The Knyazev case and who will be chosen as the victim

Journalists and bloggers have noticed this only now, although in fact the change in the articles of indictment took place back in October.

On October 3, 2023, NABU and SAPO reported that they had completed an investigation on suspicion of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of receiving unlawful benefits on a particularly large scale. Qualification: Part 4 Art. 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

That is, Knyazev is charged with “receiving a bribe on an especially large scale or by an official occupying a particularly responsible position - punishable by imprisonment for a term of eight to twelve years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions.”

At the same time, there is no longer any mention of Part 3.Article 28, which appeared in the request for Knyazev’s arrest.

Part 3. Article 28 provides that “a criminal offense is recognized as committed by an organized group if several people (three or more) took part in its preparation or commission, who previously organized themselves into a stable association to commit this and other criminal offenses, with a single plan with distribution of functions among group members aimed at achieving this plan, known to all group members.”

The change of articles, judging by the chronology, occurred after lawyer Oleg Goretsky, a suspect in the case of the Chairman of the Supreme Court Vsevolod Knyazev, admitted guilt and agreed to an agreement with the investigation.

As you know, Knyazev was taken as a bribe for the decision in the case of businessman Konstantin Zhevago. But after the arrest, NABU reported that we were essentially talking about a whole octopus in the judicial and legal system, when judges decided the fate of cases for money.

True, NABU did not wait for the bribe to be distributed to all the judges, so they only took Knyazev. But the fate of other judges turned out to be completely dependent on the results of the investigation and, accordingly, the desire to conduct it.

In turn, Goretsky, according to the case materials, established contacts for Knyazev with those involved in the cases. And it so happened that only in his part the NABU actions failed, and he managed to destroy the contents of his phone.

Having agreed to an agreement with the investigation, Goretsky indicated only 4 persons involved in the case, including the lawyers of Konstantin Zhevago. In the end, his testimony yielded nothing. But even then, Censor.NET sources suggested that the case was being leaked.

“He simply testifies to a couple of intermediaries in the transfer of funds from Zhevago to Goretsky. But in such a high-profile case, the person is given a conditional 3-year sentence in the agreement, which seems to me not a very sincere agreement,” the interlocutor of Censor.NET among law enforcement officers said then.

“A person like Goretsky must testify at the trial at the Shevchenkivskyi District Court. However, for some reason this question was not asked to him,” he adds.

Indeed, everything related to the transfer of a bribe by Zhevago was reliably recorded by NSRD materials in at least three calls. Therefore, in fact, Goretsky’s pointing to one of Zhevago’s lawyers, despite the fact that he himself is discussing bribes to Knyazev, does not have any significance at all for the fate of the case in this particular episode.

This can only be told as a fairy tale to people who have not heard anything about this case, except for a couple of news items.

While Goretsky’s testimony against other judges, which was negotiated with him by the same person involved in the case, would have given a completely different turn to this case.

Therefore, the fact that Article 28 is also disappearing from the case is also an alarm bell.

The detectives had materials on the judges (at least they could continue the investigation), in particular the transfer of a bribe of 10 thousand dollars. Now NABU will receive a wave of posts and news that they have baselessly desecrated the honor of judges.

By the way, many readers of anonymous telegrams would be unpleasant to learn how those involved in the cases promoted the messages they needed through these media platforms, including in order to influence the course of the investigation.

But that’s not about that now. And about what all the actions that have taken place in recent months can lead to.

As the publication’s sources explain, NABU and SAPO now explain the disappearance of the article by the fact that there are actually two people left in the case. And for a criminal group you need at least three. For this is exactly what the mentioned Article 28 presupposes.

But in fact, some dialogues from the NSRD materials indicate that there were definitely more than two people in this case.

Here, for example, is the dialogue between Knyazev and Kravchenko (Knyazev’s lawyers insist that this is notary Kirill Gorburov, and indeed in other NSRD materials he already appears under his own name) dated May 8:

Kravchenko: Yes. I won't be leaving for my birthday on Friday. I'm all there (inaudible)

Knyazev: You won’t go to the birthday party? How can you not go?

Kravchenko: Do ​​you want me to leave?

Knyazev: Well, of course.

Kravchenko: Well. Oleg doesn't want to leave.

Knyazev: Why?

Kravchenko: Well, what is this... I was embarrassed by this whole situation that happened. He's somehow afraid of being seen. Well, what am I? How will I leave? Like this. You know?

Knyazev: And you come. It will be bad if you are not there. We will discuss who to hire for the VKKS.

Agree, a discussion of the composition of the High Qualifications Commission of Judges is a sufficient condition for talking about a group of persons. Most likely, at that moment the case was under surveillance and the case materials include those who were at the birthday party.

In other recorded dialogues, Goretsky and Gorbunov discussed organizing meetings with at least three members of the High Council of Justice. And it is very doubtful that NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors could not count to 5 in order to understand what was collected under Article 28.

Also, in the dialogue published by NABU there is the following fragment:

Kravchenko: Did you receive it? And there are still 450 left, right?

Knyazev: Yes.

Kravchenko: when will we bring it there?

Knyazev: Well, have you taken it for yourself already? Right?

Kravchenko: Yes.

Knyazev: No problems there? .

Kravchenko: Well, there’s Oleg. Oleg does this there. When?

Knyazev: Well, not now . I'm still with those, since there are still a few people who are not closed that I am. I think it's Friday .

Knyazev clearly says that the money will be transferred to other judges. The fact that they were not caught in the toilet with money does not mean that there was no conspiracy.

On March 15, there is also another dialogue between Knyazev and notary Gorbunov (Kravchenko), which also confirms that the judges were aware of the scam and were waiting for money.

Knyazev: Do you hear, well, he closed with you and Oleg? Everything is fine? So that I don't worry.

Kravchenko: listen, well, Oleg deals with these issues. I don't know how. I think yes.

…

Knyazev: I’m telling you honestly. Because we work so hard, but there is no result. I was purely guided by this. Because there, the conditions were a little more interesting... there, many judges didn’t even understand. Therefore, it is necessary for him to close with you, otherwise I will change everything back, really.

Kravchenko: what is it... many people didn’t participate here, right?

Knyazev: Eh?

Kravchenko: many people didn’t participate there, right?

Knyazev: well, people seem to know... I said, there will simply be less. And they seem to know... it’s just... people also count on something, in general it was possible this way and that, but of course he was more right according to the law. Well, will he continue to work with Oleg? Yes?

However, there is much more material on the case to explore the vigorous activity of not only the judges of the Supreme Court, but also other courts. Moreover, as far as we know, several dialogues there even concern residents of the third floor of the President’s Office (some deputies). And although they do not have criminal consequences, they carry undoubted reputational risks. Consequently, the leaking of Knyazev’s case will indicate the interest of the authorities themselves in preserving the judicial system in its corrupt state that it exists now.

By the way, you will be surprised, but as Censor.NET learned, in their conversations Gorbunov and Goretsky spoke rather disparagingly about Knyazev, imagining him as their pawn.

On October 13, the Supreme Anti-corruption Court extended Knyazev’s preventive measure for two months, again reducing his bail.

Compare, if at the time of arrest the bail was said to be 107 million, then in May it was reduced to 71 million, then to 45 million, and in October to 35.

As ZN.UA wrote with reference to sources, inside the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office they do not understand the strategy of the HACC panel of judges in this matter and believe that the amount of bail for the ex-head of the Supreme Court cannot be reduced.

Censor.NET sources believe that this will ultimately lead to the amount being reduced until Knyazev can pay it.

The preventive measure for Knyazev is currently valid until December 9, 2023.

The publication also does not rule out that in the end Article 368 for Knyazev, which provides for eight to twelve years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions, will be changed to a more lenient Article 369 - imprisonment for a term of five to ten years with or without confiscation of property .

But this is not the worst thing; according to Ukrainian legislation, an agent can only be implanted into an organized group. And if there is no group, then all evidence may be considered invalid. The publication's sources say.

They say that at the time of Knyazev’s arrest, the wires were cut somewhere to get through to the top officials of the state, and the chairman of the Office, Ermak, allegedly said something like “what can they afford,” and the president, “well, let them not take bribes.”

Of course, this is all just gossip. But much worse than these gossip would be the collapse of Knyazev’s case.