Lawyers notice NACB manipulation of evidence in Dubnevych’s case – media

A detective of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NACB) used the protocols of the same review in two different criminal cases, but with different data. The revealed official forgery could cost him his career, as the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) have opened criminal proceedings.

The Femida online publication has informed about this, the Ukrainian News agency reports.

According to media reports, as part of the criminal proceedings against Member of Parliament Yaroslav Dubnevych, who is accused of misappropriation of property and money laundering, a detective of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau Markiyan Slonevskyi filed a motion to seize the property of a Ukrainian enterprise with the aim of its further transfer to the management of then National Agency of Ukraine for Finding, Tracing and Management of Assets Derived from Corruption and Other Crimes (Asset Recovery and Management Agency; ARMA). To argue his position, he attached a copy of the protocol of the review of statements of funds movement in the accounts of several companies, which was conducted in 2023. Later, another copy of the protocol of the same investigative action was used by the NACB detective in another criminal case opened in 2024.

For reference: the protocol is a form of recording a procedural action. And according to the CPC, it is drawn up by the person who performs this action during its conduct or immediately after its completion. At the same time, the investigative action also includes the proper packaging of things and documents that are important for verifying the results. Therefore, the protocol must reflect all actions that were carried out or committed without exception. After all, the CPC does not allow for the possibility of resuming or continuing a completed investigative action. For these reasons, substantive corrections or additions are also impossible.

But, as journalists write, the MP’s lawyers noticed that copies of the same document differ significantly. "Firstly, the volume of the later version of the protocol has doubled – from 99 to 186 pages. Everything was identical up to a certain page of the copies, but in a more recent version, an analysis of extracts regarding real estate, the seizure of which was to be considered by the court, appeared. Secondly, the date and time of the completion of the investigative action did not match significantly,” noted lawyer Oleksandr Plavan in a comment to our publication, who in June last year prepared and submitted a statement to the State Bureau of Investigation on the detective’s commission of criminal offenses.

According to the lawyer, the detective’s actions fell under the signs of at least two crimes: official forgery (Article 366 of the Criminal Code), since there were two different versions of the same document; misleading the court (Article 384 of the Criminal Code), because a document, one of the versions of which was likely forged, was used in court – on its basis the judge made a decision to seize the property.

The submitted statement contained a request to enter these facts into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations and to initiate an investigation into the NACB detective.

The defense attorney told the media why this manipulation of evidence occurred.

Plavan admits that the prosecution may have sought to create in the court an impression of greater persuasiveness of its position, in particular regarding the illegality of financial transactions.

“This was probably supposed to facilitate the transfer of property to the ARMA administration,” the lawyer noted. “But this goes beyond the detective’s official powers and may indicate a personal interest in the results of the investigation.”

However, according to journalists, the SBI ignored the information provided to them, but in the end still complied with the court decision to enter the information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.

In addition, according to media reports, on February 12 of this year, another criminal case was opened on the fact that detective Slonevskyi entered knowingly false information into official documents (Article 366 of the Criminal Code). Another lawyer, Volodymyr Bogatyr, who acted in the interests of LLC Lvivbudmaks-Invest, filed a corresponding application. And in order to move the case forward, they also had to go to court.

As the Ukrainian News agency earlier reported, MP Yaroslav Dubnevych, who was put on the international wanted list by the Ukrainian authorities in the "gas case", is not on Interpol's wanted list.

To request a correction, please send an email.