Kyiv court authorises detention of Zaur Murtazov for failure to appear

Court proceedings and warrant request

On 5 October, a hearing took place at the Holosiivskyi District Court in Kyiv in criminal case No. 752/7222/17. Judge Oleksandr Boyko presided over the fraud case. A film crew was present at the hearing.

Defendant Zaur Murtazov did not appear in the courtroom. His defence counsel filed a motion to postpone the hearing. Meanwhile, the prosecution sought permission to detain the accused to ensure his personal participation in the proceedings.

The prosecutor explained that this mechanism is necessary for the further consideration of the issue of selecting a preventive measure in the form of remand in custody.

«Щодо позиції сторони захисту щодо неможливості обрання або застосування запобіжного заходу. Саме вказане клопотання про дозвіл на затримання з метою приводу і подається з тією метою, щоб обвинуваченого в подальшому було доставлено до суду для розгляду клопотання про застосування запобіжного заходу у вигляді тримання під вартою», – зазначив представник обвинувачення. (Regarding the defence's position on the impossibility of selecting or applying a preventive measure. The aforementioned motion for permission to detain for the purpose of compulsory appearance is filed with the aim of having the accused subsequently brought to court to consider the motion for the application of a preventive measure in the form of remand in custody, the prosecution representative stated.)

Lawyer silent on client's whereabouts

After the hearing, journalists attempted to find out from Murtazov's defence counsel exactly where his client was. The lawyer confirmed his authority but refused to disclose this information, citing attorney-client privilege.

In response to a direct question about whether Murtazov is in Ukraine, the defence counsel replied:

«Дивіться, я не можу коментувати жодних відомостей, що стосуються мого клієнта, тому не ставте мені це запитання». (Look, I cannot comment on any information concerning my client, so do not ask me this question.)

When journalists emphasised that the defendant's whereabouts are directly relevant to the proceedings, the lawyer reiterated his position:

«Ще раз повторюю: я не маю права коментувати будь-які обставини щодо мого клієнта». (I repeat once more: I have no right to comment on any circumstances regarding my client.)

Thus, it was not possible to establish Murtazov's actual whereabouts during the court hearing.

Court decision

After discussing the parties' positions, the judges retired to the deliberation room. The court subsequently granted the prosecution's motion in full.

The operative part of the ruling states:

«Клопотання прокурора Голосіївської окружної прокуратури міста Києва про надання дозволу на затримання Муртазова Заура з метою приводу для участі у розгляді клопотання про застосування запобіжного заходу у вигляді тримання під вартою – задовольнити. Надати дозвіл на затримання та доставити Муртазова Заура до суду». (The motion of the prosecutor of the Holosiivskyi District Prosecutor's Office of the city of Kyiv for permission to detain Zaur Murtazov for the purpose of compulsory appearance to participate in the consideration of the motion for the application of a preventive measure in the form of remand in custody – granted. Grant permission to detain and bring Zaur Murtazov to court.)

Monitoring the implementation of this ruling has been assigned to the district prosecutor's office. The court will consider the issue of remand in custody only after the accused is detained and brought to the courtroom.

Case details

Zaur Murtazov is accused of fraud. It was previously established that he also figures in other criminal proceedings related to the misappropriation of citizens' funds.

According to court materials, in 2013–2014, Murtazov received money from citizens under various obligations, including the purchase of real estate and goods, against signed receipts. There was also information that he might be outside Ukraine, but during today's court hearing, his lawyer neither confirmed nor refuted information about his client's country of residence.

Currently, law enforcement agencies have a legal basis for detaining the defendant. The further consideration of the preventive measure issue will depend on the actual detention of the defendant.