The name of ex-head of the VAB bank’s Board, Denys Maltsev, is mentioned in the same case targeting former owner of the bank, Oleg Bakhmatyuk, and the prosecutor’s office filed identical motions with the HQCJ on selecting a measure of restraint.
On June 24, 2020, an HQCJ investigating judge overruled the prosecutors’ motion to select a measure of restraint in the form of custody remand against former head of the VAB bank Board, Denys Maltsev. Thus, the first instance of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine adopted a decision that is completely opposite to the recent one by the HQCJ Appeals Chamber on selecting a measure of restraint against Oleg Bakhmatyuk, a shareholder of Ukrlandfarming Group of Companies, former VAB bank owner.
The news on the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine to turn down the measure of restraint was reported on the website
of Oleg Bakhmatyuk’s Ukrlandfarming. It should be recalled that the name of ex-head of the VAB bank’s Board, Denys Maltsev, is mentioned in the same case targeting former owner of the bank, Oleg Bakhmatyuk, and the prosecutor’s office filed identical motions with the HQCJ on selecting a measure of restraint.
“I consider the decision in my regard objective because there were no legal grounds for custody remand in absentia – I am not on the international wanted list and neither am I hiding from the investigation. Meanwhile, the previous decision regarding the bank’s shareholder Oleg Bakhmatyuk testifies to one thing: there are judges who are guided by law, and there are, unfortunately, judges who make decisions based on the interests of certain individuals,” former head of the board of VAB bank Denys Maltsev said, commenting on the court judgment.
Earlier, bank’s shareholder Oleg Bakhmatyuk stated the following: “Artem Sytnyk, as per my information, personally came to HQCJ and, de facto, intervened in the process. Direct evidence of this is that in identical cases heard by the same HQCJ Appeals Chamber, for example, in the Klymenko case and in the Klyuyev case, they took the exact opposite decision and refused to apply a measure of restraint in the form of custody remand.” “Today’s decision regarding Denys Maltsev is another confirmation of my words about the bias and prejudice of some participants in the process. This absurdity, the reason for which is personal revenge of NABU Director Artem Sytnyk, must finally stop,” – Oleg Bakhmatyuk said today.
As reported earlier, on June 5, 2020, the Pechersk District Court in Kyiv ruled to overturn what it said was an illegal decision by Vitaliy Kasko, former deputy of prosecutor general Riaboshapka, to resume the criminal case against Oleg Bakhmatyuk. This is about a decision to resume the criminal case on refinancing the VAB bank, which has already been investigated before being closed by a court ruling due to the lack of corpus delicti.