Parliament considers requests from Prosecution to lift immunity from 5 MPs
Prosecutor’s General Office and Special Anticorruption Prosecution Office filed requests to lift immunity from 5 MPs.
During entire week the Parliamentary Committee on the Rules of Procedure was considering these requests, however managed to support only one out of five. The final decision on lifting immunity should be taken by the parliament during its plenary session, which is expected in the upcoming week.
The Speaker of the Parliament has the authority to include all five requests into the agenda of the Rada’s plenary for the next week.
General observation of the committee hearings on this issue is that the committee exceeded its authority and demanded investigators and prosecutors to prove the guilt of MPs in the way it is necessary for the guilty verdict of the court. However, according to the law the Committee should only consider evidences for notification of suspicion and necessity in further investigation against members of the parliament.
Below is detailed information on each of the requests.
Deidei, faction of the People’s Front
The case of illicit enrichment of E. Deidei was investigated by NABU, but decision to request lifting immunity on this stage has been taken by SAPO alone.
The investigation has evidences showing that Deidei has bought two luxury cars and an appartment, which cannot be justified by his official income, and attempted to justify enrichment through fictitious loan of USD 3,5 mln. The investigations possessed results of wiretapping of Mr. Lynchevskiy, who is said to borrow money to Deidei, which prove fictitious nature of the loan. However, Lynchevskiy, who is a member of the People’s Front as well as the head of the Committee Pynzenyk, appeared in the committee and claimed that he had actually borrowed money to Deidei.
The Committee on the Rules of Procedure ruled that request is not motivated and recommended the Speaker to return the document to the PGO for further elaboration.
Dovgiy, faction of the “Volya Narody”
The case of abuse of power by O. Dovgiy while serving as Secretary of Kyiv City Council was investigated by the Prosecutor’s General Office together with SAPO.
According to the PGO, O. Dovgiy intentionally organized violation of the Rules of Procedure of Kyiv City Council to facilitate decision on allocation of land to one company. It is the first case when secretary of local council is being brought to liability for violation of the rules of procedure in the interests of third parties.
The Committee ruled that the request to lift immunity from Dovgiy is lawful, but not motivated enough.
A.Lozovoy, faction of the Radical Party
The case of tax avoidance by A. Lozovoy was investigated by the PGO without either NABU or SAPO.
According to the PGO, Lozovoy failed to pay taxes from UAH 8,7 mln, which is the difference between his official earnings and hard cash and other property he declared.
The Committee ruled that the request to lift immunity from Lozovoy is lawful, but not motivated enough.
M.Poliakov, faction of the People’s Front
The case of bribery regarding Poliakov was investigated by NABU in cooperation with FBI and with undercover agent involved. NABU requested the Parliament both to lift immunity from Poliakov and to give permission for his arrest and detention.
According to the investigation, Poliakov received a bribe of USD 7,5 thousands for advocating amendments to the law. NABU acquired evidence of bribing through wiretaping and undercover filming.
Although respective evidence was presented to the members of the Committee, it ruled that the request is not motivated enough.
Rosenblat, faction of Poroshenko’s Block
The case of bribery regarding Mr. Rosenblat also was investigated by NABU and is closely linked to the case of Poliakov. As in the case of Poliakov, NABU requested the Parliament not only to lift immunity from Poliakov, but also to give permission for his arrest and detention.
As the investigation showed, Rosenblat demanded, received and gave bribes for facilitating illegal amber extraction for foreign company. Specifically, he extorted bribes for amending the legislation to ensure legislative priviledges for a certain company, receiving extraction licences and pressuring competing businesses through law-enforcement bodies. The evidence against Rosenblat includes undercover filming and testimonies of undercover agent.
During the Committe Hearing NABU and SAPO presented video recording of bribes taken by Mr. Rozenblat add here video recording.
The Committee recommended the Parliament to lift immunity from B. Rosenblat and to give permission for his arrest and detention.
The decision to put respective requests regarding MPs for voting in the Parliament depends on the Speaker of the Parliament. It is expected that requests for lifting immunity will be considered in the Parliament on July 12.
In cases of Mr.Poliakov and Mr.Rosenblat, where NABU and SAPO request not only lifting immunity, but also permission for arrest and detention, the Parliament has to take three separate decisions by three separate votings regarding each of respective MPs.
If the Parliament adopts positive decision only on lifting immunity, NABU will be able to notify MPs of suspicion, however, will not be able to arrest and request detention warrant from the court. In this case MPs will have a legal opportunity to leave Ukraine.