The body of pre-trial investigation qualified the actions of the person under Part 3 of Art. 368 of the Criminal Code as the acceptance by an official of an unlawful benefit for committing in the interests of the person who renders unlawful profit any action using the power granted to it, combined with extortion of unlawful benefit.

The court of first instance, agreed with the court of appeal, concluded that the pre-trial investigation body and the prosecution party had not provided any evidence of the existence of the qualifying attribute of the accused in the actions provided for in Part 3 of Art. 368 of the Criminal Code, namely, extortion of unlawful benefits, and qualified his actions under Part 1 of Art. 368 CC.

This conclusion was also agreed upon by the Supreme Court. According to the position of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal justifiedly confirmed the correctness of the qualification of the convicted person under Part 1 of Art. 368 of the Criminal Code, noting that as a result of the absence of full list of documents, in particular, the title documents for a residential building, a person sought to avoid the legal procedure for resolving the issue of obtaining a preferential tariff for heating, which excludes the fact of extortion of improper advantage ( the ruling of 20.11.2018 in the case № 621/2190/16-к).

It is worth recalling the similar position of the Supreme court of Ukraine in the resolution of 21.01.2016 (case number 5-124x15), according to which extortion of a bribed is excluded, if a person, who gives bribe, is interested in illegal, unlawful conduct of an official, seeks to circumvent the law, the procedure for solving a particular issue, to meet illegal interests, to receive unlawful privileges, benefits, etc.