Law enforcement agencies are competing in popularity on Facebook
The notorious taking into custody of Avakov’s son and his later release raise certain questions as well as the investigation of other similar cases. I’d like to remind that the procedure of taking into custody is stipulated clearly in Ukrainian legislature. It is applied if there are reasonable grounds that the suspect of committing of this or that crime is hiding.
Nevertheless, these grounds are absent in the case of Avakov’s son. He could have just been served with the summons and he would have come and testified. It’s hard to tell why this mask show was applied in his case. Perhaps, it as an attempt to put pressure on the Minister of Internal or NABU (the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine) decided to remind once more that there are no untouchables for them. Moreover, I have a question, why they have come back to the case in two years. Naturally, we can assume the evidence have been gathered and certain expertizes have been held during this time. However, why there wasn’t any information about it?
As to the fact that the defendants to the case were released on bail without paying the bail, it can be easily explained. The bail is paid when the person is expected to escape and fail to appear in court after the interim measures are changed. If the bailsman guarantees all these, why should the bail be paid then? All these norms are specified in the new Criminal Code of Practice. It appears that the law enforcement agencies were satisfied with this procedure.