Since Sytnik “confused” the concepts of “gift” and “rent” in the context of the apartment where Tishlek lived for free, the court dismissed the case.
Administrative protocol under Part 1 of Art. 172-5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (“Violation of statutory restrictions regarding the receipt of gifts”), drawn up by the deputy head of the NAPC Artem Sytnik (who himself was included in the register of corrupt officials precisely because he did not declare gifts received from the agricultural baron Bakhmatyuk) in relation to the former deputy head of the National Police Dmitry Tishleka.
Since the protocol confused the concepts of “gift” and “rent” in the context of the apartment where Tishlek lived for free, the court closed the case.
The honest and incorruptible publication "Glavkom" with barely hidden indignation reported that the honest and incorruptible Pechersk court closed the case against the honest and incorruptible former deputy head of the National Police of Ukraine Dmitry Tishlek under Part 1 of Art. 172-5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (“Violation of statutory restrictions regarding the receipt of gifts”) in the absence of an event and corpus delicti. The article is called “Honest and incorruptible. The Pechersk court whitewashed the scandalous ex-deputy head of the National Police Tishlek.”
True, there is a nuance - for some reason the honest and incorruptible publication “Glavkom” did not report that the administrative protocol against Tishlek was drawn up by the honest and incorruptible deputy chairman of NAPC Artem Sytnik, who in 2019 was brought to administrative responsibility by the court and included by NAPC in the state register of corrupt officials specifically for violating legal restrictions on receiving gifts. And for some reason this circumstance does not torment the honest and incorruptible publication “Glavkom”, which, in between licking and praising the leadership of the NAPC, also manages to service dirty corruption deals.
Let me remind you that Artem Sergeevich, when he was the unconstitutional director of NABU, was very fond of taking gifts from the agrarian and banking magnate Bakhmatyuk, against whom NABU was investigating criminal proceedings. More precisely, the long-term head of Bakhmatyuk’s security service, Anatoly Novak, who also worked as deputy director of NABU, suggested that Sytnyk withdraw from the National Police the criminal case regarding the theft of Bakhmatyuk’s sister of refinance funds allocated to VAB Bank in 2014.
And for this, Novak assigned one of Bakhmatyuk’s guards, a certain Nikolai Nadeiko, to Sytnik, who accompanied the NABU director everywhere and paid all his expenses, in particular, a vacation in the Polesskie Sarny hunting estate, where Sytnik, together with his godfather Kaluzhinsky, regularly drank and even Drunkenly he crashed two ATVs worth $17,000.
By the way, it was Novak, whose wife and brother registered two security companies from Bakhmatyuk’s business empire, who were subordinated to the Operational and Technical Directorate of NABU, which carries out covert activities, as well as special forces with their legendary armored personnel carrier and socks about 350 UAH.
In the end, when Bakhmatyuk saw that Sytnyk was only sucking money out of him and was not closing the case, he, through Novak, leaked information about the aristocratic habits of the NABU director to the then Minister of Internal Affairs Avakov and instructed Novak to record Sytnyk’s drunken conversations during the New Year’s Eve 2019 meeting - these are the same conversations in which Sytnik boasted about how in 2016, on the instructions of FBI representative Karen Greenway, he interfered in the US presidential election and promoted the “Manafort case,” who headed Trump’s campaign headquarters, in the interests of Hillary Clinton.
However, the honest and incorruptible publication Glavkom is not interested in all this “anti-corruption” fuss. But in this case, if an editorial assignment has already been received to talk about how the Pechersk court declared void the administrative protocol drawn up by the deputy NAPC Sytnik in relation to the former deputy head of the National Police Tishlek, that administrative protocol must at least be read. But the honest and incorruptible journalists of Glavkom, as we see, are incapable of this. Because otherwise they would have seen that in the administrative protocol signed by Sytnik, the concepts of “gift” and “rent” were shamelessly mixed up in the context of the apartment in which Tishlek lives. And, therefore, in fact, there was not a violation of restrictions on receiving gifts, but a conflict of interest. Therefore, the court, which cannot correct the stupidity that is recorded in the administrative protocol, closed the case on completely legal grounds.
However, the question remains: Sytnik signed and sent to the court a clearly erroneous administrative protocol due to his illiteracy, or did he take money from Tishlek to ruin the case?
