Martynenko said that the case against him was fabricated

Former MP called the criminal case against him PR NABU and SAP.

A former MP from the faction “people’s front” Mykola Martynenko, who Solomenskiy district court of Kyiv elects a measure of restraint, believes that the criminal case against him was fabricated and linked to political ambitions of the leaders of these anti-corruption bodies – the Director of NABU Artem Sytnik, Vice Guizot Uglava and head of SAP nazara Golodnitsky.

“Yesterday came Sakvarelidze (former Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine David Sakvarelidze – if) Plavi co-defendant, who is the head of NABOO, who brought this case, which leads him to put on a show. The show’s not working,” he said.Martynenko during his speech in the Solomensky district court during the hearing of election to it measures of restraint, the press service of the party “people’s front” on Saturday.

According to him, after examining the documents, he came to the conclusion that the investigation and the process against its bias, and the case was “falsified and politically motivated”.

“I don’t know what political motivation, political motivation specifically Sytnyk and Plavi, however, they are clearly seen”, – said N. Martynenko.

He also said that the case against “Energoatom” had only one interview for all of last year. For the present case the former lawmaker were not even in as a witness and was not called for questioning.

In turn, his lawyer Tatyana Cherezova noted that suspicions of N. Martynenko did not understand what he is accused of. So, according to her, the first leaves suspicions beyond its last pages, and conclusions, are listed in the suspicion, and “no particularized narrative, in what is suspected Mykola Martynenko, embezzlement, organizing a criminal group in the non-payment of taxes.”

“No evidence, the case file does not contain. In fact, this is only a suggestion of the detectives NABOO, ARS. There are a lot of text (in suspicion), four volumes, and where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that my client has to do with this?” she said to the judge.

In addition, according to her, N. Martynenko did not own any property on the SE “VostGOK” and was not its officer or its employee, so the NABU charges are baseless.

© 2017, paradox. All rights reserved.