Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
Fake expert report on demand: how false accusations are being legalized
Plaintiffs and their lawyers are willing to pay any amount for the papers they need, but the quality of such “examinations” repeatedly survives only the very first professional legal review. That’s exactly what happened with the lawsuit filed by the head of the Lviv Customs Ivan #Керезвас in case No. 646/12182/26 concerning protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, recognition of published information as false, and its retraction, within which the expert report is a key piece of evidence for the plaintiff.
📌The use of conclusion number 3621 dated 31.08.2026, which the Kyiv Independent Forensic Expert Institution LLC prepared on order of the representative, raises many questions for us. That document aimed to pre-shape the desired legal assessment of the disputed publications, but it fell apart over elementary details.
The first blunder lies in ordinary chronology and document flow. The introduction of the conclusion plainly states that the lawyer’s application was received by the institution 14.08.2026 under incoming number 9769, and that a packet of materials allegedly arrived with it, among which is a publication dated 15.08.2026. 🤷♂️This produces a classic legal nonsense, because the expert supposedly received and began examining materials that are dated the day after the official registration of the application itself. Due to such a gross discrepancy it is impossible to establish either the real time the information was received or what exactly the specialists actually studied.
Next begins a double game with the limits of specialized knowledge. For some reason the experts decided to take on the functions of the court and independently determine whether the statements are legally false, whether they violate non-property personal rights, and whether they must be retracted. ❗️But a linguistic analysis cannot substitute for a court decision.
Moreover, the quoting in the conclusion proved selective, since the researchers took individual phrases with omissions, completely removing the context. In the full texts constructions such as “According to the plaintiffs’ claims” or “could have been carried out with unjustified delays” were clearly indicated, which directly point to the source of the information and its evaluative character. Dropping these elements completely distorts the original meaning.
👇Particular attention is drawn to the blatant overreach by the author of the conclusion, who in many places goes far beyond linguistic description, supplementing quotations with his own subjective parenthetical notes like “from context, this refers to I. Kerezvas.” Such insertions do not follow directly from the texts and are merely strained interpretation.
Even if certain sentences are presented in categorical form, that does not automatically prove their falsity without comparison with real evidence in the case.
Related materials:
▫️How Kerezvas is trying to silence criticism of Lviv Customs?
▫️Why OLVAR cargos could not pass inspection for weeks: a scheme involving perishable goods
▫️How the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection, under the government’s roof, blocks food supplies and milks “Polish business”
▫️How operators from the customs service and the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection block imports from Poland. Who will answer for 4 millions in damages to the company OLVAR?
▫️Lviv Customs and the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection have arranged a “sanitary genocide” against Polish business
#тиск #митниця #корупція
TG|FB|YT|TT|INST|WB
Telegram publication
