Judge Tandir, who killed the National Guard, tried to avoid paying compensation to the family of the deceased

In Kyiv, in the Svyatoshinsky District Court, a trial is taking place in the case of Judge Alexey Tandyr, who is accused of causing the death of 22-year-old guardsman Vadim Bondarenko as a result of an accident at a checkpoint. The prosecution claims that the judge was intoxicated at the time of the incident.

Before the meeting on December 19, social networks were stirred up by a discussion that Tandir had divorced his wife and transferred most of the property to her - an apartment and a parking space.

Back on September 6, at the preparatory meeting, the relatives of the deceased filed a civil claim in the amount of 38 million hryvnia. However, the property remained not seized.

The victims are represented by the law firm Aver Lex, which for many years publicly served fugitive President Viktor Yanukovych, breaking the contract only after the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation. These lawyers filed a motion to seize the property on November 20.

“We foresaw such actions of Alexey Tandir. Therefore, in order to ensure civil claims of victims and make it impossible to alienate the property of the accused, on November 20, 2023, they filed a demand for his arrest in court.

But the court hearing where this issue was to be resolved was disrupted due to the failure of his defenders to appear. Two days after this, on December 6, 2023, the court made a decision to dissolve the marriage based on the claim of Alexei Tandir’s wife, Lyudmila Tandir.

And already on December 12, 2023, probably in a pre-trial detention center, an agreement was concluded between them on the division of common property, according to which all of Alexei Tandir’s property goes to his wife.

It is clear that such actions are aimed at preventing victims from receiving compensation and once again indicate the dishonest behavior of Tandoor himself.

We are preparing a lawsuit to declare such an agreement invalid and will insist on the seizure of this property in criminal proceedings,” lawyer Vitaly Serdyuk wrote on Facebook after Tandir divided the property with his ex-wife.

Judge Tandir, who shot down a National Guardsman to death, continues to receive tens of thousands in salary while in jail

“When I found out it was a judge, I was so angry”

Indeed, two weeks ago the widow of National Guardsman Bondarenko arrived in court to testify. However, the case was not considered. The defendant’s lawyers, Irina Bovnegra and Oleg Yurchenko, were involved in the defense of another judge, Vyacheslav Dzyubin from the Kyiv Court of Appeal, who, along with three other servants of Themis, was suspected of receiving a bribe.

On December 4, the High Council of Justice was just considering the issue of permission to take judges into custody. True, Dzyubin himself did not arrive at the VSP that day, since he was hospitalized and defense attorney Bovnegra went to see him at the hospital and received a certificate from doctors. The lawyers filed a petition to the Svyatoshinsky District Court of Kyiv to postpone the hearing.

The wife of the deceased Bondarenko upsetly explained to the court that since the beginning of a full-scale war, she and her children have been living in Finland and have tickets for the coming days. She traveled to Ukraine for almost two days, spending money and parting with her children, and she is unlikely to be able to come again in the near future.

Theoretically, the court could hold a hearing in the absence of Tandoor’s lawyers, because this is not a particularly serious crime, when the participation of a defense lawyer, according to the law, is mandatory. There were other reasons not provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, but facilitating Tandir’s participation, namely, that the accused has a legal education, is a professional judge, and, finally, the victim was not an eyewitness to the crime and had only to characterize the deceased, describe her mental suffering, etc. But Tandir flatly refused to allow the meeting to take place without defenders.

On December 19, Anna Bondarenko already participated in the process via video link from abroad. She said that she learned about her husband’s death from relatives. I didn't make it to the funeral. When Vadim was buried, she was just getting on the bus to go to Ukraine.

“We lost our family, our children lost their father, our parents lost their son, and we lost a loved one,” she described.

The family raised three children: a common daughter, Polina, born in 2021. and two more young children of Anna from previous relationships. The woman says that the children were completely supported by her husband. Before Vadim’s mobilization, they, living in the village, kept a household - pigs, cattle. In addition, Vadim worked at the factory a week later. In the future, the couple planned to go abroad to earn money in order to buy a home.

- He treated them (children - ed.) so well. He is 5 years younger (5 years younger than his wife - ed.). I didn’t think that, due to his youth, he would treat my children so well. He took full responsibility upon himself.

The victim learned from the media that the judge was driving the car that hit Vadim,

“When I found out that it was a judge, there was such anger at everyone. Tell me, how in a country at war can a judge afford to drink, get behind the wheel and take someone’s life?! I’m talking about this now, but everything is seething inside... This is the person (judge - ed.) who should protect, and not take lives (...) What prevented him from saying: “Sorry, I left you without a husband, your children without a father , I'm sorry, that's the situation. Whether I was drunk or not. It happened that way." What prevented this person from simply saying sorry?! In seven months. What?! Everyone is to blame. The military unit is to blame. Vadim is to blame. This man (Tandir - ed.) is not to blame at all. Someone brought it and put it in that car. We didn’t wait for a normal, human apology (...) 10 years for Tandoor is nothing. He robbed us of our entire lives. And they will take away 10 years from him. In 10 years he will come out and kiss his children, they will call him daddy, they will spend time with him. And my child asks: “Mom, why are you crying, and what kind of trial are you going through now?” says the woman.

The insurance company that insured Tandoor paid the family of the deceased 320 thousand hryvnia. In addition, relatives opened an account to collect funds from concerned people.

As the victim recalls, on June 19, 2023, after a hearing in the appeal court regarding the suppression, Tandyr’s wife called her and offered to meet without lawyers in order to “help financially.” Anna claims that she refused and replied that she would not take money from her hands and that everything would be as the court decided.

After this, at the next court hearing, Tandoor said that his family was already helping. The family began checking the account that was opened to collect donations and found four suspicious payments in the amount of 18 thousand hryvnia.

“I asked Vadya’s brother Sasha to return these funds in front of the lawyers, in front of the judge, so that everyone could see it (...) Lyudmila Tandir herself was also warned about this, that I would not take anything. There will be a trial, there will be a civil suit, then there will be compensation (...) The Tandoor side notes that everything is carried out correctly. So why do they transfer so anonymously?! Act according to the law, do not transfer anonymously. This was my position from the very beginning,” the woman explained.

In one of the court hearings, a representative of the victims, in the presence of journalists, tried to give money to lawyer Tandyr Yurchenko.

The accused tried to apologize to the victim instead of asking questions.

— Madam Anna, I have repeatedly apologized when I had the opportunity to tell you this. And I apologize again. I am very sorry that this happened and that I am involved in this tragedy. I am consistent and willing to repay as I previously noted. But I just want to clarify your position. From the very beginning you stated, and this was in the media, that nothing was needed from Tandoor. Then your position changed and you began to state that you had filed a claim and compensation should only occur on the basis of a court decision and within the limits determined by the court. Then, recently, I have been receiving hints from third parties to pay now. So please decide on the position of compensation: before the verdict or after, or how this should all happen.

The widow replied that her position had not changed, that is, compensation should be as the court decides.

The property was not seized on time

Representatives of the victims accuse Tandoor of dishonesty and an attempt to hide property from future confiscation.

But the defense believes that their client did not violate anything. After all, the prosecutor did not apply for the seizure of property for four months at the stage of the pre-trial investigation and at the preparatory hearing, and therefore, it seems, he missed this opportunity. In their opinion, such a petition at the trial stage during the interrogation of victims is contrary to the procedural law. At the investigation stage, only the car was seized as evidence.

The prosecutor's office explains that it seems that it was possible to apply for arrest only after the victims filed civil claims.

In the wake of the resonance, the prosecutor filed his own application to seize the property only on the eve of the hearing, that is, on December 18.

“The petition was duplicated by the prosecution in connection with the dissemination of information about the distribution and change of ownership of real estate owned by the accused,” said prosecutor Mikhail Domanitsky.

- He has the right to enter into a marriage and dissolve a marriage, to divide property and not to divide... If you can declare something about illegal actions, then let's talk about it. If not, then, excuse me, we perceive this as another news feed so that everyone around can talk about whether Tandyr lives with his wife or not, whether he supports his children or not, how they divide property and about other details of their family life,” says lawyer Yurchenko.

“It’s probably difficult for you now to explain yourself to your clients and answer the question of why you didn’t do it on time in accordance with the code, because you are the greatest, loudest law firm AverLex,” Yurchenko’s lawyer addressed the representative of the victims.

Lyudmila Tandir is not an accused or suspect, the property is not material evidence and therefore there are supposedly no grounds for arrest.

Seizure of the property of a third party is possible when it comes to material evidence or special confiscation. Therefore, Tandoor’s defense demanded that opponents refer to the rule of law according to which they ask for the seizure of the property of a third party to satisfy a civil claim in a criminal proceeding. In addition, lawyers believe that it was necessary to invite the owner herself or her representative to resolve such a petition.

Tandoor was pretty outraged by the public's interest in his personal life.

— Questions about divorce arose much earlier. These questions have arisen since September, and perhaps even earlier. The divorce is a consequence of the hate that is created around my personality. As for my personal life, my wife and my children, it is none of those present’s business. I even forbid talking about my wife and children. Secondly, it is clear that during a divorce the issue of joint property must be resolved.

I had no personal property. One of the objects of common property is the apartment in which my children live. The children remain to live with his wife. So, dividing the common property, did you think that it should be somehow different?! They accused me of deceiving the court, that I did not receive a salary (in response to a lawyer’s request from the victims, information was received that Tandir, from the moment the crime was committed to this day, allegedly receives his official salary of 63 thousand hryvnia monthly - ed.) And you looked in the request , when did I get paid that salary?! I was not paid anything for six months and at the end or beginning of December I was paid my first salary. The amounts mentioned in the press are purely accrued, but much less is paid, there are taxes of almost 20%, or even more. For some reason, no one asks what my children ate during the six months I was held in custody. The children began to get sick one by one. The wife sits with the children and cannot go to work. And no one cares what children eat. The main thing is that Tandoor receives a salary in the pre-trial detention center. They probably bring it to me there from the cash register.

Local lawyers asked the judge to give them bail

The judge accused of a fatal accident has been in custody for more than six months.

On December 19, the prosecutor once again petitioned to extend his preventive measure. The defense insisted on round-the-clock house arrest with an electronic bracelet, citing the practice of the ECHR that detention should not be a rule, but a necessity, a measure of last resort and should not be used for punitive reasons.

The defense lawyer was dissatisfied because the prosecutor said that the status of a judge creates additional risks for the behavior of the accused.

“This should be perceived as outright disrespect for the court and the entire judicial system,” said lawyer Yurchenko. “There are probably a lot of questions for her, but it cannot all be concentrated in our client.” Today they are trying to narrow down all questions to the judicial system and direct them to Tandoor. Someone's claim was not satisfied, someone else was not satisfied with something - Tandoor is to blame for everything. He is guilty because he is a judge (...) Thanks to the media, they were able to convince society that this judge is anti-moral, a scoundrel, worse than martyrs, rockets, how does he even live on earth. This is an ingrained belief. If this is enough to keep a person in custody to make convictions, we will lose the country, because the judiciary and the law are one of the pillars on which statehood is based. There have been examples in history when people influenced the court by tearing up the courtrooms. This happened in the Svyatoshinsky court - they broke it because they considered themselves a society and decided to do so. Another comes to court and throws grenades because they think they are allowed to.

Tandir also said that through his lawyers he had applied to the prosecutor with a request to be mobilized for military service. He is a reserve officer and there is a combat military unit that wants to accept him for a position. They say that he does not bring any benefit to the pre-trial detention center, he cannot protect his children from air attacks, then he would go to defend the state with a machine gun in his hands. But so far the prosecutor has not yet responded to this request.

A group of lawyers from Makarovskaya and a local businessman once again tried to bail the accused. Lawyers Alexander Zhivaga, Dmitry Golumbovsky, Maxim Prokopenko reported that they had repeatedly participated in court cases chaired by Tandyr, and businessman Alexander Kovalenko was a people's assessor in the Makarovsky District Court. spoke at the meeting. They all said that they had known the accused for many years as a fair and decent person and believed that he would not abscond from justice.

The prosecutor and the widow of the deceased Bondarenko objected to Tandyr being released on bail. “He should be behind bars,” the victim said.

Social networks called for reprisals

Bovnegra's lawyer filed a motion to continue the case in closed session. According to her, with the participation of law enforcement officers and representatives of the victim, information was constantly disseminated that caused hostile sentiments in society towards Tandir and its defenders.

— In the absence of a guilty verdict, they constantly tried to form an exclusively negative opinion regarding the accused and the defense. They constantly gave interviews to journalists that Tandir and his entourage put pressure on experts, that the family of the accused transferred funds to the account of the victim Bondarenko, which are a mockery. Then, in front of numerous cameras at the end of the trial, one of the representatives of the victims tried to return these funds to one of the defenders... From the first day of Tandyr’s arrest, they actively expressed the position online that the latter should have been shot on the spot, namely at the checkpoint, immediately after the accident... After which society began to express its position more aggressively, not limited to physical violence, but also towards defenders,” the statement said.

The wave of negativity in this wave increased greatly when the representative of the victims, Serdyuk, made a critical post on Facebook that Tandir had transferred the property to his ex-wife. After this, Babel correspondent Anna Mamonova made her post online, which was consistent with Serdyuk’s post. Under the post, Facebook users began calling for reprisals against the accused, the defense and the court: “Someone else is surprised by yesterday’s grenades in Transcarpathia. Grenades in Transcarpathia are just the start. What kind of judge is this?”...

Bovnegra cited cases of explosions in the courts: in July 2023, in the Shevchenkovsky court of Kiev, the accused died and two were injured; on November 30, 2017, in the premises of the Nikopol district court of the Dnepropetrovsk region, the victim blew up a grenade, as a result of which two people were killed and several injured; another incident occurred on February 9 2023 in the Darnitsky court of Kyiv, as a result of which 15 people were injured.

…

On December 19, the court hearing lasted almost four hours. The judge left the deliberation room and announced the decision only at 12 o'clock the next day.

Tandoor remains in custody; his request for bail was rejected. Tandoor's property was partially seized - a plot of land and bank accounts. The court refused to seize the apartment and parking space transferred to his wife.

At the next hearing, the court will proceed to questioning witnesses. The prosecutor said that he has 40 witnesses, of whom he plans to question 35. The vast majority of witnesses are military personnel; their personal data will be clarified, how they perform their service, and how checkpoints are organized. Among the evidence is a video of the movement of military equipment and the operation of air defense, since there was an alarm during the accident.

The court agreed with the participants that the consideration of the case should be made closed in terms of military witnesses who will talk about the deployment of checkpoints, and those evidence that contain state secrets in the field of defense.