The Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv has begun hearing an appeal against the decision by Andrii Shevchenko, an investigator with the State Bureau of Investigations, to close the criminal case.
The criminal proceedings under Part 2 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (official forgery) were initiated by a complaint filed on behalf of our client, Dmytro Ryumshyn.
The subject of the investigation is a letter from the State Security Service’s Department for Combating Corruption, allegedly dated September 19, 2024. One of the clear pieces of evidence that this letter is a forgery is that it includes the surnames of military personnel who, at the time the letter was created, had not yet been mobilized into the Armed Forces of Ukraine and were only drafted in October 2024.
The State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) is using this document as key evidence in the prosecution of Mr. Ryumshin in a case which is currently pending before a judge in Oleksandrivka, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, and in which he is charged with intentionally including individuals subject to reservations on the lists for study abroad in France.
To prove the elements of the crime, the prosecution must confirm that Mr. Ryumshin was aware of such reservations. It is precisely to artificially confirm this awareness that the aforementioned letter is being used.
In closing the case regarding the forgery of this letter, the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) investigator argued that this document is allegedly not official within the meaning of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and does not create any legal consequences whatsoever.
In reality, if a document can be used (and is actually used by law enforcement agencies) as evidence or a basis for legal action, it automatically acquires the status of an official document.
The double standards and manipulation by the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) are evident here. In criminal proceedings where it suits the DBR, they use this letter as key evidence for the prosecution. But as soon as things started to “smell fishy” in the case regarding the forgery of this very same letter, the SBI investigator immediately changed his position and claimed that the document is not official but is merely “advisory in nature.”
Evidence indicating that this letter was fabricated and created “retroactively” at the request of the SBI itself or the head of the SBI’s Internal Control Department, Radchenko, includes, among other things, the fact that in the DVKR’s outgoing correspondence log dated September 19, 2024, (Incidentally, as pointed out by the investigator himself), a document with a completely different title is registered under No. 2690: “Access Control for Vehicle A5001 During a Business Trip Abroad.” The title of the entry bears no relation to the content of the “warning” letter.
Despite this, the State Bureau of Investigation’s inquiry demonstrated complete bias. The investigator limited himself to questioning only four employees of the SBU’s Department of Internal Control—who are, in fact, potential suspects in this forgery—and to a formal request for the logbook.
At the same time, key motions by the defense were completely ignored. Dmytro Ryumshyn himself was not questioned; no forensic handwriting analysis was ordered; and no examination of the document’s age was conducted, which would have objectively confirmed the actual time of its creation and registration. The investigator and prosecutor who used the forged document were not questioned, nor were they asked under what circumstances they used this letter.
Furthermore, Mr. Ryumshin has still not been recognized as a victim, despite the fact that the court had previously overturned a similar refusal by the investigator. By refusing to recognize him as a victim—allegedly due to the absence of damages caused to Dmytro—the investigation is restricting the procedural rights of both Ryumshin himself and his representatives.
The point is that victim status grants a person a much broader range of rights and powers as a participant in the proceedings (in particular, the right to file motions, submit evidence, participate directly in investigative actions, and fully challenge the investigator’s decisions), whereas the role of an ordinary complainant is purely formal and limited.
The next court hearing is scheduled for July 13.
Author: Barristers
Source: Barristers Facebook