In Kyiv, a lawyer was detained for promising to resolve an issue with a judge in exchange for $30,000
In the capital, law enforcement officials notified a lawyer that he was under suspicion; according to the investigation, he promised a client that he would influence a judge and secure a ruling in her favor for 30,000 U.S. dollars.
According to the investigation, the woman had turned to the lawyer regarding a case involving the division of joint property with her husband, which has been ongoing since 2022. During their meetings, the lawyer allegedly convinced her that a favorable court ruling would only be possible after the money was transferred.
If successful, the client was to receive ownership of a three-bedroom apartment in Kyiv, as well as compensation for half the value of a car and two unfinished construction projects. At the same time, the lawyer insisted that without transferring the funds before the next court hearing, such an outcome would be impossible to achieve.
Law enforcement officers detained the lawyer immediately after he received the agreed-upon sum.
He is charged with abuse of influence (Part 3 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). At the request of the prosecution, the suspect was placed under nighttime house arrest as a preventive measure.
This was reported by the Office of the Prosecutor General.
As a reminder, former judge Vyacheslav Dzyubin was sentenced to 7 years in prison for bribery.
According to a response to our publication from Lilia Yakimyak, deputy head of the Secretariat of the High Council of Justice, in reply to a journalistic inquiry, no specific timeline has been provided for the completion of the disciplinary complaint against Marmash. Such a prolonged delay in reviewing the complaint may be a demonstration of collusion and a reluctance to hold accountable a “convenient” judge who willingly carries out tasks assigned by unscrupulous law enforcement officials.
The complaint against Marmash is that he issued his ruling after the deadline for the pretrial investigation had expired, thereby making it impossible to grant the relevant motion. The only lawful option in such a situation was to return the motion; however, Judge V.Y. Marmash failed to comply with the requirements of the law.
