Cases of corruption must be passed for investigation and trial to other districts
21.05.2000
Nowadays not only executives of state administration go in for corruption; they are joined by tax administration inspectors and control revision inspectors, whose duty is to fight with corruption. This idea was worded by Vasyl Bryntsev, the head of Kharkiv region court. Bryntsev added that they often manage to dodge the punishment thanks to the connections which they have in law-enforcing agencies or thanks to the gaps in our legislation or thanks to investigation officers, who cannot and sometimes do not want to prove the guilt of the corrupted officers. Such cases must be passed to other districts of the region, said judge Bryntsev.
For example, the head of the tax inspection of one of districts of Kharkiv gave out illegal certificates about the mutual settlements to various commercial firms. The case was investigated by the region USS directorate, but the court did not give a verdict. Another example: an auditor of the control revision directorate of Kharkiv region, beside executing her duties, filled in tax questionnaires for pay. There was no verdict either. Still another example: inspector of the tax department of Kyivskiy district administration of Kharkiv sold out patents demanding 3% extra. Again there was no verdict. There are many such cases. In all of them the court declines the case because ‘the case is handed to court later that one month after the offence, as it is stipulated by the law on the fight with corruption’. According the judge Bryntsev, the law must be obeyed fast and precisely.
Our informant
For example, the head of the tax inspection of one of districts of Kharkiv gave out illegal certificates about the mutual settlements to various commercial firms. The case was investigated by the region USS directorate, but the court did not give a verdict. Another example: an auditor of the control revision directorate of Kharkiv region, beside executing her duties, filled in tax questionnaires for pay. There was no verdict either. Still another example: inspector of the tax department of Kyivskiy district administration of Kharkiv sold out patents demanding 3% extra. Again there was no verdict. There are many such cases. In all of them the court declines the case because ‘the case is handed to court later that one month after the offence, as it is stipulated by the law on the fight with corruption’. According the judge Bryntsev, the law must be obeyed fast and precisely.
Our informant