THE SECRET WALLED NAB. 11 FAILURES IN ANY CASE!

Malinovsky court of Odessa issued an acquittal in a case against Mayor Gennady Trukhanov and seven others. The mayor of Odesa and another seven people were charged with possession of 92 million UAH from the city budget of Odessa during the purchase of a room for the City Hall with double overpayment.
The prosecutor asked for all punishment in the form of imprisonment with the confiscation of all property. Harshly Trukhanov - 12 years with the confiscation of all property, Deputy Mayor Vaugelman - 11 years with confiscation; the head of the Department of communal property of Odesa Spector - 10 years; deputy head of the communal property department Radionov - 10 years; the chairman of the municipal committee on communal property of Shkryabu - 10 years; Representative of the British company VALTON GROUP LP Kravchenko - 11 years; the founder of the company "Development Elite", which directly sold the city council room, Zahodirenko - 10 years; Bohdanov's property appraiser is 7 years old.

At the same time, we have the following court conclusions:
1. According to the results of the trial, the guilt of all eight persons, including Truhanov, has not been proved. The court concluded that there was no evidence beyond the reasonable doubt of the criminal intention of the accused, the abuse of office in order to seize money, did not establish the fact of the previous conspiracy of the accused.
2. The allegations made by the prosecution party are deemed inadmissible by the prosecution party in connection with the violation of the CPC during their receipt and do not include conversations, correspondence or other communications of an informational nature that would confirm the fact of the conspiracy.
3. None of the witnesses reported the fact of the conspiracy of the defendants and officials of the city council. It was found out that the deputies of the Odessa City Council said that in 2016 at an extraordinary session voted for the purchase of premises, guided by personal convictions, namely the expediency of placing the bodies of city authorities in one building. Deputies confirmed that they were not restricted in familiarizing themselves with the documents on the object. Consequently, the statements made at the extraordinary session of Mayor Trukhanov, his deputy Vugelman and the head of the Spector's communal property department did not affect the deputies when making a decision, and therefore can not be considered as widespread in order to mislead MPs.
Truhanov at a meeting said that the owner of the firm-seller Zagodirenko and appraiser of the building Bogdanov saw for the first time in court. Acquiring a building goes beyond its authority. There is no other NABU installed.
Pavlo Zahodirenko, the founder of the seller company, denied any arrangements. According to him, relations with the city hall were purely business. There is no other NABU installed.
4. A statement of suspicion was made contrary to the requirements of the CPC of Ukraine. Thus, in particular, written statements of suspicion to the mayor of Trukhanov of the Parliamentary Commission of Shkryabu and lawyer Kravchenko were made by an unauthorized person. Deputy Chancellor of Justice Kholodnitsky signed a suspicion and instructed the detective of NABA to hand them over. The court sent a separate opinion the five High Court judges of the Supreme Court in case 800/536/17, that the very fact of making a statement of suspicion without its direct delivery by an authorized person can not be regarded as the fulfillment of the whole complex of actions that cover the notion of "make a suspicion notice". In order to guarantee the independence of the mayor, the deputy of the city council and the lawyer of the CCP, a written notice of suspicion must be made by the Prosecutor General, his deputy or the head of the regional prosecutor's office. Instead, the message was forwarded to detectives. The prosecutor did not have the right to issue such an order.

5. Violations of the norms of the CPC of Ukraine during the inspection of the Kosovsky building and the evidence obtained during the inspection, as they were conducted without any clear evidence, were reported.
6. It was recognized as inadmissible an examination of the cost of the premises ordered by NABU, because it was conducted with gross violation of the law. The court has established inconsistency of comparative objects. In addition, the examination was used for examination of the room inspection detectives, which the court has already found inadmissible.
7. The documents, which were removed by NABU in the order of temporary access, were acknowledged as inadmissible evidence. For example, detectives took a letter from Trukhanov, who is not in the court order in the property list, which can be deleted.
8. It is recognized that unacceptable evidence obtained contrary to the court order. Thus, the right to conduct investigative actions was granted to one detective, and access was realized by another detective, which is not mentioned in the court decision as the person who is allowed such access, since in the decision such access was given to specific detectives of NABU.
9. Among the procedural violations, an assignment of one detective to another was made for temporary access, namely receiving information from the bank. Temporary access is not investigative action, but is a measure of criminal proceedings and therefore can not be carried out on an order. The permission for temporary access was given to a specific detective. But in one case, temporary access was carried out not only by an unauthorized detective, but also at a different address than in the decision.
10. Similarly, on the instructions, you can not conduct searches. While searches were carried out by detectives of NABU, they are not included in the group of investigators.
11. It was established that most of the seized NABU property was never arrested, and therefore the detectives did not have the right to hold it and to submit it to court as evidence.
12. The violation of the access of the investigation to the confidentiality of correspondence has been established. Detectives, without having the court order, inspected and copied information from the telephone of the employee of the city council.
The said conclusions of the court speak not only about the lack of professionalism of NABU as a law enforcement agency, but also about the excellent work of lawyers whose task is to find violations of the law in the activity of a law enforcement agency and to protect the rights of persons who have been subjected to unfounded allegations.
What happens next? If, attorneys defend the position in the appellate instance and all the accused will justify, let NABU wait a million claim for damages and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
And the main conclusion, instead of replenishing the budget NABU contributed to the losses to the budget ...