Almost a month has passed, and the suspected MSEC chairman still cannot appeal her arrest
Almost a month ago, a corruption scandal of such force detonated in Khmelnitsky that it covered the entire country with an “explosive wave.” The State Bureau of Investigation came with searches to the head of the Khmelnytsky Regional Center for Medical and Social Expertise (MSEC) and the regional council deputy from the Servant of the People Tatyana Krupa. More than $5.2 million in cash and jewelry were found in the official’s apartment. Law enforcement officers saw money in almost every corner - in cabinets, drawers, niches. “We were just crazy about it all. This situation has excited society and the military,” one of the influential people’s deputies of the “Servant of the People” shared his impressions verbatim in a conversation with the “Commander-in-Chief” when he learned about the searches of fellow party member Krupa.
But it seems that this resonant story has now become a test for the law enforcement system. Investigators and judges were not ready to make quick procedural decisions. Below are the details of the most resonant corruption case of 2024.
Forensic magic
On October 7, the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv took Tatyana Krupa into custody for 60 days (until December 3) with the possibility of posting bail in the amount of more than UAH 500 million. The case was considered behind closed doors, without media access. Only the prosecutor and lawyer from the Golaw law firm Anzhelika Moiseeva were present.
An important note about suspicion itself. The next day after the searches, October 5, the Office of the Prosecutor General announced suspicion of Tatyana Krupa for illegal enrichment (Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code). This corruption crime, according to the law, must be investigated by NABU detectives and, accordingly, all petitions must be sent to the High Anti-Corruption Court. However, the prosecutor's office was in no hurry to take the high-profile case out of the hands of the State Bureau of Investigation. That is why the request of the SBI investigator to arrest the head of the MSEC of the Khmelnytsky region went to the Pechersky District Court, and not to the Anti-Corruption Court. As a result, Themis completely satisfied him and arrested the official Krupa.
According to Glavkom sources, the case of Tatyana Krupa “migrated” from the State Bureau of Investigation to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, that is, there was a change in jurisdiction after the head of the MSEC of the Khmelnytsky region was taken into custody. As of early November, the official remains in the capital's pre-trial detention center.
It is likely that the leapfrog with the change in investigative jurisdiction has driven the defense and the courts into time trouble. For how else to explain the appeal against Krupa’s arrest in two appellate instances at once? On October 14, a complaint from the suspect’s defenders was received by the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, and on October 15, a similar complaint from lawyer Anzhelika Moiseeva was registered by the Kiev Court of Appeal.
On October 17, Anzhelika Moiseeva justified herself before the judges of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court: she appealed the arrest of her client in the Kiev Court of Appeal according to the logic that the petition for arrest was considered by the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv.
“At that time, my client was detained... and the issue of deciding her future fate for me, as a defense lawyer, was more important than arguing about jurisdiction,” the lawyer explained.
Another embarrassment in the Krupa case occurred on October 24. The judges of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court intended to consider the complaint of the suspect's lawyers at the second attempt, but the Kiev Court of Appeal did not transfer the case materials. Moreover, the local panel of judges... went on vacation and postponed its hearing on the Krupa case until November 14.
“I will try to apply for the redistribution of judges... I will do everything possible, I will even go to an appointment with the chairman of the court of appeal,” said Anzhelika Moiseeva in the anti-corruption courtroom.
We are forced to disappoint Krupa’s defender: the chairman of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, Yaroslav Golovachev, in response to a request from the “Glavkom”, said that his court does not plan to transfer the case materials to other authorities until it completes the consideration.
“After the end of the appeal proceedings, the materials of case 757/45632/24-k will be returned to the court of first instance - the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv,” said the chairman of the appeal court.
The public organization “Anti-Corruption Center” believes that in this way the Kiev Court of Appeal is blocking the consideration by the High Anti-Corruption Court of the appeal to review the preventive measure for the head of MSEC.
“The question arises as to what the judges of the Kyiv Court of Appeal were doing so important, canceling the only court hearing from October 17 and knowing that from October 19 and 21 they were going on vacation/business trips. Isn’t this a deliberate delay in the case on the part of judges Vyacheslav Gul and Yulia Matvienko?” - the anti-corruption organization said in a statement.
Failed property seizures
In addition to the setback in the courts, a streak of failures also haunts the law enforcement officers involved in the case of the head of the MSEC of the Khmelnytsky region. As Glavkom reported, the Vinnitsa City Court refused to seize property that constitutes material evidence from the Office of the Prosecutor General. We are talking about a pile of cash seized from the bedside tables in Tatiana Krupa's apartment; documents and money from the office of the chairman of the MSEC of the Khmelnytsky region (according to the SBI, $100 thousand was found there); a 2019 Porsche Cayenne worth UAH 2.5 million, which is the property of the suspect’s husband, and the like.
The reason why prosecutors lost in court is trivial. After the searches, the Office of the Prosecutor General took the Krupa case from investigators of the Khmelnitsky territorial department of the State Bureau of Investigation and transferred it to the Main Investigation Department of the State Bureau of Investigation in Kyiv. Accordingly, the Vinnytsia court, which previously considered the petition of the Khmelnytskyi SBI, including regarding the searches in this story, stated: after the change in the jurisdiction of criminal proceedings, it can no longer make decisions in the Krupa case.
***
Almost every day, official releases from law enforcement agencies are replete with photographs of the arrest of yet another corrupt official with carpets of gothic. Therefore, it is quite predictable that part of society may form the impression that dishonest officials receive severe punishment. However, this is not true. During the full-scale invasion, almost seven thousand convictions were made on corruption charges. And only 1.5% of the accused received a prison sentence. Most paid off with fines...
