The High Anti-Corruption Court sentenced Lviv Judge Kril to eight years in prison for bribery
The High Anti-Corruption Court found Luka Kril, a judge of the Turka District Court in Lviv Oblast, guilty of accepting an unlawful benefit and sentenced him to eight years in prison.
In addition to the main sentence, the court barred Kril from holding certain positions for three years after serving his prison term. The verdict may be appealed within 30 days.
According to the investigation, in December 2018, the judge was detained by SBU officers and SAPO prosecutors while receiving the second installment of a bribe amounting to 400 euros. In total, he demanded 1,000 euros from a local resident in exchange for not bringing criminal charges against him for driving under the influence of alcohol. The transfer of funds was recorded inside the courthouse.
In February 2019, the High Council of Justice temporarily suspended Kryl from judicial duties due to criminal charges against him.
The investigation also established that in 2020, the judge received another bribe of $500 in exchange for a promise not to prosecute a businessman.
Source: Anti-Corruption Action Center.
The High Council of Justice is also considering a disciplinary complaint filed on behalf of Alona Volodymyrivna Shevtsova against Judge Volodymyr Yaroslavovych Marmash of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv, who committed gross violations bordering on disciplinary and criminal liability, in particular, during the consideration of a motion by BEB detectives to conduct a special pretrial investigation regarding A.V. Shevtsova.
According to the response from Lilia Yakimyak, Deputy Head of the Secretariat Department of the High Council of Justice, to a corresponding journalistic inquiry, no specific timeline has been provided for the completion of the review of the disciplinary complaint against Volodymyr Yaroslavovych Marmash, a judge of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv. Such a prolonged delay in reviewing the complaint may be a demonstration of collusion and a reluctance to hold accountable a “compliant” judge who willingly carries out tasks assigned by unethical law enforcement officials.
The complaint against Marmash is that he issued his ruling after the deadline for the pretrial investigation had already 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.
