The latest high-profile scandals surrounding the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine indicate that the body, created as the main tool for fighting corruption, is increasingly becoming its embodiment. The detectives' violations cover a wide range – from suspicions of treason, corrupt schemes to attempts of raiding. More and more often, the activities of NABU detectives turn into a factor of pressure on business and undermine the trust of both Ukrainian society and international partners, writes UNN.
Scandals with NABU detectives
After it became known about NABU detective Ruslan Magamedrasulov, suspected of treason, who, together with his father, a Russian citizen, was involved in cannabis trade with Dagestan, the attention of society and international partners to the work of NABU and SAP increased.
Later it became known that Magamedrasulov is also suspected of abuse of influence for illegal tax manipulations with Ukrainian enterprises totaling 30 million hryvnias, for which he was to receive 900 thousand hryvnias. The NABU detective was supposed to influence the bodies of the State Tax Service of Ukraine to make illegal decisions to exclude about ten companies from the list of risky ones.
Another scandal involving former detective Taras Likunov does not add optimism regarding the effectiveness of NABU's work. He investigated a case concerning "Ukrzaliznytsia", and then took a position in this company after being dismissed from the position of a person involved in criminal proceedings. That is, in this way, the detective actually "freed up" a place for himself, which, according to experts, is a direct violation of the law "On Prevention of Corruption" and a conflict of interest.
It is impossible not to mention another high-profile case in this context. Former first deputy director of NABU Gizo Uglava is suspected of disclosing pre-trial investigation data. After leaving the Anti-Corruption Bureau, he complained about bias and partiality of NABU detectives, and stated that the conclusions in the case against him regarding information leaks from the bureau were made long ago "without trial and investigation."
In addition, Uglava filed a statement with the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption regarding possible violation of anti-corruption legislation by the head of the bureau, Semen Kryvonos, and became a whistleblower. According to him, NAPC has started monitoring and control regarding possible violation of anti-corruption legislation by the NABU director.
Attempts of raiding in the port "Yuzhny". What does NABU have to do with it?
In addition to information leaks, abuse of influence, and corruption, NABU detectives are also guilty of pressuring businesses. The initiation of criminal cases against large businessmen at the behest of their competitors or those wishing to "squeeze out" an asset has long become the norm in this law enforcement agency.
One example is the criminal proceedings against the Ukrainian company Archer - a manufacturer of thermal imaging devices. NABU, after a public scandal erupted, was forced to close the case because insufficient evidence was collected of a criminal offense in the actions of officials of the Ministry of Defense and this company. Three years of blocking the production of thermal imagers, apparently occurred at the behest of and played into the hands of the enemy.
Another no less striking example is the case against the owner of the two largest terminals "TIS-Zerno" and "TIS-Dobryva" in the port "Pivdenny" Oleksiy Fedorychev. NABU has been investigating this case for a decade, but during this time, detectives have not been able to collect evidence of the businessman's guilt. The criminal proceedings against him are rather an attempt to raid the terminals by NABU, which has dragged on for too long.
In fact, for 10 years they have not been able to serve a notice of suspicion to the businessman or choose a preventive measure for him. And regular attempts to seize property, although they end in failure every time, significantly hinder the conduct of critically important business during the war, related to ensuring food security.
A clear indication that the case against Fedorychev is a business dispute involving anti-corruption law enforcement officers is the decision of the court of the Principality of Monaco, where the businessman has long resided. Monaco judges refused to serve a notice of suspicion to Oleksiy Fedorychev, noting that his case is a commercial dispute, not a criminal one.
… the information contained in the requests does not allow to determine the nature of the case as criminal, which allows the competent authorities of the Principality of Monaco to conclude: the essence of the case largely concerns facts that underlie a dispute of a purely economic nature
The judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court were of a similar opinion, who saw no grounds for arresting Fedorychev's property or choosing a preventive measure. Moreover, they even refused to extend the pre-trial investigation period after it expired.
However, the ingenuity of NABU detectives is striking. Instead of accepting defeat and admitting that the case was custom-made, they formally transferred it for investigation to the National Police. Upon joining the investigative group, the first thing NABU officers did was force their colleagues in the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv to push through a decision to extend the investigation period.
Not getting what they wanted in the HACC, the detectives are trying to push through the necessary decisions in the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv. So everything indicates that NABU is overly interested in the terminals in the port "Pivdenny".
NABU as an instrument of pressure
Experts interviewed by UNN point to the selectivity of the Anti-Corruption Bureau's detectives' work, as well as their inefficiency. In particular, over the 10 years of the body's existence, there has been a minimal number of top officials brought to justice for corruption. In fact, one detective accounts for one conviction that has entered into force.
Instead of investigating the actions of ministers or senior officials, detectives persecute secondary intermediaries and managers of small enterprises. There is no example of real punishment of a top official. Instead, more than 20 HACC verdicts in NABU cases are classified without explanation. This raises serious doubts about objectivity
Experts also note that NABU detectives often investigate criminal cases for years that should have been completed in the shortest possible time. "This creates a certain pressure on the participants in criminal proceedings, and on some certain, probably, business processes, actions, decisions, and so on," - believes lawyer Oleh Shram.
In his opinion, the fight against corruption is often used as a wrapper, but in reality, completely different goals are pursued in NABU.
If we look systematically at NABU's activities, many publicly known facts give grounds to say that they pursue tasks other than those defined by law in certain criminal proceedings. And these tasks are definitely not related to their powers and the tasks defined by law, namely - the fight against corruption. This can be raiding, and persecution of individuals for one purpose or another, artificial creation of evidence of guilt, provocations of bribery, falsification of certain materials of pre-trial investigations, which has been repeatedly mentioned, in particular, by participants in those cases that are considered in the anti-corruption court. That is, the spectrum is very wide, and all this, in aggregate, says that their goal is different, and a criminal proceeding, whatever it may be, especially if it concerns some economic relations, financial ones, cannot be investigated for many years and not find its resolution
Why control over NABU is necessary
Lawyers point out that with the beginning of Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine, the situation with violations of legislation in NABU worsened: judicial and procedural control weakened, and opportunities for raider seizures with the participation of law enforcement officers significantly increased.
Political technologist Oleh Posternak, in particular, believes that the problem is embedded in the system itself.
"Any law enforcement agency must be under certain procedural control. Therefore, excuse me, when there was an idea to subordinate NABU to the Office of the Prosecutor General and to polish some accountability issues, to normalize them in accordance with European practice, a furious outcry, a campaign to protect NABU and criticize the authorities for this decision, arose in Ukraine. But its idea, its grounds for this were absolutely reasonable. Now we will simply deal with it, when the attention of society, international players, and the authorities is focused on other law enforcement officers, on NABU's activities, and it turns out that there are huge, large-scale violations, there are questions about the activities of these bodies, etc.," - he noted.
According to him, NABU detectives, like representatives of other law enforcement agencies, can abuse their position, cover up "black schemes," provoke bribery, or participate in falsifications.
"At one time, Sytnyk, having an administrative case of corruption, headed NABU, being essentially a corrupt official. A similar nonsense is, in principle, very characteristic of this body and now. This needs to be corrected," said Oleh Posternak.
According to him, clear control over the body would help minimize the risks of new scandals related to violations by NABU detectives.
One of the reasons for NABU's crisis state, experts also call personnel policy. According to them, the competitions by which NABU heads and detectives are selected are a sham. As a result of such selections, not professionals, but "necessary people" who perform tasks far from fighting corruption, get into the system.
So it is obviously no coincidence that a long trail of scandals follows the Anti-Corruption Bureau: from failed cases against top officials to accusations of raiding. All this demonstrates the systemic nature of the problem, which has long gone beyond individual incidents.
Instead of conclusions
NABU was created as a symbol of the fight against corruption. But in practice, it has turned into a structure that is itself immersed in corruption scandals, opens cases on demand, pressures businesses, and helps implement raiding schemes. In the absence of effective control, this body not only fails to perform its functions but also harms the development of the country's legal system and economy.
Experts agree: changes in legislation, transparent personnel competitions, and clear control over NABU's activities are necessary. Otherwise, Ukraine will continue to have an "anti-corruption" bureau that more resembles a commercial tool in the hands of certain influence groups, and international partners will continue to demand a real fight against corruption.