Good afternoon! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the verdict and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a judge and a lawyer for receiving and aiding in receiving an unlawful benefit.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. In particular, the cassation court noted that the fact of receiving an unlawful benefit was proven by proper and admissible evidence, including the results of covert investigative actions. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the provocation of the crime, since law enforcement agencies only recorded the crime that was already being prepared. Also, the court did not agree with the assertions about the violation of the right to defense, since the convicts had the opportunity to use the legal assistance of lawyers at all stages of the process. The court also noted that the appellate court rightfully took into account the evidence recognized as admissible, even in the absence of an appeal by the prosecutor regarding this.
3. The court decided to uphold the verdict of the High Anti-Corruption Court and the decision of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, and to dismiss the cassation appeals of the defense attorney and the convicts.
: In this case, the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court departed from the previous conclusion stated in the decision of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated January 26, 2024 in case No. 466/9158/14-к, and formulated the conclusion that the court of cassation instance can independently verify the procedural documents relating to the existence of the investigator’s or prosecutor’s authority to perform certain procedural actions if such documents are provided by the prosecution during the cassation review of court decisions by which a person was brought to criminal responsibility for committing the incriminated criminal offense.
