Ex-Minister Solskyi's case: lawyers get permission to seize NABU materials

The Supreme Anti-Corruption Court has allowed lawyers in the case of former Agrarian Policy Minister Mykola Solsky to seize NABU materials, UNN reports , citing the court registry .

The basis for this decision was the information that the NABU has materials from another criminal case, which previously investigated the circumstances that the NABU is now charging the former minister with.

The evidence collected in that case established the absence of corpus delicti, and therefore such data is important for establishing the truth in the NABU case and confirming the innocence of the former minister.

Recall

NABU opened a criminal case against ATO soldiers who, according to detectives, illegally exercised their right to privatize land in Sumy region. The detectives accuse former Minister Solsky of aiding the military. The NABU believes that these lands were used by state-owned enterprises of the National Agrarian Academy (Nadiya and Iskra), and therefore the ATO members allegedly could not privatize them.

However, the decision of the Supreme Court, which refuted the connection of these lands with the National Academy of Sciences, is in favor of the ATO.

Also, the absence of rights to the land of the National Academy of Sciences was confirmed by a scientific and legal opinion conducted as part of the investigation of this case. By examining the chronology of landowners since the 1950s, the experts concluded that the land could not have been transferred to the NAAS.

Another forensic examination was ordered by NABU detectives, but when it was almost ready, detectives decided to refuse it and tried to cancel it through the court. This may indicate that this examination also showed the absence of a crime and the innocence of the former minister and the ATO soldiers.

In addition, the lawyers in Solskyi's case complained to the High Anti-Corruption Court about violation of the presumption of innocence by NABU and SAPO, which categorically claim that their clients committed a crime at the stage of pre-trial investigation, when such crimes have not yet been proven.