Deputy Chairman of the Human Rights Center “Viasna” Valiantsin Stefanovich is tried today
The administrative trial on exaction of
taxes from Valiantsin Stefanovich started at the Partyzanski District Court of
Minsk at 10 a.m
on 1 December. It was to have taken place back on 15 November, but was
postponed as the defendant couldn't attend it for family reasons.
At 11.30 there also started the consideration of Stefanovich's appeal against
the fine of 4,750,000 rubles, imposed on him by the Partyzanski District Tax
Inspection of Minsk on 19 October because of alleged non-payment of taxes.
***
Before the beginning of the trial Valiantsin Stefanovich filed an appeal with
the head of the court concerning process violations during the preliminary
procedures.
Representative of the tax inspection moved for the increase of the sum of the
lawsuit to 43,474,110 rubles, which includes 31,515,540 rubles of unpaid taxes.
Judge Abramovich turned down Stefanovich's motion for the postponement of the
trial till the consideration of his appeal against actions of the tax
inspection within the framework of another trial, appointed on 11.30 a.m. Instead, she
announced a break till 2.15 p.m.
2.15 – The trial continues. Representatives of the Partyzanski District Tax Inspection
of Minsk voiced the provisions of the Tax Code, according to which Stefanovich
allegedly hadn't paid taxes in 2009-2010. Tax inspectors had found it after
checking his income declarations and information from the Lithuanian bank SEB.
A representative of the inspection also stated that Mr. Stefanovich had been
many times proposed to provide documents that money had been passed to other
persons, but he had refused, that's why the tax inspection insisted on its
suit.
2.44 – Valiantsin Stefanovich starts giving explanations. He says that he was handed a verification act,
but wasn’t been told that he could give explanations and wasn’t offered to do
it. He states that, being the Deputy Chairman of the Human Rights
Center “Viasna”, he
really concluded agreements with a number of persons in order to receive
finances for support to victims of political repressions. He passed this money
in conformity with the agreements.
Stefanovich asks: “Where can references to my refusal to provide such documents
be found?” A representative of the plaintiff states that he was proposed to do
it many times. Another representative of the tax inspection confirms that when
the verification act was composed, Stefanovich was proposed to provide
appropriate documents, but the form of the act doesn’t provide the registration
of such a proposal.
The judge asks the tax inspectors whether they explained to Stefanovich his right
to give explanations later on. The representative of the tax inspection repeats
that he was proposed to give explanations and was informed about his right to
provide the documents later. Officers of the tax inspection insist that the
registration of such proposals is not provided by the form of the act.
Stefanovich pointed out that document concerning his Lithuanian bank account lacked
necessary official details. The tax inspectors explained that it was a
translation. It was found that money was transferred to Stefanovich’s accounts
from unknown sources. Tax inspectors stated that there were three such sources.
“It doesn’t matter for us whether these were physical or juridical bodies,”
explained the tax inspectors.
It turned out that the tax officers don’t have the original document from Lithuania, just
the translation which they were given in the Chamber of Commerce.
Stefanovich asks why they conducted the check-up and is answered that it was
done on errand of the Ministry of Dues and Taxes.
Stefanovich asks whether there was a check-up concerning him for 2008? At first
the tax officers say there was no such a check-up, but then say that they need
to check the information.
The explanations of the
tax officers are over.
2.55 –
After this, Stefanovich solicits for attaching to the case the information of “Amnesty
International”, according to which money wasn’t transferred for Stefanovich’s
personal purposes and that a check-up of the expenditures was conducted, as a
result of which it was confirmed that the means were spent on human rights
activities. He also asks to attach the document from the Lithuanian Ministry of
Justice that the previous information about the accounts of Bialiatski and Stefanovich
is invalid. These
documents are officially certified. The court
grants the petition and attaches all documents to the case.
Stefanovich
says that he gave such explanations earlier, and adds that he was unable to
provide the documents in August-September, because he wasn’t in Belarus
due to the criminal prosecution of “Viasna” at the time. However, later he
returned and now he can provide these documents (RFE/RL).
The judge announced a break till 2.15 on 16 December. Stefanovich quotes a law
according to which the money that is received for passing to third parties are
not taxed. The tax officers have no questions to Stefanovich, but ask seven
days to study some documents.
***
The second trial started at 11.40
a.m. with the consideration of Stefanovich's appeal
against the Partyzanski District tax Inspection. Earlier the defendant had also
filed a complaint about process violations committed by Judge Valchkova during
the first consideration of his appeal, that's why he moved for the postponement
of the trial till the consideration of his complaint.
Judge Valchkova went out to her room to take a decision. On her return she
turned the motion down, after which Stefanovich challenged the judge. The judge
turned this motion down as well, and announced a break till 12.45 a.m.
After the break she ruled not to grant his appeal against the Partyzanski
District Tax Inspection of Minsk, thus leaving in force the fine of 4,750,000
rubles, imposed on him by the tax officers.
