Representatives of Ukraine's largest supermarket chain, ATB-Market, may have direct influence over the actions of prosecutors from the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Prosecutor's Office during the investigation of the case against the S.Group group of companies.
This was announced at a press conference by the head of the legal department of Snack-Export LLC, Sergei Vesnin, reports RBC-Ukraine.
"If I were the police and the anti-corruption prosecutor, I would inquire about the number of visits ATB-Market representatives make to the [prosecutor's office] buildings at 38 Karl Marx Street and 42 Pravda Street. They don't leave the prosecutors' offices and participate in the investigation of these cases," Vesnin stated.
The case concerns the prosecutor's office's investigation into alleged fraud against the S.Group group of companies. ATB-Market LLC filed a complaint with the prosecutor's office, believing the S.Group companies' demands for repayment of a UAH 110 million debt to them to be illegal.
According to Ruslan Kapran, a lawyer for Investcom Plus (a creditor in a commercial dispute that is directly demanding repayment of a UAH 110 million debt from ATB), ATB first filed such a claim with the prosecutor's office on November 6, 2015. "The claim was denied at that time, as the prosecutor's office found no grounds for entering the information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. But just three days later, on November 9, a criminal case was opened based on the same documents, and the prosecutor's office actively took up the investigation," the lawyer notes.
He also added that after this, the prosecutor's office began to engage in a number of illegal actions, which, in his opinion, cannot be interpreted as anything other than pressure on the court. Specifically, on December 22, the day before the hearing of the commercial dispute between ATB and Investcom Plus in the Kyiv Court of Appeal, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office seized 29 volumes of the original case, thereby blocking its consideration. "Only on December 30 were eight volumes returned, one of which was in copies. Meanwhile, Deputy Regional Prosecutor Bachishche stated that the prosecutor's office was not obstructing the court's investigation," Kapran noted.
The lawyer cited statements by Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Deputy Prosecutor Andriy Bachishche regarding the illegality of a first-instance court ruling in a commercial dispute as another instance of pressure on the court. "This is, to put it mildly, an inappropriate statement from a prosecutor of such stature, since the case hasn't even begun to be heard in the appellate court yet. And it can only be viewed as pressure on the court," Kapran stated.
He also noted that, contrary to legal requirements, specifically the Law on Advocacy and Advocacy Activity, the prosecutor's office is summoning lawyers for questioning in the ATB v. S.Group case. "The law clearly states that a lawyer cannot be questioned in a case in which they are representing the defense. This cannot be interpreted as anything other than pressure from the prosecutor's office on the defense. And everyone understands who benefits from such actions by the prosecutor's office," he noted.
According to Sergei Vesnin, the lawyers representing S.Group in its disputes with ATB have information about the prosecutor's office preparing searches of their homes and those of their relatives. "What could be the purpose of these searches? Is there some missing evidence in the case? Do they need to plant something, like in the turbulent 90s, to make the case stick? The law explicitly prohibits identifying a lawyer with their client. Thanks to the coordinated efforts of the prosecutor's office and ATB, they are trying to remove us from this case," he stated.
"We appeal to the President, the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, the government, and the Bar Council to intervene in what is currently happening in Dnipropetrovsk under the auspices of the Prosecutor's Office. Prosecutor's officials are making statements about the illegality of court decisions, claiming guilt has already been proven, that damages have been established. This is false, unsubstantiated information. And these statements indirectly suggest there is a vested interest. Therefore, the anti-corruption prosecutor's office should take an interest in these matters," said S. Vesnin.
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!