover, given the illegality of the decision of the Prosecutor KASKO, de jure NABOO never had to carry out pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings. Appeal the relevant resolution of the Pechersk court is generally not required by law. “In my opinion, the judges of the Appeals chamber of the Supreme anti-corruption court went beyond its powers by adopting the decision on acceptance to manufacture of appeals by employees of Specialized anti-corruption Prosecutor’s office and the National anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine. The results establish the relevant circumstances, authorised persons who committed the respective violations may be subject to disciplinary or criminal liability, ” concludes Sweet.
Senior partner at FCLEX lawyer Yuri Ivaschenko also said that the court’s decision to close the case was legal, since it is precisely the authority of the Pechersk district court, since the appeal is against the action of the attorney General – not as the procedural head in production, but as persons having by law the status to cancel the illegal decisions that were previously taken of subordinate prosecutors. “This is a key mistake made by the prosecutors, the ARS and the authorised person of the NAB, which filed the appeal because they have incorrectly identified the essence of the legal relations, – says the lawyer. – This decision cannot be appealed to the appeal “. In a situation when the court is adjudicating such a complaint, he must refuse to consider it during the meeting and return it to the applicants, thus correcting the error.
The President of the Association of advocates of Ukraine Zoya Yarosh said that since the decision of the court made after the start of the Higher anti-corruption court by the investigative judge of Pechersky district court, so the judges of the Appeals chamber of the Supreme anti-corruption court have no right to consider the appeal complaint to definition from 05.06.2020 year in the case of No. 757 / 22567/20-K, since appeals against decisions of the investigative judges of the Pechersk district court of Kiev should be submitted to the Kyiv appeal court. “I hope that the court, in administering justice, to make right conclusions and will not allow violations of the law, because it is on the court, including the Highest anti-corruption court was entrusted by the society in its creation and in General the reform of the judicial system,” – says Zoya Yarosh.
Recall that the case against Pisaruk and Bakhmatyuk was opened because of the alleged misuse of funds of the refinancing provided by the NBU, VAB Bank in the period of banking crisis in 2014. The findings of the review of the Deposit guarantee Fund and the statements of the NBU confirmed that all the refinancing funds were spent for the intended purpose – they were given to the depositors of the Bank. In addition, Oleg bakhmatyuk he invited the state to return to the budget 8 billion debt, however, the response to his proposal from the NBU and have not received.
Read the latest news of Ukraine and peace in the channel, the UNIAN in a Telegram.