+38 (068) 670 09-60

  • Українська
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Italiano

Public organization
"Central Anticorruption Committee"

ATC SBU at work. Or as subordinates of Gritsak – Tyrant and others, earn on Rangers

The court took custody of the head of the Department of the Antiterrorist Center of the Security Service of Tirana with a pledge of 15 million UAH. This decision of the Pechersk court was made on March 6, but it was published only on March 17. The lawyer had already filed a petition to change the measure of restraint, but the court left it without consideration. The prosecutor wanted for the suspect 50 million UAH of collateral, but the court found it incommensurable and reduced to 15 million UAH.

It took into account the material situation of a man who spent his entire life in military service, but in whose close relatives there were many real estate – 5.7 hectares of land, a holiday home and 6 apartments, some of them in the occupied Crimea. And the retired mother SBUshnika got a Land Rover Sport car in 2014. Just after the events that lay down in the plot of criminal proceedings.

And now to the point of the matter.

The SBU employee is suspected of assisting the criminal organization of former President Yanukovych and fraud in especially large amounts by prior agreement.

Two accomplices of this conspiracy have already been written earlier. One was the security officer of the Security Service, and the second one, so to speak, civil. It was to the latter that the wife of ex-Deputy Minister of Economy Alexander Sukhomlin applied when he was arrested in June 2016 in Kurchenko’s sale of liquefied gas. Sukhomlin was charged with causing damage to the state in the amount of 4 billion UAH.

From the court decision it is known that Sukhomlin’s civil wife in desperation asked for legal assistance in her friend. She wanted one thing – that the father of her child was released. The woman said that the prosecutor offered to conclude an agreement on recognizing the guilt and give testimony to the main defendants.

The acquaintance drew two of his comrades from the SBU to “legal assistance”. The woman was promised help, but they asked for money.

Earlier it was reported that Sukhomlin’s wife paid 100,000 Dollars for such services. But now it turned out that it was only one tranche, and the total was much larger.

The new court decision stated that for June-August 2016 the wife of the arrested ex-official gave 673 thousand dollars and 110 thousand euros.

The materials of the court describe what Sukhomlin’s wife paid for: for changing the measure of restraint (not to be in jail) – $ 100 thousand, for confirmation of intention to use legal services – $ 100 thousand, for preparing documents for legal and legal assistance – $ 100 Thousand, for legal assistance in criminal proceedings – $ 100 thousand, for the full resolution of problems – $ 330 thousand and 110 thousand euros.

Money was fearlessly transferred in cash in restaurants “Tsarskoe Selo”, “La province”, “Brain Bar”, and also the fitness club “5 element”.

Sukhomlin was promised assistance and professional lawyers, but only if he did not admit his guilt and refused to testify against members of the criminal organization of Yanukovych.

Sukhomlin patiently waited for the fulfillment of promises, and his wife paid money until it became clear that they had been deceived. In December, the ex-official concluded a deal with the investigation, gave evidence and paid UAH 20 million in reimbursement to the state budget. This is about the same amount as his wife used to spend on questionable “legal assistance.”

It is obvious that the malefactors were enriched by the trustful wife of Sukhomlin. But the investigation has evidence that two officers of the Security Service were allegedly connected with unidentified members of the criminal organization of Yanukovich and promised to do so that Sukhomlin did not testify against them.

If this is true and the suspects played on two fronts, it would be logical to hear what tariffs were paid to SBU employees Yanukovych and his entourage. This story is still silent. But the investigation continues, so we hope for new interesting details.

 

Forum members of the ORD clarify the situation. “For the detainees in this case SBUshniki” is “an assistant Demchenko Motomenko Tamara Dmitrievna. She was in fact the ideologist and leader of the implementation of the money-beating from Sukhomlin’s civil wife. Momotenko essentially manages the commander-in-chief of “K”, using his status of the Demka cuma. Today, Demchina uses all its possibilities to get Momotenko out of this business. Therefore, in the end, only the turnout men can be on the dock, and the main figures will continue their activities in Glavka “K” and not only in it. ”

                                            Pechersk district court of the city of KIEV
Case No. 757/12697/17-k
V E L A
THE NAME OF UKRAINE
March 6, 2017 Investigative judge of the Pechersk district court. Kiev LI Tsokol. With the participation of the secretary Kravchenko H.S., the prosecutor Opanasenko V.I., the suspect Tiran V.V., the defender Mityurin S.A., having examined in an open court session in the premises of the court in Kiev the petition of the prosecutor in the criminal prosecutor’s prosecutor Military prosecutor’s office of Lugansk garrison Opanasenko VI On the application of preventive measures in the form of detention in the custody of the suspect Tirana Valery Viktorovich,
IN STATEMENT:
The prosecutor in criminal proceedings – prosecutor of the military prosecutor’s office of the Lugansk garrison, Vitaly I. Opanasenko, having examined the materials of the preliminary investigation made on 01.04.2016 in the Single Register of Pre-trial Investigations under No. 42016110350000102, applied to the investigating judge with a petition and asked to apply to Tiran Valery Viktorovich, September 25, … n., Born in. Veseloye, Vinkove district of Khmelnitsky region, residing at the address: Kiev. E. Chavdar Street, 2 km. 42, married, having dependent children under age, who has been in the possession of the Headquarters of the ATC Headquarters since 2015, a measure of restraint in the form of custody within the pre-trial investigation period, namely by April 19, 2017; In accordance with Part 5 of Art. 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine determine the amount of collateral in the amount of 50000000 UAH. (Fifty million hryvnia).
The petition was supported by the prosecutor O.Papanasenko. And is justified by the following circumstances. The first investigation department of the Investigation Department of the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine is carrying out pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings No. 42016110350000102 of 01/01/2016 on the grounds of criminal offenses provided for in Part 4 of Art. 190, part 1 of Art. 256, Part 3 of Art. 191, part 3 of Art. 191, part 3 of Art. 209, part 3 of Art. 209, part 2 of Art. 205, part 2 of Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
In the said production, Tiran Valery Viktorovich, born September 25, 1976, is suspected of committing a criminal offense under Part 4 of Art. 190, part 1 of Art. 256 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely in the commission of prior agreement with Rogoza AM, Moskalenko DO, and other unidentified individuals, assistance to participants in a criminal organization and fraud in especially large amounts under the following circumstances.
The second investigation department of the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine carried out pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings No. 12013220540000400 on the fact of the creation in 2011 of the former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich. A criminal organization that included former high-ranking Ukraine including former Deputy Minister of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine Sukhomlin Alexander Anatolievich and the commission of its participants particularly grave and serious crimes on the territory of Ukraine on the grounds of criminal offenses under Part 1 of Art. 255, part 4 of Art. 28 p. 5 tbsp. 191, part 4 of Art. 28 p. 2 tbsp. 205, part 4 of Art. 28 p. 1 tbsp. 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
So, having occupied the post of the President of Ukraine on February 25, 2010, being in accordance with Article 102 of the Constitution of Ukraine the Head of State of Ukraine, Yanukovich VF, being obliged to observe the Constitution of Ukraine and the laws of Ukraine, to take care of the good of the Motherland and the welfare of the Ukrainian People, to uphold the rights and freedoms Citizens, the interests of all compatriots, decided to use his power authority in spite of his oath in his own selfish interests, which consisted of personal illegal enrichment, as well as illegal enrichment of him Aib of personal environment at the expense of the resources of the state and the people of Ukraine.
To realize his criminal intentions at the end of February 2010, Viktor Yanukovych, illegally using the powers of the President of Ukraine, committed a series of deliberate actions aimed at illegally concentrating in his hands exclusive powers and obtaining control over all branches of state power.
In particular, according to the results of V.F. With the participation of the people’s deputies of Ukraine and other persons who are under the control of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of the legitimacy of amending the Constitution of Ukraine by the Law of Ukraine of 08.12.2004 and the adoption on 30.09.2010 of a decision on this matter, in fact by unconstitutional means, without a decision by the authorized body – the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine The edition of the Constitution of Ukraine of 1966, in accordance with the provisions of which, his powers at the post of the President of Ukraine was substantially expanded, in particular in the part of coordination and con Trol of the “power” unit of state authorities, namely: the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, the Security Service of Ukraine, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, the State Tax Administration of Ukraine, the State Border Service of Ukraine.

In the structure of his criminal organization Yanukovich VF. Attracted people from his closest circle and, with the aim of concentrating all the levers of power in his hands, appointed them to the most important posts in the highest state bodies, thus creating a system of government in which all the fundamental decisions on the activities of the highest state authorities and law enforcement Systems were taken personally.
The main requirement for persons assigned to the most important positions in the highest state bodies was the service personally to Yanukovich VF. And readiness to comply with its unlawful and criminal instructions contrary to the laws of Ukraine and their duties, in accordance with occupied positions.
Building the hierarchy of a criminal organization, Yanukovich VF Instructed such persons to independently plan the commission of certain grave and especially serious crimes against state property in accordance with the activities of the state body under its control, to seek out and involve other members in the criminal organization, to create its separate structures and distribute the illegal profits received.
In this case, all members of the criminal organization Yanukovych VF. Acted in accordance with a single criminal plan, coordinated their actions among themselves, their actions were covered by the goal – obtaining illicit enrichment at the expense of the resources of the state of Ukraine and its distribution among themselves, Yanukovich VF. And his immediate environment.
Every participant of the criminal organization of Viktor Yanukovych. Was familiar with the overall plan of the organization’s activities in the areas and directions of the commission of crimes, knew what specific functions under the single plan relied directly on him, and that other obvious points for all and the obligatory for the commission of the crime points of the plan are fulfilled by other participants of this criminal organization.
At the end of February 2010, Yanukovich VF. Attracted to participate in the criminal organization a person from his closest associates – Azarov N.Ya., and using the part of people’s deputies of Ukraine controlled by him, contributed to the election of the latter on 11.03.2010 by the Prime Minister of Ukraine.
Having received the appropriate authority, acting on a preliminary conspiracy with Yanukovych VF, Azarov N.Ya. Independently identified the objects of crime, outlined and developed plans for their commission, sought out other accomplices who were attracted to participate in the criminal organization Yanukovych VF, appointed them to the relevant posts in the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, distributed roles among the members of the criminal organization and coordinated their activities, Provided material support for the activities of the criminal organization, and also through the use of his official position, provided for the removal of obstacles to the implementation of the crime Intentions and contributed to them.
One of the objects of committing crimes Yanukovych VF. And Azarov N.Ya. In March 2010 the property of the state enterprises of the recreation center “Ukrhazdobycha” and PJSC “Ukrnafta” was determined, in particular, the liquefied gas produced by this state enterprise.
To assign this property in especially large amounts in the period from March 2010 to 2014, Azarov N.Ya. Involved in the criminal organization Yanukovych VF. Officials of the Auction Committee for the sale of oil, gas condensate, liquefied gas and coal; Regional state administrations; First Deputy Director of the DK “Gas of Ukraine” NAK “Naftogaz of Ukraine” of the Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry of Ukraine Mass OM; Deputy Minister of Economy of Ukraine Sukhomlina OA, as well as Kurchenko SV And other persons.

Being authorized to perform the functions of the state, being in the post of Deputy Minister of Economy of Ukraine and controlling and regulating the functioning of the organized markets of commodity resources (exchange, auction trading) in the territory of Ukraine, being obliged to organize the activities of the Auction Committee for the sale of oil, gas condensate, liquefied gas And coal, Sukhomlin AA Deliberately used his official powers contrary to the interests of the service, and acting from his own selfish interests for the purpose of personal enrichment, in the period from late March to early May 2010, in unaccounted circumstances entered into a criminal conspiracy with Yanukovych VF, Azarov M.Ya. ., Mass AM, Kurchenko S.V. And other persons aimed at seizing the proper Ukrhazdobycha and PJSC Ukrnafta liquefied gas in especially large amounts at preferential prices, allegedly in the interests of the population of Ukraine, with a view to its further targeted use through the sale of commercial structures through a network of controlled enterprises and obtaining super profits.
As a result of joint criminal acts Azarov N.Ya., Sukhomlina OA, Mass A.M., Kurchenko S.V. And other members of the criminal organization, Yanukovych VF, committed unlawful possession of the property of OJSC “Ukrhazdobycha” and OJSC “Ukrnafta” according to a common common criminal intent, more than 50 percent of the authorized capital of which belongs to the state, namely, their liquefied gas produced at low prices, The difference between them and the cost of the corresponding volumes of sales of liquefied gas at commercial auctions was 2196176 418.64 UAH. (Two billion 196000000176000 four hundred and eighteen hryvnias 64 kopecks), that is, in especially large amounts.
Currently, the criminal organization Yanukovych VF, which includes Azarov N.Ya., Kurchenko SV, Sukhomlin AA, Mass A.M. And other persons, continues to operate on the territory of Ukraine, the Russian Federation and other states, legalizing property that it illegally took over, withdrawing assets from Ukraine, and committing other crimes.
During the pre-trial investigation of criminal proceedings No. 12013220540000400 by investigators of the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine 10.06.2016 Sukhomlina OA Detained and reported on suspicion of committing criminal offenses under Part 1 of Art. 255, part 5 of Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
On the same day, the investigative judge of the Goloseevskiy District Court of the city of Kiev applied to the suspect Sukhomlin OA. A preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of 2 months.
06/10/2016 Civil wife Sukhomlina OA – Kanyuk Natalia Ivanovna, who has a general young child in the latter, in order to obtain high-quality legal and legal assistance for Sukhomlin OA, and wanting his release from custody as soon as possible, being in despair and helpless condition, appealed to Andrei’s cattail for help Nikolayevich 06.07.1984 of the year, with whom she was associated with long-standing friendly and confidential relations, while saying that the prosecution was offered AA Sukhomlin. Conclude an agreement on the recognition of guilt. At the same time, one of the mandatory conditions for concluding a deal, according to the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, was to provide them with expository statements against other members of the criminal organization.
At the same time, Rogoza A.N. Reported on the appeal to him Kanyuk N.I. His acquaintance, Dmitry Moskalenko, who was an employee of the law enforcement agency – an operative of the Security Service of Ukraine and other persons not identified at the time.
Moskalenko D.A. In turn, the above information was handed over to Tirana V.V., who was also an employee of the law enforcement agency – since 2015, at the disposal of the ATC Headquarters in the SBU, as head of the department. Together they contacted unidentified members of the criminal organization Yanukovych VF, promising to help in ensuring that Sukhomlin AA Concealed their criminal activities by refusing to provide expository statements about them.
Realizing arisen in these circumstances common with Moskalenko DA. Tiran VV, and unidentified persons intent, Rogoza A.N. Contacted Kanyuk N.A. And said that he would contribute to the release of the guard from Sukhomlin AA. Through the provision of qualified legal assistance, including protection by professional defenders, but only on condition of non-recognition of Sukhomlin AA His guilt and failure to provide him with expository statements against members of a criminal organization, contributed to the further activities of this organization.

Kanyuk N.A. In an unidentified way at the moment, the above information was reported by Rogoza A.M. To Sukhomlin AA, who was supported by this position in December 2016 and was waiting for the fulfillment of the promises given by Rogoza AM, Moskalenko DA, Tiran VV, and the unidentified persons acting together with them, within the specified time Handed Sukhomlin AA. Promises to promote his release.
Realizing that these individuals are not acting in his interests and are not going to fulfill a promise to facilitate his release, Sukhomlin AA In December 2016 concluded with the prosecution party an agreement on the recognition of guilt and provided accusatory evidence against other members of the criminal organization Yanukovych VF.
Thus, by his deliberate actions Tiran V.V., committed in advance uninvited hiding criminal activity by the participants of the criminal organization by providing information, and also in advance uninvited other actions to create conditions conducive to their criminal activities, that is, he committed a criminal offense under Part. 1 tbsp. 256 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
During the criminal offense in Rogoza AM, Moskalenko DA, Tirana V.V., and other unidentified persons, criminal intent was created to take possession of another’s property by deception and abuse of trust in a particularly large amount, which was realized with the following Circumstances.
The second investigation department of the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine carried out pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings No. 12013220540000400 on the fact of the creation in 2011 of the former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich. A criminal organization that included former high-ranking officials of Ukraine and committed by its participants particularly grave and serious crimes on the territory of Ukraine on the grounds of criminal offenses under Part 1 of Art. 255, part 4 of Art. 28 p. 5 tbsp. 191, part 4 of Art. 28 p. 2 tbsp. 205, part 4 of Art. 28 p. 1 tbsp. 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
During the pre-trial investigation of criminal proceedings No. 12013220540000400, the investigators of the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine apprehended Alexander Sukhomlin, former Deputy Minister of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine, on suspicion of committing criminal offenses under Part 1 of Art. 255, part 5 of Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
On the same day, the investigative judge of the Goloseevskiy District Court of the city of Kiev applied to the suspect Sukhomlin OA. A preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of 2 months.
06/10/2016 Civil wife Sukhomlina OA – Kanyuk Natalia Ivanovna, who has a general young child in the latter, in order to obtain high-quality legal and legal assistance for Sukhomlin OA, and wanting his release from custody as soon as possible, being in despair and helpless condition, appealed to Andrei’s cattail for help Nikolayevich 06.07.1984 year of birth, with whom she was associated with long-standing friendly and trustworthy ties.
At the same time, in Rogoza AM, who realizing the helpless and heavy psychological state of Kanyuk NI, related to the detention of her husband, as well as the helpless state of Sukhomlin OA, in connection with the latter’s detention, arose Criminal intent to receive from her by deceit and abuse of trust, money, allegedly, for providing qualitative legal assistance to A.Sukhomlin.
Given the absence in Kanyuk N.I. Legal assistance and experience in dealing with law enforcement agencies, the latter on the proposal of Rogoza A.M. Agreed.
Continuing his criminal intent, Rogoza A.N., using the confidential relations between him, Kanyuk N.I. And Sukhomlin AA, aiming only at personal enrichment, and having no real opportunity to provide legal or legal assistance to AA Sukhomlin, in the period from 11.06.2016 to 20.06.2016 at personal meetings with Kanyuk N.I. . Reported on the possibility of assistance to her civil husband by providing qualified legal assistance to lawyers who were able to change the measure of restraint to AA Sukhomlin. On non-custodial for cash in the amount of $ 100,000.

In the future, Rogoza AN, in pursuance of his criminal intent aimed at capturing money, through deception and abuse of confidence, using helpless, at that time, as Kanyuk N.I. And the stay of Sukhomlin OA. June 21, 2016 approximately at 12:00, while in the restaurant “Brain BAR” at the address: g. Kiev, st. Basseynaya, 2 received from Kanyuk K.N. Cash in the amount of 100 000 US dollars, which amounted to 2490 000.00 UAH. At the rate of the National Bank of Ukraine, as confirmation of the intention to take the assistance of Rogoza AM, in providing legal and legal services.
Later on, at an unknown date and time, Rogoza A.N. Entered into an agreement on the further implementation of the criminal plan developed by him, aimed at capturing the money Sukhomlin OA. And Kanyuk N.I. By deceit and abuse of their confidence, with other unidentified persons, as well as with the employees of the Security Service of Ukraine – Dmitry Alexandrovich Moskalenko and Tiran Valeriy Viktorovich, who being acting law enforcement officers with experience and operational skills could prevent them from being exposed.
In the future, Rogoza A.N. Together with Moskalenko DA, Tiran VV, and other persons not identified at the present time, acting in pursuance of a joint criminal intent aimed at seizing money by O. Sukhomlin. By deception and abuse of confidence, 06.07.2016 in the evening, while in the restaurant “LA provinces” at the address: Kiev, st. Bogatyrskaya, received the twenty sixth from Kanyuk N.I. Cash in the amount of 100 000 US dollars, which amounted to 2484 000.00 UAH. At the rate of the National Bank of Ukraine, allegedly for the preparation of documents to provide legal and legal assistance to AA Sukhomlin, who was in jail.
In the period from July 28, 2016 to July 29, 2016, the exact date is not established, at 21 o’clock Rogoza AN, continuing to implement the common with Moskalenko DA, Tiran VV, and other unidentified persons at the moment, Criminal intent aimed at capturing other people’s property by deceit and abuse of trust while in the premises of the restaurant “LA provinces”, which is located at: Kyiv, ul. Bogatyrskaya, received the twenty sixth from Kanyuk N.I. Cash in the amount of 100,000 US dollars, which amounted to 2,479,000.00 UAH. At the rate of the National Bank of Ukraine, allegedly for providing Sukhomlin AA. Legal assistance in criminal proceedings, in which the latter had the status of a suspect.
In the future, in the period from August 5, 2016 to August 6, 2016 Rogoza A.N. Acting in conjunction with Moskalenko DA, Tiran VV, and others at the present time unidentified persons according to a predetermined plan, with the goal of personal enrichment, abusing trust Kanyuk N.I. And Sukhomlina OA, received from Kanyuk N.I. Cash in the amount of 373,000 US dollars and 110,000 euros, allegedly for the full resolution of problems related to criminal prosecution O. Sukhomlin. By providing legal assistance to the latter.
In turn, Kanyuk NI, being in a stressful condition connected with the detention of her civil husband and the father of a joint minor child, trusting AM Rogozh as a single person, agreed to help, gave the latter money in the amount of 373,000 US dollars and 110,000 euros, which belonged to Sukhomlin AA, under the following circumstances.
So, 05.08.2016 approximately at 12:00, Kanyuk NI, being in the fitness club “5 Element”, which is located at: Kyiv, st. Elektrokov, the twenty-ninth gave Rogoza AM. Suhomlin AA Cash in the amount of 250 000 US dollars, which was 6200 000.00 UAH. At the rate of the National Bank of Ukraine and 06.08.2016, approximately in the area of ​​12-13 hours, while in the restaurant “Tsarskoe Selo”, which is located at: Kyiv, Lavrskaya, 22 handed over to AM Rogoza. Suhomlin AA Cash in the amount of $ 123,000 and 110,000 euros, which amounted to 6088 600.00 UAH. At the rate of the National Bank of Ukraine.
In turn, Rogoza A.N., knowing that he, Moskalenko DA, Tiran V.V., and other unidentified people at the moment, did not have the opportunity to provide any legal assistance to AA Sukhomlin, who was a suspect In criminal proceedings, for the sole purpose of personal enrichment received from Kanyuk N.I. Money distributed among themselves, Moskalenko DA, Tiran VV, and other unidentified persons at the moment.

In general, during the period from 21.06.2016 to 06.08.2016 Rogoza A.N., being united with Moskalenko DA, Tiran VV, and other unidentified persons at the present time with a single intent aimed at personal enrichment, acting Deliberately, took possession of the deception and abuse of trust in cash Kanyuk N.I. And Sukhomlina OA In a particularly large amount, namely in the amount of 673 000 US dollars and 110 000 euros, which as a whole was at the rate of the National Bank of Ukraine at the time of the transfer of each part 19741 600.00 UAH.
Thus, Valery Tiran, September 25, 1976, according to the circumstances described above, took possession of another’s property by deceit and abuse of trust (fraud) in a particularly large amount, that is, committed a criminal offense under Part 4 of Art. 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
03/04/2017 at 14 hours 15 minutes Tirana Valery Viktorovich, September 25, 1976, born in the village of. Veseloye, Vinkove district of Khmelnitsky region, residing at the address: Kiev. E. Chavdar Street, 2 km. 42, since 2015, staying at the disposal of the Headquarters of the ATC under the SBU, as head of a department not convicted, was detained in accordance with Art. 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine.
03/05/2017 Tirana V.V. Reported the suspicion of committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Art. 256 h. 4 tbsp. 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Circumstances that give grounds for suspecting Tiran V.V. In the commission of the specified criminal offenses and prove that none of the softer measures other than detention can not prevent the risks provided for in Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, are supported by the following criminal proceedings:

– a statement Sukhomlina OA. On the commission of a criminal offense;
– the protocol of interrogation of the victim Sukhomlin AA;
– explanations Kanyuk NI, selected lawyer Khanin S.G.;
– printout of correspondence by Rogoza A.M. With Kanyuk N.I .;
– protocol of interrogation of the witness Koshel AF;
– the protocol of interrogation of the suspect Moskalenko DA;
– protocols of interrogations of the victim Sukhomlin O.A. From 14.02.17 and 15.02.17;
– the protocol of detention of Tiran VV;
– by letter of the DZE of the State of Ukraine of 01.03.17;
– the protocol of voluntary issuance and application to it from 05.03.2017.
– other materials of criminal proceedings in their totality.

In the production process, risks have been identified that give sufficient grounds to believe that the suspect Tiran VV may be hiding from the bodies of pre-trial investigation and / or court; Destroy, hide or misrepresent things and documents that are essential to criminal proceedings; Unlawfully to influence witnesses, the applicant, the victim in criminal proceedings and other unidentified accomplices; To prevent criminal proceedings in any other way; To commit another criminal offense.
So, in accordance with Art. 12 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the crimes of which Tiran VV is suspected, are particularly severe and provide for the possibility of imposing punishment for up to twelve years of imprisonment with confiscation of property, which in itself can be a good reason and cause for the suspect to hide from the investigation and Court.
In addition, Tiran VV, is an active member of the Security Service of Ukraine and while at large, will use his official position and connections with other law enforcement officials to unlawfully influence the pre-trial investigation body, witnesses, victims, the applicant, Investigative and procedural actions, thereby impeding the establishment of the circumstances of criminal proceedings, and to conceal crimes committed by other, unidentified accomplices Crimes, including the commission of new crimes.
At the same time, Tiran VV, the well-known applicant, the victim, witnesses in the criminal proceedings, their place of residence and stay, gives sufficient grounds to believe that Tiran VV, being aware of the existence of a reasonable suspicion, try to press on Witnesses, the victim, the applicant in criminal proceedings, inciting them to give false testimony, changing the evidence previously, thereby preventing pre-trial investigation.
Moreover, even with the surrender of Tiran VV, the passport of a citizen of Ukraine for traveling abroad, one of the risks of his possible disappearance and the possibility of illegally crossing his state border is the lack of control over part of the state border in the east of the country, where other members Criminal organization, whose activities he contributed.
Also the basis for establishing the risk of concealment of the suspect Tiran V.V. Is the presence of a significant amount of immovable property in the ownership of family members who are in the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
In addition, the preventive measure in the form of detention is the only possible measure, making it impossible to conceal Tiran VV, from the establishment of proper property and money obtained by criminal means, for seizure on them in order to ensure possible confiscation of property and civil Claim.
At the same time, the use of other softer measures other than detention will not prevent the risks existing in criminal proceedings.
For example, a pledge, a personal commitment or a suretyship with the assignment of relevant duties will not eliminate the risk of communication with a large number of persons involved in the activity of the criminal organization, as well as pressure on witnesses, the applicant and the victim in criminal proceedings, since with such precautions, prohibiting communication with specific Persons, the pre-trial investigation body disclose their data, which at this stage of the investigation is unacceptable.
The use of a preventive measure in the form of house arrest, even around the clock, will also not ensure the elimination of existing risks, since Tiran VV, and in the future will have the opportunity to contact other unidentified persons, coordinate their actions and testimonies with them by various means of communication, Including those that can not be tracked by either public or private means of control.

According to Part 4 of Art. 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, detention is applied to a person who was not previously convicted, suspected or accused of a crime, for which the law provides for punishment of imprisonment for more than three years.
According to Part 1 of Art. 256 h. 4 tbsp. 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, for the commission of the above-mentioned crimes, in the commission of which Tiran VV is suspected, the main punishment is imprisonment for a term of five to twelve years.
In view of the above circumstances, no other milder measure of restraint, except for exceptional restraint – detention, will not be able to ensure the prevention of existing risks and the fulfillment of the tasks of criminal justice.
According to Part 3 of Art. 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, the investigator judge when deciding on the application of preventive measures in the form of detention is required to determine the amount of collateral sufficient to ensure the performance of the suspect, the accused, under the Criminal Procedure Code obligations.
In view of the foregoing, I ask you, when deciding on the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention, to determine the amount of collateral sufficient to ensure that the suspect fulfills the obligations stipulated by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in the amount of not less than 50,000,000 UAH. (Fifty million hryvnia).
The specified amount of bail the prosecutor asked to identify with the following arguments.
Thus, according h. 2 tbsp. 8 Code of Criminal Procedure, the rule of law in criminal proceedings applies in view of the European Court of Human Rights.
According to Part 5 of Art. 8 Code of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine applied to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
According to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Manguras v. Spain, adopted by the Grand Chamber of 28 September 2010 to No. 12050/04, the amount of the pledge for the release of the applicant was not excessive. In the decision, in the case of Manguras v. Spain, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Part 3 of Art. 5 (right to liberty and security of person) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, on the following grounds.
According to Part 3 of Art. 5 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, pledge may be required only if there are legitimate grounds for detaining a person. The authorities should give the same amount of attention to the definition of the amount of the pledge as to the resolution of the question of the need for further detention of the accused. Moreover, even if the amount of the pledge is determined on the basis of the characteristics of the personality of the accused and his financial situation, in certain circumstances it is justified to record the amount of damages that the person is charged with. The Court considers that the provision of a higher standard of protection of human rights requires more rigor in assessing breaches of the fundamental values ​​of democratic society. Consequently, the professional environment, too, should be taken into account when determining the amount of collateral in order to ensure its effectiveness as a means of preventing evasion from legal responsibility.
Taking into account the nature of the criminal proceedings investigated with respect to Tiran VV, the harm caused to the investigated crime, there is no reason to believe that the pledge, the amount of which will be determined solely to the gravity of the crime, will be able to ensure the realization of the purpose of choosing a preventive measure, and guided by Part 5 of Art. 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, which provides that “in exceptional cases, if the investigating judge, the court finds that the pledge in these limits is not capable of enforcing the person, is suspected of being charged with a grave or especially serious crime, the duties assigned to him, the pledge may be Is set at a rate in excess of eighty or three hundred times the minimum wage, respectively, “it is necessary to determine the amount of the pledge of Tiran VV, more than the maximum limits of the pledge are determined for persons suspected aemyh a particularly serious crime.
The exceptionality of the case and the size of the pledge is based on the fact that the crime committed by Tiran VV caused damage in the amount of more than 19 million hryvnia; Tiran V.V., and members of his family have significant monetary and material assets, and in addition, strong social ties, including among wealthy individuals who will be able to pay for it; The crime committed by Tiran VV, related to the activities of the criminal organization Yanukovych VF, which involved a significant number of persons and means, including from the former top leadership of the state, and caused by a criminal organization, the damage to public interests is carried out by billions of hryvnia.

It is established that Tirana V.V. Registered the right of ownership apartment at d. Kiev, st. Kharkov highway, 152 sq. M. 100.
In addition, his wife and close relatives Tiran V.V. Seven real estate objects are registered, including:
1. apartment at the address g. Kiev, st. Zavalnaya 10-B, apt. 44,
2. apartment at ul. Chavdar Elizabeth, d. 2 sq. 42,
3. apartment at st. Princely’s Creek, d. 2/30, kv.128,
4. apartment at st. Forest, d. 77 m. Boryspol, Kiev region,
5. apartment at st. Internatsionalnaya, house 130, building. 2 sq. M. 18 m. Evpatoria, Crimea,
6. apartment at st. Lexina, 58, Apt. 90, g. Simferopol, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea,
7. Holiday house at st. Engels, 16, g. Borispol, Boryspil district, Kiev region.

Also in the property of family members of the suspect Tiran V.V. Available land with a total area of ​​more than 5.7399 hectares, two SUVs: Porsche Cayenne 2013 g.v. And the Land Rover Sport 2014. At the same time, Land Rover Sport was acquired and registered for the mother of the suspect – retired Tiran Nina Andreevna immediately after the unlawful seizure of Tiran V.V. In cash.
It should be noted that Tiran V.V. All conscious life was military service on the posts of the operational and commanding staff of the Security Council of Ukraine, did not engage in entrepreneurial activity. From the above it can be seen that the income level of Tiran V.V. and his family is not in proportion to their actual income.
Suspect Tiran V.V. And his defender Mityurin SA. Objected to the satisfaction of the application regarding the application of severe restraint, indicating that the suspect had given evidence, cooperated with the pre-trial investigation body, and had strong social ties. At the same time, the amount of the pledge, determined by the prosecutor, is groundless due to proper arguments and evidence, at the same time too unbearable for the suspect given his income and property status.
After hearing the prosecutor, the suspect and his lawyer, having studied the materials added to the petition, the following should be noted.
According to Art. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the tasks of criminal proceedings are to protect the individual, society and state from criminal offenses, protect the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings, as well as ensure prompt, full and impartial investigation and judicial review so that anyone who has committed a criminal offense Was prosecuted to the extent of his own guilt, no one was innocent of the accused or convicted, no person was subjected to unreasonable procedural coercion and that due process has been applied to the participant to zhnogo criminal proceedings.
According to Art. 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, criminal proceedings are carried out in compliance with the principle of the rule of law, according to which a person, his rights and freedoms are recognized as the highest values ​​and determine the content and direction of the state’s activities. The principle of the rule of law in criminal proceedings is applied taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
According to Art. 176 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine measures are: 1) a personal commitment; 2) personal guarantee; 3) pledge; 4) house arrest; 5) detention. A temporary measure of restraint is the detention of a person, which is applied on the grounds and in the manner determined by this Code. The investigating judge, the court refuses to apply the preventive measure, if the investigator, the prosecutor does not prove that the circumstances established during the examination of applications for applying the measures are sufficient to convince that none of the softer measures provided for in part one of this article can prevent the Consideration of risk or risks. In this case, the most gentle measure of restraint is a personal commitment, and the strictest – detention.

According to Art. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, the purpose of applying a preventive measure is to ensure that the suspects and accused are discharged to their procedural duties, and to prevent attempts to: 1) hide from the bodies of pre-trial investigation and / or court; 2) destroy, hide or distort any of the things or documents that are essential to establish the circumstances of the criminal offense; 3) unlawfully influence the victim, witness, other suspect, accused, expert, specialist in the same criminal proceedings; 4) to prevent criminal proceedings in any other way; 5) commit another criminal offense or continue a criminal offense in which he is suspected, charged. The grounds for applying the measure of restraint are the existence of a well-founded suspicion of a person committing a criminal offense, as well as the existence of risks that give sufficient grounds to the investigating judge, the court to consider that the suspect, accused, convicted person can carry out the actions provided for in part one of this article. The investigator, the prosecutor is not entitled to initiate the application of the preventive measure without having the grounds provided for in this Code.
According to Art. 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine when deciding on the issue of choosing a preventive measure, in addition to the existence of the risks specified in Article 177 of this Code, the investigating judge, the court, on the basis of the materials provided by the parties to criminal proceedings, must evaluate all circumstances, including: 1) the significance of the evidence Suspects, accused of a criminal offense; 2) the severity of the punishment, threatens the person concerned if the suspect, the accused is found guilty of a criminal offense in the commission of which he is suspected, is accused; 3) the age and state of health of the suspect, the accused; 4) the strength of social ties between the suspect and the accused at the place of his permanent residence, including the presence of his family and dependents; 5) the suspect or accused have a permanent place of work or study; 6) reputation of the suspect, the accused; 7) the property status of the suspect, the accused; 8) the presence of convictions in the suspect, the accused; 9) observance by the suspects, accused of the conditions of the measures applied, if they were applied to him earlier; 10) the presence of a communication to the person about the suspicion of committing another criminal offense; 11) the amount of property damage suspected to be being committed, the person is accused, or the amount of income, which is suspected as a result of the commission of a criminal offense, is accused of the person, as well as the significance of the available evidence, which justify the relevant circumstances.
According to Art. 194 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, when examining an application for a preventive measure, the investigator is a judge, the court must establish, provide evidence provided by the parties to the criminal proceedings evidencing: 1) the existence of a reasonable suspicion of committing a criminal offense to a suspect or accused; 2) the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that there is at least one of the risks provided for in Article 177 of this Code, and to which the investigator, the prosecutor indicates; 3) the inadequacy of applying milder measures to prevent the risk or risks specified in the application.
When deciding whether to apply a preventive measure to a suspect, one should proceed from the following.
According to the materials attached to the petition, it is considered that Tiran V.V. Was informed of a suspicion of a criminal offense under Part 4 of Article 190, part 1 of Article 256 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Added to the petition materials indicated in the petition and given above in the part of the substantiation testify to the weight of the available evidence about the commission by the suspect Tyrant V.V. Criminal offenses;
At the same time, when deciding on the application of the measure of restraint, the investigator judge does not come from the point of view of the evidence of the suspect’s guilt, but from the point of view of admissibility come to the conclusion that the suspect could have committed criminal offenses under the circumstances set forth.
In particular, according to Art. 198 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, expressed in the decision of the investigating judge, the court, following the examination of the petition to apply the measure of restraint of the conclusion on any circumstances related to the essence of suspicion, the charges, do not have a prejudicial significance for the court during the trial or for the investigator or prosecutor during this or any other criminal Productions. So, in the pre-trial investigation of the establishment of the grounds for suspicion, it is assessed in the aggregate of the materials provided by the prosecutor and their credibility that the suspect could commit the crime that she was charged with.

So it is necessary to recognize the suspicion as justified and sufficient to come to the conclusion that there are risks that give sufficient grounds to the investigating judge to believe that the suspect can carry out the actions provided for in part one of Art. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, and therefore comes to the conviction of the need to decide on the application of a certain type of preventive measure for the detainee.
Solving this issue, one should take into account the severity of punishment, threatens Tirana V.V. If he is found guilty of a criminal offense in the commission of which he is suspected, in particular, the sanction of a particularly serious crime punishes five to twelve years of imprisonment.
It is necessary to take into account the age and state of health of the suspect, the strength of the social connections of the suspect in his place of permanent residence; His service
According to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, a good reason for deciding on the need for pre-trial detention of a person is the risk of impeding the establishment of the truth in the case and of hiding this person from justice. It was noted that the danger of obstructing the establishment of truth in the case and sheltering a person from justice can be measured by the severity of the possible punishment, together with the availability of data on the material, social situation of a person, his connections with the state in which he is being persecuted, and international contacts.
Taking into account the above, it should be recognized that when considering the application, it was proved that there were sufficient grounds for applying to the suspect Tiran V.V. At this stage of pre-trial investigation of a preventive measure in the form of custody with the definition of the amount of the pledge, will be able to ensure that the suspect fulfills the obligations imposed on him. Determining the size of the mortgage should take into account the circumstances under which Tiran V.V. Is suspected of committing a criminal offense, the amount of damage, as well as the property position of the suspect, the availability of a sufficient number of immovable and movable property. However, these circumstances do not give grounds for determining the amount of bail in the amount proposed by the prosecutor, since he is clearly not capable of the suspect.
On the basis of the foregoing and guided by Article 29 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Articles 17, 178, 181, 182, 183, 192-194,196,198, 202,205, 395,532,534 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, investigator judge –

In EL:
Apply to the suspect Tiran Valery Viktorovich, September 25, 1976 birth – a preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of 46 days.
The term of detention shall be counted from the moment of detention, that is, from 14 hours. 15 minutes. 03/04/2017.
The validity of the resolution is up to and including 18.04.2017.
At the same time, determine the amount of collateral to ensure that Tiran Valeriy Viktorovich fulfills the obligations set by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
The amount of the pledge is to be determined in the amount of 9500 times the minimum subsistence level for able-bodied people in the amount of UAH 15,200,000.00. (Fifteen million two hundred thousand hryvnia)
The amount of the pledge in the national monetary unit can be paid by both the suspect himself and another natural or legal person (pledgor) to the deposit account of the Pechersk District Court. Kiev: p / 373110010028 07; MFI (bank code) 820019; OKPO 02896745; EGRPOU of the bank: 38004897; Beneficiary’s bank: UGKSU in Pechersky district of GU GKSU in Kiev.
The pledgor can be a legal entity of state or municipal property or one that is financed from the local budget, the budget of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, or in the authorized capital of which there is a share of state or communal property, or that belongs to a business entity that is state or municipal property.
The suspect or mortgagor has the right at any time to deposit a security deposit in the amount determined in the order for applying the preventive measure in the form of detention during the term of the resolution.
Put on the suspect Tiran Valery Viktorovich the following duties:
To arrive on a call to the body of inquiry, pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor or the court, and in case of impossibility to appear for valid reasons – inform the official or authority that made the call in advance;
DO NOT leave the settlement in which it is registered, namely, from Kiev without the permission of the investigator, prosecutor or court;
To notify the investigator, prosecutor or court about changing his place of residence and / or place of work;
To deposit their passport (passport) for travel abroad, other documents giving the right to leave Ukraine and enter Ukraine;
Refrain from communicating with persons identified by the prosecutor.
The term of the duties imposed by the court, in the case of entering a pledge, is determined within the terms of the pre-trial investigation in April 18, 2017 inclusive.

If necessary, this period may be extended at the request of the prosecutor in the manner provided for in Article 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. After the expiry of the term, including extended, for which the suspect was charged with the corresponding duties, the decision to apply the preventive measure in this part ceases and duties are canceled.
Explain to the suspect that if the deposit is made in the amount specified in this resolution, the original document with a bank note confirming the deposit of the Pechersk District Court to the deposit account. Kiev funds, must be provided to an authorized official of the Kiev Detention Unit of the State Department of Ukraine on the enforcement of sentences in Kiev and Kiev region.
After receiving and verifying within one day of the document confirming the deposit, the authorized official of the Kyiv Investigation Department of the State Department of Ukraine on the enforcement of sentences in Kiev and the Kiev region must immediately execute an order to release Tiran Valery Viktorovich from custody and inform Verbally and in writing the prosecutor Opanasenko V. and the investigative judge of the Pechersk district court. Kiev.
In the case of pledging and from the moment of release of the suspect from custody as a result of the pledge specified in this resolution, the suspect is obliged to perform the duties assigned to him, connected with the use of a preventive measure in the form of a pledge.
From the moment of release from custody in connection with the deposit of a security, the suspect Tyrant Valery Viktorovich is considered to have applied a preventive measure in the form of a pledge.
Explain the vigilant duty to ensure the proper conduct of the suspect, the accused and his turnout on call.
In the event that the pledgor fails to fulfill his duties, and if the suspect, the accused, if properly, does not appear at the summons to the investigator, the prosecutor, the investigating judge, the court without valid reasons, will not report the reasons for his failure to appear, or if he violated the other obligations imposed on him Application of the measure of restraint of duty, the pledge is drawn into the state income and credited to a special fund of the State Budget of Ukraine and used in the manner prescribed by law for the use of the court fee.
The pledge was not transferred to the state income, it is returned to the suspect, accused, pledger after the termination of this preventive measure. At the same time, the pledge made by the suspect, the accused, can be fully or partially turned by the court to execute the sentence in the part of property penalties. The pledge made by the pledgor can be turned by the court to execute the sentence in the part of property penalties only with his consent.
The decision to apply a preventive measure in the form of detention is subject to immediate execution after it is proclaimed.
The decision may be appealed directly to the Court of Appeal. Kiev within 5 days from the date of proclamation by the suspect – within the same period from the day of handing him a copy of this resolution.
Investigative judge                                                                                                                  LI Tsokol.