Special services of Ukraine: an imitation of purification. Why are Ukrainian “chekists” judged
… Captain Voryuga was NOT deprived of the right to hold certain positions for a certain period of time or engage in certain activities – he was NOT disgraced from the service in disgrace and will continue to serve in the ranks of Ukrainian intelligence officers. And if he was the only one! ..
Last year, at least six verdicts were passed on cases of bribes to Ukrainian intelligence officers.
On February 15, the Kyiv-Svyatoshinsky District Court of the Kyiv region issued the first conviction sentence this year to a special services officer, who was the captain of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine. True, the crime he committed was not connected with spy combinations, since the work of the convict was far from exploring romance.
He was the chief of one of the quartermaster divisions of the Department of Material Resources and Logistics of the SVRU, but got caught ridiculous and say on what – on frauds with the purchase of sets of uniforms, with which the Service suffered damage amounting to 331 thousand UAH. He turned this deal with a young headmistress of one fictitious limited liability company. She, according to expenditure invoices, allegedly supplied warehousing equipment to the departmental warehouse, and he allegedly checked it and put it on record, and then provided to the financial and economic Office of the SVRU accounts that the State Treasury Service of Ukraine paid for.
Strangely enough, but the accusation was not brought against him in embezzlement or misappropriation by abuse of his official position, but only in an official forgery. Punishment is appointed such that it is possible to burst with laughter: 8500 UAH. A fine and two years of conditional service restrictions for military personnel with a monthly deduction of 15% of the salary in favor of the state.
Moreover, no claims can be made against Judge Miroslava Omelchenko, since she received a ready-made agreement on recognizing the guilt between the accused and prosecutor of the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office of the GPU B. Osichenko, in which the punishment agreed upon by the parties was already named, so the judge practically had nothing else to do approve it.
It is interesting that the captain was not deprived of the right to hold certain positions for a certain period of time or to engage in certain types of activities – he was not disgraced from the service with disgrace and will continue to serve in the ranks of Ukrainian scouts. Also, in the verdict, not a word is said about the compensation of the damages caused in the civil suit – obviously, it hangs on a young front-line director, whose judicial proceedings are still ongoing.
It is clear that with such intelligence our state will not go far, and this case prompts, at least superficially, to get acquainted with the criminal situation in the Ukrainian special services, among which are the Security Service, the Security Service, the State Guard and the State Service. If you believe the official website of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine, then within three years after the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime, 41 “Chekists” were brought to criminal responsibility for committing certain crimes, and in 18 of them criminal proceedings with indictments were sent to court.
In particular, for such crimes as bribery or extortion, the ratio is 20 and 8, respectively. But in the public reports of the GPU, for some reason, it was written about only one verdict, and that was for committing a traffic accident. Meanwhile, according to the data of the Unified State Register of Judicial Decisions, at least six verdicts were handed in only last year on cases of bribery by Ukrainian “Chekists”. Therefore, considering it my duty to fill this gap, I offer the reader a brief information about the circumstances of the commission of crimes of this category.
“Peacemaker” from the ATU zone
To begin, probably, it is necessary from the most ridiculous sentence that it was not so boring to read the others. However, in the chronological plan, he too was the first: on February 12, 2016, the Dzerzhinsky City Court of the Donetsk region handed it to the senior operative authority of the Artemovsky city department of the USMU.
As early as September 2015, the officer took two employees of the police regiment of the GUMMD of Ukraine in the Kyiv region on hook, and informed them that there was dirt on them in the Dzerzhinsky Department of the Interior, in particular that they had participated in some robbery. And since, they say, he, as a security official, maintains friendly relations with the chief of this city department, he can for a bribe amounting to 350 thousand UAH. Agree with him that this case is closed.
On October 9, 2016, during the controlled transfer of funds, the attacker was detained. He was informed of suspicion under Art. 369² CC (abuse of influence), and the court elected a preventive measure in the form of a pledge in the amount of 110 thousand UAH. Three months later he concluded an agreement with the military prosecutor of the Donetsk garrison A. Kotsyuboy, where the penalty agreed upon was 17 thousand UAH. Fine without forfeiting the right to work in law enforcement agencies. The court approved the agreement.
In sentences with the agreement on the recognition of guilt, it is usually very succinctly told about the circumstances that preceded the commission of the crime. However, it is easy to guess that the Kiev police officers, who were the object of a bribe, really were not all right in their relations with the law.
This can be judged from the operative part of the verdict, which decided to confiscate 350 thousand UAH confiscated from the defendant during the detention. Usually in such cases, when the fate of physical evidence is determined, the judges write “to return to the rightful owner”. After all, the previously identified funds used to conduct a controlled transfer can have two sources of origin: either they are taken from the cash register of the law enforcement agency that conducts the operation, or they are provided by the applicant.
Therefore, they can only be confiscated from the applicant and only if he is not their rightful owner. But do not be surprised: in the war as a war, and she sometimes twists such scenes that Agate Christie never dreamed. Real heroes can work smuggling in their spare time from shooting, patriotic smugglers can actively support the volunteer movement, and the “robin of hooters” has divorced so much that they already do not have a passage.
The captain of security solved the land issues
If we talk about the verdicts passed for crimes committed by SBU officers already in post-revolutionary times, then there are only two of them. About the first we just told, the second was issued on August 8, 2016 Rivne city court. The defendant is a senior operative in the Department of Counterintelligence Protection of the Economy of the SBU Directorate in the Rivne region. He also concluded an agreement with the military prosecutor on recognizing the guilt, and therefore the text of the verdict contains comparatively brief information.
It is known that this employee systematically “milked” one of the local networks of gas filling stations and, according to the estimates of the investigator of the prosecutor’s office, bothered with her head 20 thousand UAH. And 400 liters of gas in the form of coupons. As stated in the text of the verdict, for the creation of favorable conditions in the conduct of economic activities, that is, failure to exercise control, non-conduct of inspections, etc. The opera was exposed on March 31, and its actions were qualified under Part 1 of Art. 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which refers to obtaining undue benefits without aggravating circumstances. In the course of a short investigation, he agreed to a fine of UAH 20,400, and the court approved the agreement.
As for the third verdict, in this case it is difficult to say when the crime was committed – before the revolution or after. The defendant in the proceedings – an operative in the Khmelnytsky region, the security captain – had some influence on the leadership of the local Main Directorate of the State Geodagadastra because of certain circumstances, and therefore quite vividly solved various land issues for businessmen. He was caught on July 9, 2015 after he received $ 5,000 for privatization of two agricultural sites: one with an area of 2 hectares in the Kamyanets-Podolsky district in the National Nature Park Podolsky Tovtry, the second with 45 hectares – in the Starokonstantinovsky district.
On December 21, 2015, he concluded an agreement with the prosecutor of the military prosecutor’s office of the Khmelnytsky garrison on recognizing the guilt, which on the same day was approved by the sentence of the Khmelnitsky district court, and received a sentence of 25,500 UAH. Fine. While this officer was under investigation, prosecutors persuaded him to confess yet another crime. In particular, in that in July 2013 he received from the founder of the agricultural LLC “Promin” 240 thousand UAH for the decision on the allocation of land in the Starosinavsky district. May 20, 2016, also due to the approval of a similar agreement, he was sentenced by the same court for the same article (369 euro CC) to a fine of 22 thousand. 100 UAH.
“Crazy” curator of the military plant
The oldest in terms of time, the crime of this category is covered in the verdict of the Darnitskiy District Court of Kyiv of April 6, 2016. In this case, the senior detective of the Department of Counterintelligence of the Department of Counterintelligence of the Security Service of Ukraine, major, who provided operational support for the State Enterprise of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine “Kiev Repair Plant” Radian “, sat down on the dock.
That is, he was his curator, or, as they say in the people, “special”. In 2009, he dug up information that the management of this enterprise was involved in the theft of the property entrusted to him, and then, like Ostap Bender, suggested that the director of the plant “buy” his dad with compromising evidence for only $ 10,000. But the director counted , That it would be cheaper for him to tell all the employees of the Internal Security Department who organized the operational combination, and on April 20, 2010 the attacker was detained immediately after receiving the first half of the bribe in the amount of 40 thousand UAH.
After exposing the “hot”, the major admitted everything, and by the decision of the military court of the Kiev garrison he was given a preventive measure in the form of custody at the guardhouse of the Central Directorate of the Military Service of the Law and Order in Kiev.
But there the bribe-taker unexpectedly began to show signs of mental illness, as a result of which he was placed in a psychiatric hospital, where from a month later he was discharged because of obvious improvement in his health. But he was no longer imprisoned again, and until the verdict was passed he was on a written promise not to leave the place. In September of the same year, he was fired from the SBU with a completely neutral formulation – “for health reasons”.
At trial, the major refused all his confessions, saying that he gave them under the influence of powerful tranquilizing, sedative and hypnotic drugs. The investigation of the case lasted for six years, but in the end the court found him guilty of taking a bribe (Article 368 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced him to three years probation with a probation of two years.
Oper has served time, and not having waited a verdict
Our next hero is a senior operative in the Department of Counterintelligence Protection of the Economy of the UAS in Vinnytsia region, major of security. In early 2011, he caught a glimpse of a certain LLC “Agrosoyuz-Podolye”, located in the city of Khmelnytsky, which was engaged in the sale of chemical plant protection products.
From somewhere the opera received information that his director, using the patronage of the chief of local militia and heads of the profile subdivisions of the regional state administration, sells contraband preparations to the agricultural sector enterprises. Having reported about this to the management, he got the go-ahead for operational development, in July 2012 received the decision of the Appeal Court of the Vinnytsia region to authorize the seizure of documents, and in October of the same year he arranged a raid on the office of the firm, which is usually called “mask show” .
Having seized a full bag of necessary and unnecessary documents, the major through the lawyer of this LLC soon began negotiations with its director. He promised if he would be given $ 30,000 to “paw”, to return all the documentation, without which the entire contractual work of the company was virtually paralyzed.
And if they do not give, then, they say, will begin criminal prosecution under Art. 321 of the Criminal Code (illegal acquisition and sale of poisonous or potent substances), as a result of which directors can be sentenced to eight years in prison. The businessman, having received such an offer, consulted his old acquaintance pensioner, who once worked in the KGB, and then came with a statement to the Internal Security Department of this department. And on July 21, 2013 the bribe-taker was detained immediately after receiving the previously marked bills.
The exposed major was informed of suspicion under part 2 of Art. 368 of the Criminal Code, and the court defined him a preventive measure in the form of detention. There he stayed exactly three years while there was a pre-trial and judicial investigation. It was forbidden to keep him imprisoned for longer: since the minimum sanction of this article was six years of imprisonment, and the opera, after serving half of this term in the conditions of the remand center, but without waiting for the verdict, was to be released in accordance with the so-called Savchenko law. Therefore, on July 22, 2016, he was released from prison under a written undertaking not to leave the place. And less than a month later, on August 12, 2016, the Khmelnitsky District Court of Vinnytsia region finally issued a guilty verdict to the former opera: five years of probation with a probation period of three years.
How to justify the investigator
The only acquittal in this list was made on March 28, 2016 by the Oktyabrsky District Court of Poltava to the investigator of the investigative department of the USBU in the Kharkiv region. In June 2012, he was instructed to investigate the case of a man detained for smuggling drugs. According to the version of the investigation, the senior lieutenant of justice allowed the person under investigation to call his comrade, who quickly came to the building of the UAS to resolve the issues. Meeting in the park, he handed the officer $ 1000 for the fact that he would release a smuggler today on his recognizance not to leave, and promised in a few days to transfer an additional $ 2,000 for the fact that he would investigate the case so that his friend was given a conditional sentence .
The investigator fulfilled his promise and released the attacker, but when he “decided” handed over the remaining money to him, the young Chekist was immediately detained by officers of the UBOP of the GUMVD of Ukraine in the Kharkov region, who acted under the direction of the prosecutor’s office. Caught red-handed, the SBU employee very quickly admitted everything, and when he was also released on his own recognizance, he began to deny everything and stated that he had been given money.
Judging by the text of the verdict, the arguments of the defense side looked very unconvincing and resembled a fairy tale about a white bull-calf. Well, as for Judge Alexander Strukov, he did not try to refute the prosecution’s arguments, but he substantiated in detail that in this case, the prosecution and the Department of Homeland Security had provoked the crime. A formal reason for justification was the inconspicuous detail, which under other circumstances he would hardly have paid attention to.
The fact is that, starting the investigation, the investigator of the prosecutor’s office either forgot to pass a resolution on the adoption of the criminal case to his production, or forgot to attach it to the materials. This gave the judge a reason to acknowledge all the evidence in this proceeding as inadequate, since they were collected by an unauthorized person.
The Court of Appeal of the Poltava region upheld this sentence unchanged.
The information was taken from: https://ord-ua.com/2017/03/04/spetssluzhbyi-ukrainyi-imitatsiya-ochischeniya-za-chto-sudyat-ukrainskih-chekistov/