Monitoring of the case of Igor Ignatov and Dmitry Glazunov (session 28.09.2020)

On September 28, 2020, the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine held an online broadcast of the case in criminal proceedings No. 1 / 991/112/19 on charges of the ex-director of the enterprise SE “Ukrhimtransammiak” Dmitry Glazunov and ex-director of PJSC “Infrastructure of public keys” Igor Ignatov of committing crimes under Part 5 of Art. 191, part 3 of Art. 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely: appropriation, waste of property or taking possession of it by abuse of official position on an especially large scale; legalization (laundering) of property obtained by criminal means on an especially large scale.

Recall that on September 8, 2017, detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau detained three people on suspicion of seizing and legalizing more than 40 million UAH of funds from the state enterprise “Ukrhimtransammiak”.

Course of the session: the court session began with the continuation of the examination of evidence in the case, in particular, documents related to the rights to an invention as an object of intellectual property. The prosecutor began describing a new volume of evidence in the case.

Lawyer T.V. Batyus filed an objection regarding the way of examining evidence in this trial, drawing attention to Art. 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, namely the fact that the examination of evidence in the case must be carried out directly by the court, which, in her opinion, is to determine the meaning of these documents for the case, and not to cite documents, which, according to her, the prosecutor was doing.

Clause 18 of the Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of January 21, 2016 in case No. 5-249×16, the court notes that the immediacy of the examination of evidence means the law’s requirement to the court to investigate all evidence collected in a specific criminal proceeding by interrogating the accused, victims, witnesses, an expert, considering physical evidence, announcement of documents, reproduction of sound recordings, video recordings, and the like. This is the basis of criminal proceedings, which is important for a complete clarification of the circumstances of criminal proceedings and its objective decision. Immediacy of perception of evidence allows the court to properly examine and verify them (both each piece of evidence separately and in conjunction with other evidence), evaluate them according to the criteria defined in part 1 of Article 94 of the CCP, and form a complete and objective picture of the actual circumstances of a particular criminal proceeding.

In addition, information about the phone calls of the accused D.F. Glazunov, which were contained on the disk in electronic form were studied, in order to clarify his connection with the accused I.V. Ignatov.

The defense stated that the fact of establishing a telephone connection between the two accused establishes only the very fact of the existence of this connection, but in no way is proof of their joint criminal activity.

When forming the evidence base, the European Court does not prohibit the use of data obtained in the course of operational-search activities. But the national legislator, according to the ECtHR, must provide in the manner prescribed by law for the procedure for such activities: collecting the necessary information, using such information as evidence, as well as monitoring such activity (“Ramanauskas v. Lithuania”).

The next hearing is scheduled for 10.12.2020 at 2:00 pm. The International Society for Human Rights will continue to monitor this trial.