In Odessa, Judge Nina Gudina allegedly aided the vice mayor's brother in recovering $1.85 million unlawfully.
In Odessa, Judge Nina Gudina of the Suvorovsky District Court made five deliberately unjust decisions on the last day before her dismissal, including the recovery of UAH 45 million in favor of a relative of Vice Mayor Mykhailo Kuchuk.
The editors of 368.media learned about this from a statement about the commission of a criminal offense in the State Bureau of Investigation.
The brother of the official, Vyacheslav Kuchuk, went into business with Svetlana Devyashina's Alstar state of emergency, but failed to pay her for her participation. Later, they attempted to take over the business and restricted the woman's access to the enterprise. Judge Gudin resolved these issues. Kuchuk claimed that in 2010, they jointly created a private enterprise called Alstar, contributing 50% of the funds each. The purpose was to profit from wholesale trade in grain, seeds, and animal feed, as well as storage and cultivation of various crops.
During their joint economic activities, Devyashina received $1.85 million from Kuchuk for the enterprise's development under the guise of acquiring grain, for which she provided a receipt. Kuchuk was not actively involved in the business but financed it, hoping for its growth and profits. When he found out that the funds were allegedly used for personal needs, he took legal action to reclaim the money.
According to the statement, the judge was dismissed in September 2016 as per his request. 57 minutes before the end of the workday, the court case was automatically assigned regarding Vyacheslav Kuchuk's claim against Svetlana Devyashina for the recovery of $1.85 million, along with several other civil cases.
Shortly before the end of the workday, 57 minutes later, the judge opted to initiate proceedings and set a court session for October 14, 2016, summoning the parties and sending the defendant the necessary documents. She also decided to freeze the corporate rights of PE Alstar owned by Devyashina. Later, the judge ruled in absentia in favor of Kuchuk, recovering UAH 45.6 million for him. These court actions are considered by Yershov to be a criminal offense under Art. 375 of the UK.
Specifically, the defendant was intentionally deprived of the right to defend herself, as all legal procedures were carried out by the judge either within 57 minutes on the day of dismissal, which seems impossible given the circumstances, or between September 22 and October 6 after receiving an unlawful benefit from the plaintiff by issuing rulings and making an absentee decision as a dismissed judge without authority. The complaint emphasizes that Gudina's examination wasn't conducted during an open meeting of the original handwritten document considered an IOU by the plaintiff. Later, Devyashina filed a statement to the court office requesting a review of the absentee decision, which was then transferred to Judge Ivan Shepitko for consideration.
The judge noted that, as seen from the case file, the defendant was not properly notified of the consideration of the case and the decision in absentia was indeed made without notifying him. At the same time, in the text of the ruling, contrary to the foregoing, the judge indicated that the defendant pointed to the initiation during the consideration of the case, the incorrect assessment of the provided receipt of receipt of funds, the need to interrogate witnesses, the involvement of third parties, the involvement of the proper defendant, and noted the groundlessness of the stated requirements, which, in her opinion The defendant is the basis for the annulment of the default decision.
The Odessa Region Court of Appeal canceled Gudina's decision in absentia, stating that there was no evidence of Devyashina receiving $1.85 million from Kuchuk, so the initial court made a mistake in ruling in favor of the claim. The complaint accuses judge Ivan Shepitko of trying to influence the higher court by requesting to send the case back to the Suvorov District Court. Shepitko had been fired in 2019 for multiple violations by the Supreme Court.
Vyacheslav Kuchuk, the brother of the Odessa vice-mayor, declared monetary assets of UAH 39.4 million and property in Ukraine and abroad worth UAH 39.7 million in 2020. However, the tax service reported the vice-mayor's income from 1998 to 2020 and his spouse's from 2002 to 2020 at only 4.1 and 5.4 million hryvnias, respectively. The origin of the $1.85 million allegedly lent to his business partner remains unknown. The NAPC did not find signs of corruption in Kuchuk's declaration.
Despite a standard checking period of 120 days, the declaration was reviewed for 175 days, but the result is not comprehensive. The family's property in the Czech Republic and Greece were not properly certified, and there were no responses from the Czech authorities regarding the NAPC's inquiries. No requests were made to Greece for verification.
It was interesting to investigate GERYNA sro, a company directed by Kuchuk, to which the family lent 18.2 million Czech crowns. The Vice Mayor claimed to be the director of his own company without compensation. The Ministry of Finance of the Republic had not responded to the NAPC's request by the time of the check.
Additionally, NACP officials found discrepancies in Kuchuk's declaration, but he did not take the opportunity to provide explanations and documents regarding the family's income sources.
Information on income received abroad is not available in the state registers of Ukraine. Kuchuk also did not provide information on the cost of jewelry in the declaration. They declared their Breguet watches, Vacheron Constantin and the watches of Hysek's wife, Ulysse Nardin, as well as her jewelry.
After all the inconsistencies identified, the agency reported that they did not find any signs of administrative or criminal offense. An authorized officer of the NAPC must take measures to ensure that Kuchuk submits a declaration with reliable information. The NAPC then added that if new information about the real estate of Kuchuk and his family is received, this may become the basis for a re-verification.
Skelet.Info
Eduard Gurvits: the bloody mayor-destroyer of Odessa. PART 2
Ruslan Bodelan: what did the former owner of Odessa not repent of? PART 2
