Nikolaevsky Ship Court or justice in the Nikolaevsky style

Nikolaev-style justice, or how testimony is extracted from businessmen

The Mykolaiv Naval Court concluded a criminal case that had been ongoing for nine years. Volodymyr Shpinda, the former co-founder of the Shumensky Market in Kherson, who was arrested in 2006 and held in a pretrial detention center in Mykolaiv during that time, received what the court deemed a just sentence: life imprisonment. Remarkably, Shpinda confessed to more than ten murders, writing 17 confessions, yet it took the court nearly nine years to reach a verdict.

Based on evidence obtained through physical coercion, on October 8, Judge Elena Kuturlanova delivered a verdict in the criminal case involving several murders and attempted murders that took place between 1997 and 2005. Vladimir Shpinda and Valentin Ivanovsky received life sentences, Vladimir Pakhomov received 10 years, Viktoras Frolovats received 11 years, and Moskalenko Sr. and Jr. received 12 years each.

According to Vladimir Shpinda's lawyer, Mykhailo Velichko, the Korabelny District Court of Mykolaiv completely ignored the instructions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which overturned the verdict of the Mykolaiv Regional Court of Appeal.

"Shpinda's guilt is proven by two circumstances: the confessions that Vladimir Shpinda was forced to write under duress and physical force, which was established and proven. However, of the 17 confessions, only six are considered proven in court; the court deemed the rest to be proven. The second circumstance is the testimony of witnesses, who, according to the defense, are interested parties, as criminal cases were opened against the witnesses, and the investigation did not close them until they testified against Vladimir Shpinda. Subsequently, a decision was made to close these criminal cases and terminate the prosecution without justification. The investigation clearly used these witnesses to coerce them into giving the testimony they needed. The defense has no other option but to file an appeal," Velichko stated.

Moreover, according to Vladimir Shpinda himself, the court was interested in a guilty verdict from the outset.

"In fact, according to all European laws, holding someone in custody for more than three years without a conviction is considered torture. Our 'group' will soon be included in the Guinness Book of Records—almost nine years in pretrial detention. There's a case in the book where a Turk spent nine years and three months in a Turkish prison without a conviction. We'll soon break his record. I was detained in Kherson, then spent some time in Odesa, and then, for some unknown reason, ended up in Mykolaiv. I'm not charged with anything here," Shpinda says.

“I signed all the confessions under duress and torture! And this is a fact acknowledged by the court. In fact, from the first day of my arrest, I felt the full force of law enforcement. When I was brought from Kherson to Odesa, Mykolaiv Organized Crime Control Department officers Vadim Filashkin and Taras Pedak beat me for almost a day. They hit me with books, kicked me, punched me, and hit me in the soft tissues. They hung me up on a mop and beat me with a stick that looked like a shovel handle. I lost consciousness and came to many times. When they realized I wouldn’t sign anything, to cover up the beatings, they threw me out of a third-story window. They put my feet on the windowsill and pressed my head against the glass. I had no strength to resist; I was beaten half to death. And Pedak specifically said: if you don’t sign, you’ll fall head first. I said I wouldn’t… A gentle push, and I open my eyes in intensive care.

There's a report from the emergency room at Odessa City Hospital No. 11 on February 2, 2006, where I was taken after being thrown out the window. The emergency room doctor notes the following injuries: closed craniocerebral trauma, a hematoma in the occipital region, a fracture of the lower third of the right femur with displaced fragments, and multiple hematomas on the face, torso, and upper extremities. The question is, if I hit the back of my head when I fell, as the doctor says, then where did the multiple hematomas on my face come from? If on my face, then where did the hematoma on the back of my head come from? Furthermore, hematomas were recorded not only on my back but also on my entire body, lacerations to my elbows, and so on. Did I bounce around like a ball after landing? But the prosecutor's office's internal investigation simply ignored all of this. Corporate ethics laws."

Shpinda also says he didn't confess after the beating, but was forced to. Ivanovsky's "accomplice" was beaten half to death, and he testified against Shpinda's wife.

"Investigator Serhiy Zinchenko came to me and showed me a signed report of my wife's arrest. Allegedly, my wife had given Ivanovskyi money for crimes. I said, 'I'll sign any documents, but leave my wife alone.' What would you have done in my place?' That's how they arrested me. In fact, at the trial, Ivanovskyi said he'd made it up—my wife had never given him any money. But by then, by hook or by crook, they'd gotten my testimony. I signed everything, all the unsolved crimes in Kherson. They brought up murders and robberies that simply don't exist. Around 15 murders, I can't even remember. In the end, the investigation had 17 appearances, and seven are currently being heard in court. Where did the rest go?"

Is it really okay to keep someone in pretrial detention for almost nine years? What evidence is there of guilt?

According to the defendant, investigators believe that the mother of Ivanovsky's "accomplice" threw a package containing a weapon into the Ingulets River near the village of Sadovo, and two years later, an investigator found it near the village of Daryevka. According to a map, the distance from Sadovo to Daryevka is 15 km. Could a retired mother with cancer have thrown a 3,5 kg package 76 meters away?

"The court hasn't even examined physical evidence once in nine years. They simply won't give it to us, even though we've repeatedly demanded it. The basis? The court doesn't see the need for it.

The overall picture of the trial itself is as follows: my guilt was established solely based on the testimony of my two associates, Dmitry Kravchenko and Lyudmila Pantala. No other testimony was taken into account, and over 100 other witnesses were not questioned. The only irrefutable evidence our court has is the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal's acknowledgement of the use of unlawful investigative methods against me. The court issued a special ruling to the Prosecutor General's Office, in which the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal acknowledged the use of torture against me. But! For some reason, in violation of the law, this ruling was never sent to the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine. This ruling was effectively lost within the walls of the Mykolaiv Regional Court of Appeal.

Instead of holding Filashkin and Pedak, who used torture, accountable, as required by law, the prosecutor is demanding life imprisonment for the crippled defendants.

With the approval of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the case was sent to the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal for consideration by a new panel. However, the regional court, in violation of the law, by a strange coincidence, sent the case to the Mykolaiv Naval Court, a lower court. What kind of legality and fair verdict can we talk about when Judge Kuturlanova's "bosses," in violation of the law, have already sentenced me to life imprisonment?

That's why, I think, our judge, Elena Kuturlanova, is so selective, because witnesses in court would say something completely different from what they said during the pre-trial investigation. Again, it's been confirmed that witnesses were pressured. Witnesses have repeatedly stated that they were blackmailed and threatened to testify against us, and this is not just one or two examples. But the court doesn't consider any testimony except what benefits them.

As an example, I can cite the forensic examination of Ivanovsky's vision. He couldn't even theoretically have done what he's accused of. He can't see even 10 meters away. And yet he's accused of seeing a man 36 meters away, or in another case, 70 meters away, and then killing him. When the doctor was brought in, he examined Ivanovsky's medical records and concluded that this man couldn't have done this, even theoretically. He's blind. But the judge ignored the testimony of a doctor with 40 years of experience.

Or an examination of the videotapes from the investigative proceedings, which show signs of dubbing. By law, the originals are required in the case file, but they edit them and provide other tapes. We filed a motion to have these tapes examined, and what do you think they said?"

The trial is being conducted one-sidedly and with a clear accusatory bias. Shpinda has no doubt that Pantala and Kravchenko paid Judge Kuturlanova. And this is not without foundation: "My interests in court were represented by lawyer Alik Zurushov. When witness Kravchenko arrived from Kherson and testified in court, he said that my lawyer had threatened him. That same day, based solely on Kravchenko's testimony, Kuturlanova removed my lawyer from the case, although she had no right to do so. She was obliged to open the case, refer it to the police, who should have conducted an investigation. And, based on the results, she should have issued a ruling! Immediately after Kravchenko and Pantala's testimony in court, Kuturlanova got into a new Ford Kuga, driving it herself. This was in 2012, in the spring. A car worth almost 40 thousand dollars, yes. After the journalists conducted an investigation, I never saw her in that car again, but the fact remains.”

Shpinda says he has challenged Kuturlanova four times in court, as it is his constitutional right, but his motions have been rejected, witnesses have not been called, and experts have not been questioned.

"The court takes into account people's testimony about what someone, somewhere, heard from someone. There's no evidence base for our criminal case. And overall, the investigation resembles a lynching, where people are tried simply for being 'black.' So I'm being tried simply for being a co-owner of the Shumen Market."

"Prosecutor's Truth" doesn't discuss Shpinda's guilt or innocence, as you understand the conditions under which business developed in the 90s. We focus solely on the pervasive violation of rights, when the entire law enforcement apparatus is incapable of legally proving a person's guilt; when falsification, torture, and blackmail have become the primary tools of those who, logically, should uphold the law.

Prosecutor's Truth

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, Facebook , Twitter , VK - Only new faces from the SKLEP section!