Anti-Corruption or Commercial Bureau? Why NABU cases turn into business disputes
Kyiv • UNN
NABU is turning into a tool for pressuring businesses and raiding, and criminal proceedings are selective. Detectives are engaged in everything except investigating corruption among top officials. Lawyer Oleh Shram told what can change the situation.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) was created as the main tool for combating top-level corruption. But over time, it is increasingly turning into a tool for pressure on business, raiding, and corruption. Criminal proceedings investigated by NABU detectives often have a selective nature and are used to interfere in economic processes and for raiding attacks. This opinion was expressed in an exclusive comment to UNN by lawyer Oleh Shram.
What's wrong with NABU's work: corruption or pressure on business?
There are many questions for NABU regarding the objectives they pursue in each individual criminal proceeding. If we analyze their activities systematically, we can say that the issue of combating corruption is like a wrapper for them. In reality, in many proceedings, they pursue a completely different goal. This indicates the selectivity of their criminal proceedings.
According to him, an analysis of pre-trial investigations conducted by the Bureau shows that those proceedings that should have been investigated in the shortest possible time drag on for years.
This exerts certain pressure on the participants in the criminal proceedings, and on certain, probably, business processes, actions, decisions, and so on.
According to the lawyer, the cases being investigated indicate abuse by NABU and raiding by law enforcement officers.
If we look systematically at NABU's activities, many publicly known facts give grounds to say that they pursue objectives other than those defined by law in certain criminal proceedings. And these objectives are definitely not related to their powers and the tasks defined by law, namely, combating corruption. This can include raiding, persecution of individuals for one purpose or another, artificial creation of evidence of guilt, provocation of bribery, falsification of certain pre-trial investigation materials, which has been repeatedly stated, in particular, by participants in cases being heard in the anti-corruption court. That is, the spectrum is very wide, and all this, in aggregate, indicates that their goal is different, and a criminal proceeding, no matter what it is, especially if it concerns some economic relations, financial ones, cannot be investigated for many years and not find a resolution.
NABU and the "Pivdennyi" port: the persecution of Fedorychev as an example of raiding
One example of such attempts of raiding a business by the hands of Anti-Corruption Bureau detectives is the case against Oleksiy Fedorychev, the owner of the two largest terminals "TIS-Zerno" and "TIS-Dobryva" in the "Pivdennyi" port. NABU has been investigating this case for a decade, but the detectives have not been able to gather enough evidence against Fedorychev. All their activities boil down exclusively to pressuring the business by attempting to hinder the operation of the terminals.
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 wartime, 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, stating that his case is an economic dispute, not a criminal one.
...the information contained in the requests does not allow the nature of the case to be defined as criminal, which enables the competent authorities of the Principality of Monaco to conclude: the essence of the case largely concerns facts that form the basis of a dispute of a purely economic nature.
Judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court held a similar opinion, seeing no grounds for seizing property or choosing a preventive measure for Fedorychev. Moreover, they even refused to extend the pre-trial investigation period after it had expired.
However, the ingenuity of the detectives is striking. Instead of accepting defeat and admitting that the case was fabricated, they formally transferred it for investigation to the National Police. Upon joining the investigative group, the first thing NABU officers did was to force their colleagues in the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv to push through a decision to extend the investigation period.
Then - everything as the book says. 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 the Bureau is overly interested in the terminals in the "Pivdennyi" port.
According to Oleh Shram, it is not normal when criminal proceedings are investigated for decades. Yes, there are difficult cases, there's no getting around that, but when it drags on for 10 years, it rather works to destroy the business reputation of the person involved.
Yes, cases can be closed, but an investigation should not last 2-3 years, when the reputation of a particular company, owners or managers is destroyed, when people don't want to work with them because they are allegedly involved in some corrupt actions. Even if there is some criminal proceeding without suspicion, without anything, they (potential partners - ed.) already look with caution and wonder whether to work or not to work with a particular entity. Of course, this affects the reputation and the ability to conduct normal economic activities, develop business, expand it, and so on.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau has turned into a Commercial Bureau: what experts say
Shram emphasized that during the time the Anti-Corruption Bureau has been operating, the detectives' achievement is one legally binding verdict per investigator.
Is NABU, with such work rates, capable of influencing corruption in any way? It is capable! Only in the direction of increasing the level of corruption, because they cannot fulfill, cover this entire volume, and even more so when they do not want to do it, and when they are engaged in completely different work. Including playing along. We see criminal proceedings against detectives, and questions about their illegal enrichment, business involvement, influence, when one of the detectives assists a commercial structure with conversion centers, some unblocking, etc.
In particular, this refers to former detective Taras Likunov, who investigated a case against an "Ukrzaliznytsia" official, and then took a position in this company after the dismissal of the person involved in the 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.
In addition, the latest high-profile scandal involved cases against NABU detective Ruslan Magamedrasulov, who, together with his father, a Russian citizen, according to the investigation, was involved in cannabis trafficking with Dagestan. He is accused of treason. In addition, he is suspected of abuse of influence for illegal tax manipulations of 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 regarding the exclusion of about ten companies from the list of risky ones. This is clear evidence of corruption in NABU.
Liquidate NABU or strengthen control - are there possible options?
According to Oleh Shram, only the liquidation of the Anti-Corruption Bureau itself or a systemic strengthening of control over its activities can fundamentally change the situation.
Either liquidate, or systemic changes to the law, first of all, to ensure effective control. Because the anti-corruption committee of the Verkhovna Rada is not capable of doing this. We see from their activities, firstly, no one there understands this activity. Except for a nice picture, talking, looking at numbers. But what numbers, what is hidden behind them, how a law enforcement agency like NABU should work, they do not understand.
In addition, according to the expert, an external audit of NABU is needed. The only report that existed in the entire history of NABU's work was compiled in such a way as not to answer the questions raised and to leave everything as it is.
Oleh Shram is convinced that the fight against corruption is the second most important issue in our country after the war. Western partners, by the way, constantly remind Ukraine of this.
In addition, according to him, Ukrainians themselves have long understood that NABU and SAP, apart from good stories, are not actually engaged in fighting corruption.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau has also turned into a commercial bureau. There are many facets here. Somewhere corrupt, somewhere a bureau of persecution, somewhere a bureau of provocation, somewhere a bureau of creating some crimes themselves. Many facets, but certainly not what it was supposed to be and for what it was created.