"The case of Minister Solsky": NABU must "suspect" more than a thousand ATO soldiers or drop all charges
Kyiv • UNN
"The case of Minister Solsky": NABU must "suspect" more than a thousand ATO soldiers or drop all charges.
If the ATO soldiers who received the land plots involved in the case of Minister Solsky have not yet been served with a notice of suspicion, this may mean that they did not commit criminal acts in obtaining them, and casts doubt on the investigation's version that the land was allocated illegally. This is the opinion of experts interviewed by UNN.
The key question at this stage of the case is why the NABU has not served suspicion notices on 1,200 ATO participants who exercised their right to free privatization and received the land in question.
As a reminder, two state-owned enterprises of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Iskra and Nadiia, continue to claim them. However, back in 2019, the Supreme Court confirmed the groundlessness of their claims in its ruling, noting that these SOEs did not provide any documents indicating that they had the right to use these lands.
So, if we follow the logic of the investigation, the land was allegedly allocated illegally, and 1200 Ukrainian defenders are likely accomplices in the possible crime.
If so, then why don't law enforcement officers who "unexpectedly" became interested in the events of 2017-18 serve the land purchasers with suspicion?
If there is no such procedural action, it means that the ATO soldiers received the land legally, there is no corpus delicti, and the proceedings should be closed. This opinion was expressed by the former adviser to the director of the State Bureau of Investigation, lawyer Oleh Shram in a commentary to UNN.
"If the ATO soldiers were not notified of suspicion, it means that they legally received these land plots. Accordingly, if they received these land plots legally, there were no grounds for seizing these land plots. And now the main question is: what is the basis for your suspicion? What is the illegality of the actions of those who were notified of the suspicion, if the ATO soldiers received the land plots legally.
If they received it illegally or under duress, then alienated it or something else, then yes, there would be questions. But if there are no questions to the ATO soldiers, and they received it legally, there is no crime. Accordingly, there are no grounds to send the case to court, it should be closed at the pre-trial investigation," Oleg Shram is convinced.
It turns out to be an interesting situation: law enforcement officers believe that there was a crime in which ATO participants were allegedly involved.
If so, law enforcement would finally have to clearly define the procedural status of these individuals.
But, apparently, law enforcement officers have no grounds to serve suspicions on ATO participants. This suggests a certain weakness in the prosecution's position regarding criminal acts during the land transfer.
"The legality of the land allocation procedure is determined by compliance with all relevant procedures regulated by the land and administrative legislation of Ukraine. The allocation of land plots to ATO participants as part of free privatization must be in accordance with the applicable laws and decisions of the authorities. If these processes were carried out correctly and without violations, then the actions can be considered legal," lawyer Dmytro Kasyanenko said in a comment to UNN.
If the NABU is convinced that it is right, then it is necessary to serve suspicions on 1,200 ATO participants, seize their land and go to court.
But it seems that the absence of these suspicions is gradually beginning to destroy the already fragile construction of the prosecution's position.
Recall
NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors served a notice of suspicion to Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solskyi of allegedly organizing a scheme to seize 2,500 hectares of NAAS land.
Solsky himself says that the circumstances of seven years ago relate to the period of his lawyer's activity, long before his appointment as minister. His defense lawyers claim that Solsky did not benefit from the fact that ATO soldiers acquired the right to the land.
