In Odessa, Judge of the Suvorovsky District Court Nina Gudina on the last day before by dismissal, made five deliberately unjust decisions in absentia, including the decision to recover UAH 45 million in favor of a relative of Vice Mayor Mykhailo Kuchuk.
The editors of 368.media became aware of this from a statement about the commission of a criminal offense in the State Bureau of Investigation.
The brother of the official, Vyacheslav Kuchuk, went to Svetlana Devyashina's Alstar state of emergency, but did not give her the money for participating in the business. Later, the official and his brother tried to take away the business and blocked the woman's access to the enterprise. In the future, issues were resolved through Judge Gudin. Kuchuk noted in the statement of claim that in 2010 the parties, on the basis of the common shared ownership of individuals, created a private enterprise “Alstar”, while each contributed 50% of the funds to the authorized capital of the enterprise. The company was created to make a profit by carrying out entrepreneurial activities in the field of: wholesale trade in grain, seeds and animal feed, storage, cultivation of cereals, industrial and other crops.
During the implementation of joint economic activities, Devyashina received funds from Kuchuk for the development of the enterprise's activities under the pretext of acquiring grain for a total of $1.85 million, in confirmation of which she made a receipt. Kuchuk did not take an active part in the activities of the enterprise, however, trusting the defendant, he financed the enterprise, counting on its development and profit. After the plaintiff found out that the defendant allegedly spent the amount received for her own needs, he went to court with the said claim and asked for the funds to be returned.
As noted in the statement on the crime, the judge was fired in September 2016 in accordance with his statement. On the day of dismissal, 57 minutes before the end of working hours, the court case was automatically distributed on the claim of Vyacheslav Kuchuk against Svetlana Devyashina for the recovery of $1.85 million, as well as several other civil cases.
Before the end of working hours, that is, after 57 minutes, he decided to open proceedings and schedule a court session for October 14, 2016, summon the parties to the court session, send the defendant a copy of the ruling, a copy of the statement of claim with documents attached to it, the need to provide your objection or counterclaim. She also decided to secure the claim by arresting the corporate rights of PE Alstar belonging to Devyashina. Subsequently, the judge satisfied Kuchuk's claims in absentia by recovering UAH 45.6 million in favor of the plaintiff. Such actions in court, according to Yershov, testify to the commission of a criminal offense under Art. 375 UK
In particular, the defendant was deliberately deprived of the right to defense, since all procedural actions were performed by the judge either within 57 minutes on the day of dismissal, which turns out to be impossible due to all factual circumstances, or between September 22 and October 6 after receiving an unlawful benefit from the plaintiff by issuing rulings and an absentee decision by an already dismissed judge without authority. The complaint emphasizes that Gudina was not examined at an open meeting of the original handwritten text, which the plaintiff considered an IOU. Later, Devyashina returned with a statement to the court office with a statement about the review of the absentee decision in the case, which was transferred to judge Ivan Shepitko for consideration.
The judge noted that, as seen from the case file, the defendant was not properly notified of the consideration of the case and the decision in absentia was indeed made without notifying him. At the same time, in the text of the ruling, contrary to the foregoing, the judge indicated that the defendant pointed to the initiation during the consideration of the case, the incorrect assessment of the provided receipt of receipt of funds, the need to interrogate witnesses, the involvement of third parties, the involvement of the proper defendant, and noted the groundlessness of the stated requirements, which, in her opinion The defendant is the basis for the annulment of the default decision.
Gudina's decision in absentia was canceled by the Court of Appeal of the Odessa Region, which decided to refuse to satisfy the claims in full. The court of appeal clearly stated that the materials of the civil case did not contain evidence of Devyashina's receipt of $1.85 million from Kuchuk, therefore, the court of first instance came to the erroneous conclusion that there were legal grounds for satisfying the claim. The complaint states that judge Ivan Shepitko tried to put pressure on the higher court by filing an application to return the case for consideration to the Suvorov District Court. Recall that in 2019 the judge was fired for numerous violations by the decision of the Supreme Court.
It is worth noting that Vyacheslav Kuchuk is the brother of the vice-mayor of Odessa. In his declaration for 2020, Kuchuk indicated information about monetary assets in the amount of UAH 39.4 million, as well as property in Ukraine and abroad in the amount of UAH 39.7 million, his corporate rights and his wife’s in the amount of UAH 6.8 million. On the contrary, according to the tax service, the income of the vice-mayor from 1998 to 2020 and his spouse from 2002 to 2020 is only 4.1 and 5.4 million hryvnias, respectively. It is also unknown about the origin of the $1.85 million that Kuchuk allegedly lent to his business partner. At the same time, the NAPC did not find manifestations of corruption in Kuchuk's declaration.
The declaration was checked for 175 calendar days with a standard period of 120. Although the received document can hardly be called the result of a detailed check. The Kuchuk family in the Czech Republic has two apartments (85.9 and 119 sq. m), a household (616 sq. m) and a non-residential building (449 sq. m), and in Greece – a house (160 sq. m). For verification, Kuchuk provided extracts from the registers of the Czech Republic, which are not duly certified by the authorized bodies of this country. At the same time, no responses were received from the Czech authorities to the letters sent to them by NAPC officials. And no requests were sent to Greece.
It was also interesting to check the company GERYNA sro, where Kuchuk was the director. It was to her that the family lent 18.2 million Czech crowns. The Vice Mayor said that he held the position of director of his own firm on a pro bono basis. The Ministry of Finance of the Republic also did not provide a response to the request of the NAPC by the time of the check.
Further, NACP officials calculated that Kuchuk indicated information about monetary assets in the amount of UAH 39.4 million, as well as property in Ukraine and abroad for UAH 39.7 million, corporate rights of his and his wife in the amount of UAH 6.8 million. On the contrary, according to the tax service, the income of the vice-mayor from 1998 to 2020 and his spouse from 2002 to 2020 is only 4.1 and 5.4 million hryvnias, respectively. However, Mikhail Kuchuk himself did not use the right to provide explanations and documents on the origin of the family's income, which would ensure the receipt of these assets.
Information on income received abroad is not available in the state registers of Ukraine. Kuchuk also did not provide information on the cost of jewelry in the declaration. They declared their Breguet watches, Vacheron Constantin and the watches of Hysek's wife, Ulysse Nardin, as well as her jewelry.
After all the inconsistencies identified, the agency reported that they did not find any signs of administrative or criminal offense. An authorized officer of the NAPC must take measures to ensure that Kuchuk submits a declaration with reliable information. The NAPC then added that if new information about the real estate of Kuchuk and his family is received, this may become the basis for a re-verification.
Eduard Gurvits: the bloody mayor-destroyer of Odessa. PART 2
Ruslan Bodelan: what did the former owner of Odessa not repent of? PART 2