Servicemen of Dniprovskyi military enlistment office accompanied by unknown men with video camera, who were serving a military subpoena to Vitaliy Shabunin on June 7 were delegated on the request of the Military Prosecutor of Darnytsia garrison.
Such information could be found in the official answer of Kyiv local military enlistment office available to AnTAC.
AnTAC considers the involvement of Military Prosecutors’ subordinates in this “event” as a personal revenge of Anatoliy Matios to the Head of AnTAC’s board Vitaliy Shabunin and organization in general, which filed a lawsuit against Matios for illegal classification of electronic declarations for a number of military prosecutors.
A written order of the Military Prosecutor of Darnytsia district was passed to Dniprovskyi Military enlistment office on June 6 2017, exactly one week after AnTAC filed a lawsuit against Matios for declarations classifying.
Obviously, with such actions Military Prosecutor’s office was trying to intimidate activists and force them to withdraw a lawsuit.
According to the letter of the Military Prosecutor of Darnytsia Garrison of the Central Region of Ukraine Major of Justice M. PETRYSHYN, dated 06.06.2017 No 4/255 out file No. – 17 in order to carry out joint actions on a large-scale search of servicemen who left the military unit and those who evade military service, 3 servicemen of Dniprovskyi district military enlistment office were sent to the Prosecutor’s office of Darnytsia garrison of the Central Region of Ukraine.
Officers have found…Shabunin instead of fugitives and served him a subpoena. Moreover, it happened in a wrong (Boryspil) district. The posts and surnames of representatives of Darnytsia garrison of the Central region of Ukraine are unknown.
The reason of notification of V. SHABUNIN was the clarification of registration details. This is illegal according to AnTAC, because Vitaliy Shabunin is registered Sviatoshyn district and his data should have been “clarified” at his place of registration but not residence. And not during the search of fugitives but in a manner prescribed by law.
Dniprovkyi military enlistment office sent its officers, who were participating in the “operation” on the written request of the Military Prosecutor of Darnytsia garrison. They were held disciplinary liable, because their visit to Shabunin’s house to serve him subpoena “was not within the competence of the Dniprovkyi district military enlistment office”.
Visit of the Dniprovskyi district military enlistment office servicemen to V. SHABUNIN place of residence in order to deliver him military subpoena was not in the purview of the Dniprovskyi district military enlistment office.
So, who framed the officers?
It is 27-year-old Military prosecutor pf Darnytsia garrison in the rank of major of justice Mykola Pertyshyn. Dniprovskyi Military enlistment office gathered the group of three officers on his written request. And sent them to take part in a “large-scale operation” on serving of subpoena to Shabunin.
According to Petryshyn’s electronic declaration he was working as an investigator of Lviv Prosecutor’s office on supervision over compliance with laws in the military sector. His salary was slightly higher than 80 thousand UAH per year. He did not declare any property or savings in 2013.
But things got much better after Peryshyn had moved to Kyiv and started working in the Military Prosecutor’s office of Darnytsia garrison of the Central region of Ukraine. Petryshyn indicated 286 000 UAH as a salary and more than 20 thousand UAH as a financial aid in his declaration for 2015. And, his wife, who was working in Kyiv regional prosecutor’s office and declared 75 000 UAH of income in 2015. Petryshyn’s family joint savings amounted to 300 thousand UAH, they had two apartments (one was registered in the name of Petryshyn’s mother-in-law, another – in the name of his wife), 200-sg.m. house and a land parcel (belongs to wife), an office (also in his wife’s ownership) and two cars – 2009 Toyota Camry and Mazda CX-7. Both are registered in the name of his wife.
Petryshyn also got additional (third) apartment according to his declaration for 2016. He partially owns it (20%). His mother-in-law Natalia Kischak purchased the brand new 2016 Nissan Quashqai. Peryshyns mother-in-law occupation is unknown for now but according to the Unified Register of Legal Entities she was self-employed prior to 2009 and had a local (farmers) market retail business.