Investigator Acquitted in the Case of a 4,000 Hryvnia Bribe Due to Lack of Evidence: The Supreme Court Left the Decision Unchanged

The Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges from the Second Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court, reviewed case No. 692/308/16-k concerning the accusation of a police investigator receiving an unlawful benefit, who was acquitted by the decision of the Cherkasy Court of Appeal.

Case Circumstances

According to the prosecution, the investigator of the district police department in Cherkasy region allegedly demanded money for exemption from criminal liability during the investigation of a criminal proceeding. The prosecution claims that the police officer received 2,000 UAH in his office and later another 2,000 UAH during a subsequent meeting near the police station. The total amount of the unlawful benefit, according to the case materials, was 4,000 UAH, and the officer's actions were qualified under Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The court of first instance concluded and acquitted the accused, citing insufficient evidence of the crime. The appellate court agreed with this decision and left it unchanged.

Disagreeing with these decisions, the prosecution filed a cassation appeal. The cassation appeal was based on the claim that the appellate court reviewed the case with violations. In particular, the prosecutor noted that the panel might have included a judge who had previously participated in this proceeding, which, in his opinion, contradicts the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court Confirmed the Acquittal Verdict

The court also emphasized that the grounds for overturning judicial decisions in cassation are defined by Article 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and are related only to significant violations of procedural law or incorrect application of the criminal liability law. Such violations, as stressed by the Supreme Court, must not be formal but must have actually influenced or could have influenced the outcome of the case.

The Court also drew attention to the requirements for a court decision provided by Article 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. It must be lawful, reasoned, and motivated, i.e., made in compliance with procedural norms, based on comprehensively established circumstances, and with clear motives stated. Regarding appellate review, these requirements are specified by Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which obliges the court to respond to the arguments of the appeal and justify its decision.

The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court's decision complies with the provisions of Article 373 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, according to which a guilty verdict cannot be based on assumptions and is made only if the guilt of the person in committing a criminal offense is proven during the trial.

In this criminal proceeding, the conclusion that the prosecution did not provide proper and admissible evidence that collectively could confirm the presence of the incriminated crime elements in the actions of the acquitted person is based on evidence that was directly examined according to the requirements of Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and was duly evaluated in its entirety.

The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the lack of proven guilt of the accused and the admissibility of the approach to evidence evaluation in the case.

The cassation court supported the position that some prosecution evidence was obtained with significant violations of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular due to the actual conduct of a search of a person under the guise of inspecting the crime scene without proper procedural grounds and judicial control. Such violations reasonably called into question the admissibility of the respective evidence.

The Supreme Court also recognized that the totality of other evidence is insufficient to unequivocally establish all elements of the crime under Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and therefore the conclusion about the lack of proven guilt complies with the requirements of criminal procedural law.

Regarding the arguments about the unlawful composition of the appellate court, the Supreme Court established that the participation of the judge referred to by the prosecutor did not violate the requirements of Part 3 of Article 76 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The prior participation of this judge in another stage of the proceeding, which was not overturned by the cassation court, does not constitute grounds for his disqualification in the new appellate review. Thus, the court composition was recognized as lawful.

The Supreme Court also rejected arguments about the incorrect application of Article 416 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, noting that the appellate court did not exceed its powers or create procedural prohibitions referred to by the prosecutor but acted within the established procedural conditions of the new review.

The Supreme Court concluded that the case materials contain no data on any other violations of criminal procedural requirements or incorrect application of criminal laws that would be unconditional grounds for changing or overturning the contested court decisions, and therefore there are no grounds to satisfy the prosecutor's cassation appeal.

Earlier, the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" reported that the panel of judges of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court, reviewing case No. 754/13191/16-k, concluded that the use of a special coercive measure by a police officer within the powers provided by law does not constitute a crime under Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, even if such actions caused bodily injuries to a person.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.