Despite the warnings of the legal community, the Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine Semen Kryvonos continues to insist on the need to create a separate expert institution under the Bureau. He stated this in an interview with Dzerkalo Tyzhnia.
Two other systemic problems are worth mentioning: independent wiretapping, which the NABU still does not have, and independent expertise. Of course, if the NABU asks for an expert opinion on a top corrupt official from some conventional forensic institute that is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Internal Affairs, it is impossible to maintain complete secrecy in the case. I think it's easy for you to guess how long it will take for potential defendants to find out what the examination is about. And what is the chance that the information will not only be passed on, but also distorted? It's a huge one. I'm not talking about the results of the examination
However, the idea of the head of the NABU to create his own expert institution for the bureau looks extremely alarming.
Especially given the repeated facts of detectives manipulating forensic examinations. For example, as was the case with the examinations in the cases of Rotterdam+ and former Infrastructure Minister Volodymyr Omelyan. According to lawyer Iryna Odynets, the NABU lost in court because during the investigation, detectives in these cases “drew” forensic examinations in friendly private offices, and then unsuccessfully tried to confirm their accusations with them. Volodymyr Omelyan himself also noted that detectives engaged “dubious experts” during the investigation of the case against him.
In addition, the NABU tried to leak the expert examination in the case against former Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solsky, which they themselves had ordered and which was apparently supposed to testify to his innocence.
NABU detectives are not above ordering examinations from a “friendly” company - Expert Group “ES&D” LLC. This is not surprising, since the examinations are ordered by Senior Detective Viktor Yarema, and performed by the daughter of his former colleague from the Rivne Prosecutor's Office, who is registered as an employee of the LLC “ES&D”. The NACP records a conflict of interest in the NABU regarding this company, but refrains from checking it and “turns a blind eye” to such investigations by NABU detectives.
The idea of creating a separate expert institution at the NABU was also criticized by the legal community, as in this case there may be many times more “painted” examinations, which could lead to manipulation of the evidence base and jeopardize the objectivity of justice. For example, Oleksandr Babikov, a lawyer and former first deputy director of the SBI, noted that after the creation of a “manual” expert institution for the NABU, no one would be able to hope for justice.
Due to such manipulations by the NABU with forensic examinations, the level of public trust in anti-corruption agencies is decreasing. According to the results of a survey conducted by the Razumkov Center sociological service, almost 60% of respondents do not trust the NABU, and only 3.8% of those who fully trust the detectives.