HACCU removes electronic bracelet from former Minister of Agricultural Policy Solskyi

The High Anti-Corruption Court has removed the electronic bracelet from former Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solsky, UNN reports.

This decision was made by the HACC on June 18. During the court hearing, the prosecutor asked to extend the term of the obligation for another two months. At the same time, the defense insisted that there were no grounds for such a decision, as there were no risks stated by the prosecutor.

The court decided to remove the electronic bracelet and extend the term of the following obligations: not to leave Kyiv and Kyiv region, to attend the calls of the prosecutor or judge, not to communicate with witnesses and other suspects in the case.

Given that the risks decrease over time, taking into account the proper procedural behavior of the suspect, the investigating judge believes that there is currently no need to extend the obligation to "wear an electronic control device"

The court also heard statements from the former minister's defense that the suspicion was unfounded, as NABU and SAPO had no evidence of the land plots' seizure. There is only the version of anti-corruption activists that these plots were used by state-owned enterprises of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences when they were seized by the ATO with the help of Solsky. There is no official confirmation of this version by law enforcement.

In addition, the court returned the seized mobile phonesto another defendant in the said criminal proceedings.

Add

In April, NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors served Mykola Solskyi with a notice of suspicion of allegedly seizing land plots in Sumy region. The case relates to the events of 2017-2018, when he worked as a lawyer and helped ATO participants realize their right to receive 2 hectares of land.

After Solsky's dismissal from the post of minister, it became known that neither he nor his family nor affiliated persons owned any land in Sumy region. This is confirmed by at least declarations of the former minister.

Moreover, even the NABU detectives themselves cannot explain what exactly Solsky took possession of. According to their version, the crime lies in the fact that the land plots received by the ATO participants allegedly belonged to the National Agrarian Academy. However, even the Academy itself has not been able to find the documents and prove that the land is really theirs. According to NAAS employees, they considered the land to be theirs because previously there were collective and state farms belonging to Lenin and Stalin, who were allegedly their heirs.

Thus, the main intrigue of the whole case is whether the detectives will be able to prove that the land belonged to the National Academy of Sciences. After all, if NABU does not prove this fact, the case will most likely fall apart. This may be evidenced by the fact that the detectives tried to "leak" the examinationthat they themselves had ordered, and which was obviously supposed to testify to Solsky's innocence.

As for the ATO participants themselves, who privatized the disputed land, they declared that their actions were legitimate and that they had a free right to dispose of it.  At the same time, the military denied  the arguments of the NABU.