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.
