Mother of Deputy Kunytskyi attempted to transport undeclared money across the border

Mother of Deputy Kunytskyi attempted to transport undeclared money across the border

The mother of the MP from the ’Servant of the People’ faction, Oleksandr Kunytskyi, attempted to transport a significant amount of undeclared money across the border.

This was reported in the decision of the Solomyanskyi and Kyiv Court of Appeals.

The case involves an incident that was attempted to be concealed. The MP’s mother, Svitlana Kunytska, was detained on November 18, 2020, during customs control while departing from terminal D of Boryspil Airport. The woman planned to fly to Frankfurt, Germany, on a Lufthansa flight. Kunytska went through the ’green corridor’. Customs officers decided to question her. The woman claimed that she had $30,000 with her, which were in her suitcase. According to her, all this money was her personal belongings.

A protocol on the violation of customs regulations was drawn up against Svitlana Kunytska. She attempted to transport more than the established limit of €10,000 without a written declaration.

By the decision of the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv dated May 21, 2021, Svitlana Kunytska was found guilty of violating customs regulations, the responsibility for which is provided by Article 471 of the Customs Code. However, she was only fined 1,700 hryvnias and the seized $18,200 was returned to her.

Disagreeing with the decision, a representative of the Kyiv customs authority filed an appeal, requesting the confiscation of the money. The customs authority noted that the legislation does not provide for the possibility of exempting the offender from the application of mandatory penalties, including the confiscation of items for violating customs regulations.

The court concluded that there were no grounds for satisfying the appeal for the following reasons.

According to Article 23 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, an administrative penalty is a measure of responsibility and is applied with the aim of educating the person and also preventing new offenses by both the offender and other persons. Allegedly, such a punishment would impose an individual and excessive burden on the woman and would be disproportionate to the committed violation. According to the court, the cash was transported without signs of concealment.

Considering the nature of the violation, the personality of the offender (the MP’s mother, – Ed.), as well as the fact that her actions did not cause material damage to the state, the Court of Appeals agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance that there were no grounds for confiscating the $18,200.