Court to consider UAH 5 billion case: what is known about the “misdirection” scheme at Ibox Bank
26 March 11:42
The investigation into the illegal gambling money laundering scheme allegedly organized by Ibox Bank co-owner Aliona Shevtsova and her accomplices is now complete. The relevant materials will be sent to the court after the defense has familiarized itself with them. This was reported by the press service of the Bureau of Economic Security, Komersant ukrainskyi reports.
According to the investigation, the offenders used the so-called “misdirection” – changing the purpose of payments to circumvent financial monitoring. The scheme involved more than 20 controlled companies that opened accounts with Ibox Bank. Players of illegal online casinos transferred funds to the details of these companies, indicating in the payments that they were paying for non-existent goods and services. Thus, according to preliminary estimates, about UAH 5 billion was laundered.
The investigation was conducted under two articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: Art. 203-2 “Illegal activities in organizing or conducting gambling, lotteries” and Art. 209 “Legalization (laundering) of the proceeds of crime”. In addition, the National Bank of Ukraine revoked Ayboks Bank’s license in connection with the violations.
Due to the fact that the suspects are hiding abroad and are on the international wanted list, the court authorized a special pre-trial investigation. It has been completed, and after the defendants have familiarized themselves with the materials, the case will be submitted to the court.
The court changed its previous decision
on December 5, 2024, the cassation instance of the Supreme Court seemed to have put an end to the criminal case against the bank. In particular, the court refused to open the proceedings, confirming the previous decisions of the appellate court.
“…to refuse to open proceedings on the appeals of the prosecutor of the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office PERSON_3 and the prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office PERSON_4 against the decision of the investigating judge of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv of November 05, 2024,” the decisions of the courts of both instances read.
In this way, the courts canceled the BES’s attempts to resume criminal prosecution of Ibox Bank, but the Bureau was able to resume it through another court.
“The Lychakiv District Court of Lviv issued a ruling and authorized a special pre-trial investigation. It has now been completed, and after the defense has familiarized itself with the pre-trial investigation materials, the criminal proceedings will be sent to court,”
– the BES reports.
Читайте нас у Telegram: головні новини коротко
The position of the defense
The defendant’s defense believes that even the acceptance of the BES’s petition for consideration by the court grossly violated Ukrainian law.
“After all, the deadline for pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings against the owner of Ibox bank has been exceeded by 3 months, which is unacceptable in cases of this category,”
– the bank’s lawyers argue.
The defense also emphasizes that the reopening of the case against the bank’s management was accompanied by numerous violations of the criminal procedure.
“The prosecution is pursuing its own interests that are not related to a legitimate investigation aimed at identifying the real criminals,”
– comments the defense.
BES’s position
In turn, the BES claims that the rulings referred to by the defense relate to the refusal to open proceedings on their appeal and cassation appeals by the prosecutor of the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office and the prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office. At the same time, none of the documents mentions the alleged illegality of the actions of the detectives of the Bureau of Economic Security.
According to the detectives, it is the lawyers of the bank owner who are delaying the investigation in every possible way to delay the prosecution of the suspect, who is currently hiding abroad. In addition, pressure is systematically exerted on both the pre-trial investigation body and representatives of the judiciary.
The Bureau emphasizes that the pre-trial investigation in the case “is carried out in compliance with professional ethics and applicable law.”
