Instead of ministers - entrepreneurs: what's wrong with NABU's criminal proceedings

Criminal proceedings investigated by detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) are surprising. After all, they do not concern serious crimes of top officials - mostly it is about inaccurate declaration by officials or persecution of intermediaries or businessmen. This opinion was expressed in an exclusive comment to UNN by the former deputy head of the State Bureau of Investigation, Oleksandr Babikov.

NABU cases: who is being prosecuted instead of top officials

The cases they are investigating, let's say, are surprising. Because instead of investigating top corruption of high-ranking officials, as stipulated by their specialized law, the bulk of the cases are some incomprehensible intermediaries, heads of insignificant enterprises, etc.

According to him, there is currently no example of a top official, including a minister, being held accountable for a serious corrupt act and punished, except for cases of inaccurate declaration of assets.

At the same time, more than 20 sentences in the HACC are classified - without any legal grounds. So there is also doubt about what decisions were made there and how objective they are.

Fedorychev's case - an example of an attempted raid?

One of the cases that not only causes surprise but can serve as an example of raiding and corruption in the anti-corruption body is the criminal proceeding against the co-investor of the TIS group of companies and the beneficiary of two large terminals in the Pivdennyi port - TIS-Grain and TIS-Fertilizers, Oleksiy Fedorychev. He has long lived in the Principality of Monaco but tries to continue doing business in Ukraine, despite the fact that NABU detectives have been persecuting him for over 10 years.

The criminal case against Fedorychev, which is being investigated by NABU, raised many questions from the very beginning, as he is not a top official and his activities do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Bureau's detectives. The actions of law enforcement officers are more reminiscent of attempts by a group of individuals to seize the businessman's assets through criminal prosecution.

After all, for more than 10 years, detectives have not been able to gather enough evidence to refer the case to court for consideration on the merits, and numerous attempts to declare the businessman a suspect, arrest his assets, and choose a preventive measure for him ended in failure.

The court of the Principality of Monaco in its decision confirmed that the nature of the case involving Fedorychev indicates a business dispute, but by no means a criminal act.

Even judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court have repeatedly emphasized the absence of grounds for appointing a number of safeguards insisted upon by NABU detectives. The HACC also saw no need to extend the terms of investigation of this criminal case. However, this did not stop the detectives. Apparently, for the sake of raiding a lucrative piece of business - terminals in the Pivdennyi port - the case was officially transferred for investigation to the National Police. The investigative group included NABU detectives, who continue to pressure their law enforcement colleagues and demand further prosecution of the businessman.

As a result, a business critically important during wartime (and this concerns grain transshipment, and therefore food security) cannot operate at full capacity.

According to Oleksandr Babikov, raiding with the participation of law enforcement officers became possible due to gaps in the system and significantly intensified after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, when the attention of both society and the authorities focused on the war.

I think such a tendency has always existed, to a greater or lesser extent. But after the start of the war, opportunities sharply increased, so they became more widespread. Judicial control significantly weakened after the start of the full-scale war, which made it possible to conduct searches uncontrollably, seize property, etc. Therefore, unfortunately, yes, such a tendency exists, and it is only intensifying.

Corruption scandals in NABU

According to the lawyer, the situation can only be corrected by a comprehensive approach to solving the problem. Without changes to criminal and criminal procedural legislation, as well as personnel work, this will not be achieved.

The conduct of competitions, when the competition commission is not responsible for anything, but recommends a certain candidate who is agreed upon and approved in advance, indicates, on the one hand, the sham nature of all these procedures, and on the other hand, that not the best, but those who "should" get in, get in. Accordingly, they will perform not the functions defined by law, but the tasks assigned to them.

The systemic nature of the personnel problem, particularly in NABU, is also confirmed by the trail of scandals that have followed detectives for years.

The latest include drug trafficking, abuse of influence, and persecution of an Ukrzaliznytsia official for mercenary purposes.

For example, former detective Taras Likunov, who investigated the case concerning "Ukrzaliznytsia," 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.

No less interesting are the cases against NABU detective Ruslan Magamedrasulov, who, together with his father, a citizen of the Russian Federation, according to the investigation, was engaged in cannabis trafficking with Dagestan. He is accused of treason. In addition, he is suspected of abusing 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 obvious evidence of corruption in NABU.

So, it is obvious that NABU detectives, instead of investigating top corruption, are engaged in secondary cases against intermediaries and businessmen, which raises the question of whether they are looking for additional sources of income. Against the background of classified HACC verdicts and scandals involving detectives suspected of corruption, abuse of influence, and accusations of treason, NABU increasingly looks not like an anti-corruption body, but like an instrument of raiding, selective justice, and prolonged pressure on business.

Selective persecution can directly affect food security, undermine the trust of international partners, and also generally affect the desire of investors to do business in Ukraine, where anyone can find themselves under a raider attack.