{"id":13541,"date":"2025-11-27T09:25:09","date_gmt":"2025-11-27T07:25:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/11\/case-no-761-9536-23-dated-november-19-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-11-27T09:25:09","modified_gmt":"2025-11-27T07:25:09","slug":"case-no-761-9536-23-dated-november-19-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/11\/case-no-761-9536-23-dated-november-19-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 761\/9536\/23 dated November 19, 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the charges against the SBI employees for inciting bribery and abuse of influence.
\n2. The court, having examined the circumstances of the case, concluded that the actions imputed to the accused were provoked by a person who cooperated with law enforcement agencies. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of elements of the crime of inciting bribery in the actions of the accused. Regarding abuse of influence, the court acknowledged that the event took place, but was also the result of provocation. In addition, the court noted that the indictment was drawn up and submitted to the court outside the term of the pre-trial investigation, which is an independent ground for closing the criminal proceedings, but the court decided to consider the case on its merits.
\n3. The court decided to acquit the SBI employees on all charges.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the charges against the SBI employees for inciting bribery and abuse of influence. 2. The court, having examined the circumstances of the case, concluded that the actions imputed to the accused were provoked by a person who cooperated with law enforcement agencies. The court emphasized…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13541","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13541","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}