Brother of Oleksiy Lobodin, Who Died During NABU Search, "Bureau Employees Have Just Let Him Die"

In 2017, during a NABU search in one of Kharkiv's office buildings, a shocking incident occurred: Serhiy Lobodin, the brother of Kharkiv businessman Oleksiy Lobodin, died during the investigation. The businessman himself says that the NABU officers had all the necessary capabilities and skills to save his brother, but they did not even render him first medical aid. He states that during these seven years, no one from the NABU has been punished. It seems that the perpetrators were not even sought. At the same time, two months ago, the businessman's lawyer appealed to the NABU Civil Oversight Council concerning numerous problems in the Bureau functioning. In an interview with The Ukrainski Novyny, Oleksii Lobodin and his lawyer, Bohdan Ustymenko, explained the details of the case and why the investigation is not looking for the perpetrators.

Can you tell us about this case and whether the perpetrators were found?

Alexey Lobodin: It was November 2017. Unfortunately, at that time I was at home after surgery. I have been still with open wound actually, going through the postoperative period. My Company was located on the 3rd floor in Kharkiv in the Poltavsky Shlyakh Street. It is an office building. On that tragic day, I received a call from the office staff and was told that some strangers had knocked on the door of the Company office. Later, as I was told, the visitors appeared to be the NABU officers, but in uniforms without insignia. The special forces with the NABU detectives have broken down the door to conduct a search, and at that time, my brother, who was in the same room, had a heart attack.

How old was your brother?

He was 51. He was an international master of sports in shooting. He was morally and emotionally stable. My brother has been working for 20 years at the Skochynskyi Coal Mine. If you remember, when the mine had an accident in 2009, he was the Deputy Director for Safety and, together with the rescuers, went down into the mine and pulled people to the surface. My brother was a real hero.

The pathologist who performed the autopsy concluded that my brother died of acute heart failure. That is, it wasn't a blood clot, it was heart failure associated with an emotional background. The expert clearly said so. And if the NABU employees had responded in a timely manner, gave him first aid, and they had the ability and skills to do so, my brother would have been still alive. I emphasize once again that if the NABU employees had taken an adequate measure to resuscitation in that situation or if they had called an ambulance in time, my brother would have been alive. In such situations, the NABU employees, as law enforcement officers, not only can but must give first aid. Moreover, they themselves created the emotional situation that led to such a critical state, and who, if not them, should have saved my brother at the initial stage? They just let him die.

Do you know how the search took place?

Oleksiy Lobodin: As far as I know from the company's staff, the NABU officers have broken down the door and then read out the search warrant. And when my brother had a heart attack and fainted, they surrounded him and just stood there watching. Please note that at that critical moment for my brother's health, the NABU officers did not allow anyone to approach him. Only 7-8 minutes later, a security guard from the office was allowed to try to help my brother. But the critical time had already been lost. In 10 minutes, an ambulance arrived and pronounced him dead. Half an hour later, I arrived there myself. When I entered the office, I saw my brother already dead.

Is there any CCTV footage of these events?

Oleksiy Lobodin: The NABU officers have seized everything without any explanation or documents. In addition, during the searches, they illegally seized the server and did not even include this property in the seizure report. This is nonsense and lawlessness.

In your opinion, how should the NABU have acted in this situation?

Oleksiy Lobodin: There is a clear instruction for law enforcement agencies to act in such cases, where it is clearly stated that human life is the top priority, and it does not matter whether it is a witness or a defendant. Human life is of the highest value, and law enforcement officers are obliged to follow the instruction to the fullest extent possible in such situations, and they have violated it. In this particular situation, as in any similar one, they should have given first aid to the person before the ambulance arrived. I won't reveal a big secret, but when being selected for special forces, including the NABU, candidates take first medical aid training courses and are required to be able to give first aid. Moreover, they know how to do it and can do it. From the very beginning, when my brother became sick, they were supposed to give first aid and then return to their other work. But, as we know, they did not do this.

Did you contact the NABU and other law enforcement agencies after this incident?

Alexey Lobodin: We filed a statement of a crime with the prosecutor's office. A case was opened concerning my brother's death. The State Bureau of Investigation was instructed to investigate the case, but as I understand it today, it has simply been ‘gone down’.

Bohdan Ustymenko: This situation clearly proves that the detectives have virtually no control and no tools to deter them from illegal and arbitrary actions and that the established bodies to control the activities of the NABU are, sorry, a sham in fact. They not only fail to exercise public control over the Bureau's activities, but they are also not even able to respond to appeals, knowing that they cannot just prove their own helplessness. By the way, has anyone ever heard of an investigation by the Internal Control Department or the State Bureau of Investigation that resulted in a detective being brought to justice? Personally, I have not. Maybe, for the 9 years of NABU's existence, no one in the bureau has committed a single crime?

Why do you think this case was not brought to a logical conclusion?

Bohdan Ustymenko: As far as I understand, the case was ‘gone down’ at the very top level, because you understand that the case itself is unprecedented and the man was actually allowed to die. My client has already said that the deceased was a bright man who saved people himself. This fact cannot be concealed and should be discussed publicly.

You have appealed to the NABU Civil Oversight Council about this situation. What did they say to you?

Bohdan Ustymenko: As of today, I have received absolutely nothing. Of course, such issues should be dealt with, among other things, by the NABU Civil Oversight Council. But how can this Council control the NABU if most of its members are far from legal issues, criminal justice, and state-building? These issues should have been assessed during the annual independent external audit, which is legally mandatory but has never been conducted for reasons that are unclear to the public. I emphasize once again: the NABU must be audited annually.

Could this tragedy have been prevented during the search?

Bohdan Ustymenko: I am sure it could have been. On the one hand, we see the NABU conducting searches very intensively and sometimes brazenly, actively detaining people under not always objective circumstances, and when a person is dying and his heart is about to stop, they just stand there silently and watch. If the NABU is about protecting citizens and the state, then where is the respect for human rights and the contribution of law enforcement officers to the development of the rule of law? A person dies in front of the detectives, and they don't care. What are we fighting for in the end? We all know how much advertising there has been about the NABU, that they are so professional, that they are highly decent and highly qualified, that they always follow the law. And here we see the opposite and a concrete situation that anyone can appreciate. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that there are absolutely incompetent NABU detectives. In addition, their moral qualities do not correspond to their positions. They did not do the most important thing - they did not give first aid, and moreover, they deliberately did not allow anyone to help in a timely manner. That is, this gives us good reason to believe that Serhiy Lobodin died through the fault of the NABU detectives. Their actions should have been assessed by the competent authorities - either the State Bureau of Investigation or the NABU's Internal Control Unit - in accordance with the law.

What do you think needs to be changed to prevent from happening such accidents again?

Bohdan Ustymenko: Firstly, it is necessary to stop the practice of unreasonable searches and conduct them only as an exceptional measure, to stop bravura videos on YouTube (it seems that searches are conducted only for the media and self-promotion), to evaluate the activities of detectives based on the actual results of the investigation (sentences handed down by the courts). Today, the NABU is flashing several very vivid YouTube videos about the detention of ‘criminal organizations’, numerous searches, etc. Do they realize what the real consequences are for the reputation of citizens and businesses? Yes, it is necessary to fight crimes and corruption, but this should be done exclusively within the framework of the law, in a balanced manner and in such a way that the side effects, which are mostly prevalent, do not affect the interests of businesses and citizens. It is necessary to develop a mechanism for assessing the performance of detectives (prosecutors), perhaps something like penalty points for drivers in the European countries, as well as a real mechanism for bringing them to justice, up to and including dismissal for human rights violations. Now, in the NABU context, we have a situation where impunity has given rise to permissiveness, and this Kharkiv tragedy is a vivid example of this. And as long as such arbitrary actions of the NABU are carried out, such hurtful incidents will unfortunately continue to occur.

I would add that the algorithm of the NABU's actions in economic criminal cases is usually as follows. Detectives criminalize ordinary business relations and register "factual" criminal proceedings, after which they show the public vivid videos with an artificially exciting plot and ‘designate’ certain individuals as criminals. The result is a long, exhausting investigation that destroys people's lives, ruins businesses, and, as a result, harms the state. Often, the NABU detectives do not even bother to properly prove the versions they have invented, but simply ‘squeeze’ plea agreements out of citizens who find themselves in the grindstone of this law enforcement agency.

Just concluding, I would like to highlight that it is necessary to conduct an objective audit of the NABU this year and begin to immediately correct the deformations in the activities of this law enforcement agency. Otherwise, such destructive activities of the anti-corruption system will not contribute to the protection of society or the development of the rule of law.

To request a correction, please send an email.