LEGAL COMPANY “PRIKHODKO AND PARTNERS” – GUARANTOR OF YOUR LEGAL SAFETY!

On April 20, 2018, the clients of the "Prikhodko and Partners" company conducted mass searches by the DFS authorities of Ukraine, in particular in offices, warehouses and private housing.

The company's lawyers arrived at all necessary facilities within 20 minutes and checked that law enforcement officers did not start searches before the arrival of lawyers and acted solely within the framework of existing legislation.

As a result of the activities of lawyers, no valuables and money were confiscated, all computers and mobile phones were left, the search was speeded up to the shortest possible time, the issue of recovering funds from DFS authorities in connection with the forced downtime of the enterprise is being decided!

General remarks of the lawyer of the legal company "PRIKHODKO AND PARTNERS" about the conduct of the search:

- It was not possible to obtain legal assistance from a lawyer (according to Article 59 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Part 3, Article 236);

- The search was conducted without a decision of the investigating judge, the requirements of Part 2 of Art. 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine;

- No decision was made on permission to conduct a search (Article 13, part 3 of Article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- a copy of the resolution on the permission to carry out a search was not provided (according to Article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- Before the execution of the decision of the investigating judge, the person owning the dwelling or other property was not presented with a decision and his copy was provided (Part 3, Article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine) (under this article it is considered that during the search to be the owner of the premises);

- The search was carried out by a person not specified in the resolution on the permission to conduct a search, violation of the requirements of Part 2 of Art. 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine;

- The search was carried out by operational personnel, but the order was not provided to them (persons not authorized, Part 2, Article 234);

- More than one search was carried out for one resolution on the search (in accordance with part 1 of article 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- The resolution on the permission to conduct a search does not specify the validity of the resolution, which can not exceed one month from the date of the determination (paragraph 1 of article 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- There is no information about the prosecutor, the investigator who filed the petition for a search (clause 2, part 2, article 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine) in the resolution on the search for a search;

- In the resolution on the permit for the search the search is not specified in the law, on the basis of which the definition is made (clause 3, part 2, article 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- In the resolution on the permission to conduct a search there is no information about the dwelling or possession of the person or part dwelling or other possessions of a person who must be searched (clause 4, part 2, article 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- In the staging There is no information on the permission to conduct a search in relation to the person who owns the house or other property and the person in whose actual possession it is (paragraph 5, part 2, article 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- The resolution does not specify a person, rents premises in violation of Section 5, Part 2, Art. 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- The decision does not specify the owner of the premises in violation of Clause 5, Part 2 of Art. 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine;

- The resolution on the permit to conduct a search does not specify the things, documents or persons for the identification of which the search is carried out (paragraph 5, part 2, article 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- When carrying out the search, witnesses were not present (in accordance with part 7 of Article 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- No second copy of the search protocol was submitted, together with the description of seized documents and temporarily seized things to the person in which the search was carried out, and in case of its absence - to an adult member of his family or his representative (in accordance with Part 9c . 236 CPC Ukraine);

- In violation 9 h v.. 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine during the search of the enterprise, institution or organization the second copy of the protocol was not given to the head or representative of the enterprise, institution or organization;

- In violation of Part 9 of Art. 236 of the Ukrainian CPC, instead of a copy of the protocol (the original), a copy of the search protocol was handed over;

- The search protocol does not contain information about all persons present during the procedural action (in accordance with cl. Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- The participants in the procedural action were not given the opportunity to see the text of the search protocol before signing it (Part 4, Article 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine);

- A search was carried out at night (from 22 to 6:00) (according to part 4 of article 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine).   According to Part 2 of Art. 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, the search of a dwelling or other possession of a person on the basis of a decision of an investigating judge should occur at a time when the person who owns the least harm is doing the usual occupation, unless the investigator, the prosecutor believes that the fulfillment of such a condition could significantly damage the purpose of the search;

- In violation of Part 1 of Art. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, the petition of an advocate to fix a procedural action by means of technical means was not granted. Collection of evidence is provided for in Section 7, Part 1 of Art. 20 ZU "On advocacy and advocacy";

- They did not give a written explanation regarding the refusal to sign the protocol (Part 6, Article 104 "If the person who took part in the proceedings refused to sign the protocol , this is noted in the protocol.This person is given the right to give written explanations about the reasons for refusing to sign, which are recorded in the protocol. ")   - The annexes to the protocol were not properly packed and certified by signatures of the participants, a transcript, audio and video recording of the procedural act, there is no signature of the lawyer on the packages (p. 2-3 of Article 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- In violation of Part 1 of Art. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine and paragraph 8 of Art. 20 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Bar and Advocacy" at the solicitor's request for video-fixing it was not applied.   According to Part 1 of Art. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine the right of unimpeded recording of a search by video recording is provided to the defense side.

- In violation of Art. 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine the investigator does not satisfy the solicitor's request to bring his witness. Since the lawyer acts "everything is allowed that is not forbidden", and the investigator is acting "everything that is provided for by law" is allowed. In the current Criminal Procedure Code, it is not determined who selects the witnesses, and therefore, the request to satisfy the attested lawyer must be granted (part 7, Article 223);

- The person in whom the search was conducted (the lawyer) in violation of Part 9 Art. 236 there was not left a copy of the protocol and an inventory of seized documents and tychasovoy seized things;

- In violation of Part 2 of Art. 27 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Bar and Advocate Activity" of an attorney was not allowed under an oral agreement before the conclusion of a written one;

- In the resolution on granting permission to conduct a search, the wrong address, the office of the search site,

- They did not introduce themselves, which made it impossible to find out whether the person indicated in the resolution on the search warrant and whether she has the authority;

- In the order for operational staff, there are no specific names of these employees;

- In the order for operational staff, printing for packages is used, instead of printing for reference;

- In violation of h .3 tbsp. 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine clarified the rights to the witnesses before the conduct of the investigative action;

- At the request of the lawyer (person in whose presence the search was conducted) in violation of Part 8 of Art. 236 did not verify the documents establishing the persons' witnesses. According to Part 7 of Art. 46 bodies of state power and bodies of local self-government, their officials are obliged to fulfill the legal requirements of the defender;

- During the search, paragraph 2 of Art. 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Advocacy and Lawyer Activity", according to which a representative of the Bar Council of the region must be present during the search or inspection of the home, other possession of the lawyer, the premises where he performs advocacy, temporary access to things and documents of the lawyer;

- In violation of paragraph 9 of Art. 9 of the Law of Ukraine "On Accounting and Financial Reporting" copies and / or originals of primary documents and accounting registers were seized without drawing up a register of seized documents;

- Compliance with the decision of the investigating judge, the court to conduct the search was not necessarily recorded with the help of sound and video recording equipment. (Part 1, Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine);

- Investigative in violation of Part 1 of Art. 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine did not take measures to ensure the presence during the search of persons whose rights and legitimate interests may be restricted or violated;

- In violation of Part 4 of Art. 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the investigator, the prosecutor did not ensure the safety of the property in the dwelling or other possession of the person, and the inability of access to it by unauthorized persons;

- In violation of Part 5 of Art. 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, the search on the basis of the decision of the investigating judge was carried out in more than necessary to achieve the purpose of the search _____________ in _____________________, date ______________;

- In violation of Part 5 of Art. 235 the search of persons was in a dwelling or other premises was carried out by the decision of the investigator or the prosecutor without sufficient grounds to believe that they are hiding items or documents relevant to criminal proceedings.