Zelenskyy’s "servants" are trying to abandon IMF to preserve "Lozovyi’s amendments" and opportunity to cover up corrupt officials from prison - Shabunin
The amendments submitted by the "Servants of the People" MPs do not actually cancel the "Lozovyi amendments".
The head of the AntAC Vitalii Shabunin wrote about this on Facebook, Censor.NET reports.
Zelenskyy's "servants" are trying to abandon the IMF (and Ukrainians) in order to preserve the "Lozovyi amendments" (which are convenient for saving corrupt officials from prison).
The memorandum with the IMF provides for the cancellation of the "Lozovyi amendments" by the end of 2024. However, the authorities have not introduced the relevant bill in all this time.
The authorities deliberately looped until the end of 2024, with only two session weeks left in the Rada. This has created a time crunch in which it is very convenient to screw over both the IMF and Ukrainians.
This is exactly what the "servants" tried to do.
Instead of submitting a normal text in advance, the "Servants" submitted a package of amendments to the "left-wing" draft: "On improving the procedure for conducting criminal proceedings under martial law" No. 11265.
As you may have guessed, all this was NOT done to properly fulfil the agreement with the IMF.
The proposals made by the "Servants" do NOT completely cancel the "Lozovyi amendments", which leaves the possibility of smearing corrupt officials from prison.
Now for the legal details:
The amendments were formally submitted by the deputy head of the "Servant" faction, Motovylovets, to draft law 11265.
-
in the key amendment (amendment No. 31) regarding the exclusion of clause 10 of part 1 of Article 284 of the CPC (cancellation of mandatory closure of a company in case of expiration of the terms), there is a mistake - instead of "10" there is "1".
This is a completely different ground, and such an amendment will definitely be rejected.
2. Motovylovets did not submit an amendment to Art. 294 of the CPC to change the mechanism for extending the pre-trial investigation term (with the transfer of these powers to the prosecutor instead of the investigating judge).
Without amendments to 294 of the CPC, the mechanism of closing the investigation will remain problematic.
3. Along with the amendments to cancel the automatic closure of proceedings for time limits, another IMF requirement was met by amending Article 575 of the CPC (on sending extradition requests).
However, amendments were submitted to Article 575(4) of the CPC. BUT, no amendment was introduced that would propose changes to part 5 of Article 575 of the CPC, which actually regulates who directly sends an extradition request - the PGO or the SAPO.
Without these amendments, these powers remain with the PGO alone, and in order to grant these powers to the SAPO, an authorised order of the Prosecutor General is required (as it is today).
Now for examples of cases that clearly illustrate the problematic nature of point 2 described above:
- The case of Tatarov, where the Shevchenkivskyi Court did not extend the investigation twice. At first, investigating judge Olena Meleshak refused to extend the investigation in the case.
Interestingly, all three suspects, including Tatarov, did not object to the extension of the investigation, explaining that they allegedly wanted to prove their innocence. It was a pure play.
Later, Judge Maryna Antoniuk also refused to extend the investigation, as it is impossible to ask for the same thing twice.
- Judge Natalia Movchan did not extend the investigation period in the UAH 390 million episode of the Sennichenko case. Despite the fact that the law does not allow separation of terms in different episodes of ONE case, "Lozovyi's amendments" were used to undermine the entire investigation.
Among the suspects, Sennichenko's adviser Andrii Hmyryn deserves special attention, who, according to Forbes Ukraine's sources in the Presidential Office and the MPs, was brought to the OP by Tatarov.
- Judge Oleh Tkachenko refused to extend the investigation into the case of Mykytas and the Ministry of Defence warehouses for UAH 312 million in damages.
- Judge Andrii Bitsyuk refused to extend the DACK's investigation due to "insufficient justification for the need to extend these terms", Shabunin said.
