Tax inspection demands taxes from $10,000 confiscated from Liabedzka's apartment
About $10,000 seized from Anatol Liabedzka during the
search in December 2010, have not been returned to the owner so far.
And the tax inspection has added this sum to the income and demands the politician to give an account about this sum (but where does the tax inspection have the materials of the criminal case from?), Belarusian Partisan writes.
“I visited the tax inspection. As it turned out, after examination carried out against me over the period of time which lasted 17 years, a repeat examination of the previous examination was held. Many people can envy such attention. For instance, sons of the ruler, finance minister, the chairman of the Supreme Court, a businessman who plays hockey with the first hockey player of the country, a crowned thief,” the UCP leader Anatol Liabedzka wrote in his Facebook account.
The check is held by the tax inspection of the Central district of Minsk. “I do not have any questions to the workers of the tax inspection. But the money seized at my place during December search in my flat, have emerged as my income. It is more than $10,000. There is a decision of the investigation group to stop the criminal prosecution against me. As a separate paragraph they have written: to return things and money seized from me. Everything was returned except my copybooks and the money, though all the reasonable terms have expired. But there is a different problem: the check is formally made by the tax inspection, and the KGB conducts the process,” Liabedzka said.
Once tax officers checked Liabedzka over the period of 17 years. It was a rather deep, detailed inspection: rent, phone bills, my voyages, tickets and so on.”
But now, the politician says, the examination of all members of his family started. “We should give an account for Br 125 mln. For instance, over the last three years for me. In general, everything is alright with us, but the formulation of the question makes one be bothered: one has to run around, collect documents… By the way, a minimum subsistence basket and payments for education are included in the income of my son. And now they demand explanations, where from my son has taken this sum. It is clear not my son, a student, paid for that, but his parent. It means that any student could be victimized like that,” Liabedzka writes.
Moreover, when the results of the first check were compared to the second one, the additional check of the first check, which apparently was held by special services, not by the tax inspection, the figures differed.