Much ado about nothing, but is there a crime: lawyer questions the legality of NABU's suspicion in the case of lawyers and a "bot"
Kyiv • UNN
Experts doubt the validity of the suspicion of Kyiv lawyers in illegal access to court decisions. Lawyer Sukhov emphasizes that the crime requires interference in the system.
The suspicion that NABU and SAP announced to the capital's lawyers in the case of allegedly illegal access to closed court decisions looks loud - but from the point of view of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, it is legally extremely dubious. This was pointed out by lawyer Yuriy Sukhov in a publication on his Facebook page, reports UNN.
Details
We are talking about Part 2 of Article 376-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - "Illegal interference in the operation of automated systems in bodies and institutions of the justice system." According to Sukhov, the key in this element of the crime is precisely "interference", and not just access to information.
Interference is actions aimed at changing/destroying/blocking information contained in the mentioned systems. And if no changes occurred in the relevant information systems as a result of illegal access, the mere removal of information is not a component of the objective side of the crime under Part 2 of Article 376-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. So, a lot of noise, but most likely there is no crime
In support, he also cites an analogy with Article 362 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized actions with information), which clearly defines: "interference" is unauthorized modification, destruction or blocking of information.
What does this mean for the lawyers' case?
If it is really only about the fact that lawyers hypothetically viewed or recorded information that was not public, but did not change anything - the basis for criminal prosecution under Article 376-1 of the Criminal Code may be absent.
A lot of noise, but most likely there is no crime
The legal community has repeatedly drawn attention to the distortion of the norms of the Criminal Code when trying to "stretch" the jurisdiction of NABU to cases that are not under their jurisdiction. In this case, it is not only about a controversial qualification, but also about a violation of the limits of jurisdiction, because there is no corruption, damage to the state or officials of category "A" in the case.
Let us remind you
NABU opened the specified criminal proceedings against lawyers immediately after they discovered NABU's wiretapping in their office, in the room where they held negotiations with clients who are under investigation by the bureau's detectives. The National Association of Lawyers called such actions a gross violation of attorney-client privilege, and the Prosecutor General's Office opened criminal proceedings against NABU detectives.