As previously reported “Apostrophe”, On December 14, the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine extended the stay of ex-People’s Deputy Maxim Mykytas in custody until February 12, 2023 and left the condition on bail of UAH 100 million unchanged. The trial in the case of Mikitas continues. The defendant’s lawyer Artur Gabrielyan told new details.
Recall that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) announced that on October 18, 2022, they exposed the owner of Ukrbud Maxim Mykytas, who allegedly tried to bribe Dnipro Mayor Boris Filatov, offering him one of the most record sums for the entire history of independent Ukraine.
As the lawyer of the accused Artur Gabrielyan noted during the meeting of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on December 12, 2022, the “conception” of the record bribe case was far from sinless:
“It follows from the materials of the case that on September 5, 2022 at 14:30 NABU senior detective Stanislav Braverman “accepted an oral statement” from Boris Filatov, and this happened in Dnipro. Of course, it would be logical to ask what detective Braverman was doing in Dnipro, because there is no NABU branch there, but we will not. Perhaps there was extra-procedural communication with the detective, which was later not reflected in the case documents in any way.
But, as the lawyer says, something else is interesting here – how Braverman managed to register the crime at 16:15 at NABU in Kyiv and receive an order to conduct a pre-trial investigation there in the capital, and then return to Dnipro and from 16:25 to 16:58 conduct interrogation of Filatov in the business center “Amsterdam”.
“If we assume that detective Braverman did not leave the city of Dnipro with the original protocol, then there is a violation of the procedure, says Gabrielyan, If we add a few details to this, then an interesting picture emerges. For example, according to the decision and.about. deputy head of the main detective unit – head of the Second NABU detective unit Nestertsov, on September 5, a group of investigators was appointed with the group leader Braverman. But the head of the NABU GPA, Kaluzhinskiy, instructed Nestertsov to organize for a decision in accordance with Art. 214 Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine only on 6 September.
Or another “for example”. As follows from Filatov’s testimony, Mikitas got in touch with him on August 19 on the topic Dnieper metro. It is noted in the case documents that Mikitas wrote to Filatov on August 25 and 26 with a request “to get an appointment with you – to present his achievements.” That is, when Filatov wrote on his FB “It’s just that when I was offered a bribe, I first goggled my eyes at such impudence, and then stomped into NABU,” he kept silent about what had delayed him on the way (recall, Filatov filed an application only September 5). As he kept silent, that no one really offered him anything“.
“As I understand, that at a different friend Mikitas M.V. wine proponuє give me to the wine city. To Yaku himself a wine-grower – plan to hang out at the onset of the harvest. Details of my winery Mikitas M.V. without telling you, so like I didn’t give you food”
This is what is written in the protocol of Filatov’s interrogation by detective Braverman on September 5, follows from the video recording of the meeting of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on December 12, 2022.
“Submitting an oral statement about the crime, Filatov affirmatively stated that Mikitas was offering him an unlawful benefit. In the testimony, he already indicates that “as I understand it.” Filatov also provided a recording of this telephone conversation to the detectives before filing an application and the corresponding correspondence with Mikitas during 08/19/22-08/27/22. Meanwhile, in this note and correspondence there is no hint that Mikitas is going to offer a bribe. Under such circumstances, the detectives had no reason to register this crime and obtain permission to conduct covert investigative actions,” explains Artur Gabrielyan, Mikitas’ lawyer. Actually, as Gabrielyan emphasizes, that is why NABU did not detain Mikitas that day: “And all the subsequent actions of the detectives and Filatov were aimed at provoking Mikitas to offer illegal benefits“.
As follows from the materials of the case, for the first time the conversation about the notorious 10%, presented with a “record amount”, took place only on October 4, and they were mentioned on a completely different occasion. “Mikitas did not succumb to a number of provocations and offered to ensure full control over the construction of the subway by city structures, and at the same time earn 10% for the local budget, and not personally for the mayor, no matter how much Filatov would like to present this to the public“, – says the lawyer.
Nikolay Tkachuk
DOSSIER: Maxim Mikitas: family secrets of a billion-dollar tender. PART 1