The initiator of the case against ex-minister Solsky told why he lives in an undeclared townhouse

Viktor Kabanets has been the director of the Institute of Agriculture of the North-East, which is part of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine, for several years. UNN found that Kabanets "forgot" to declare the house in which he lives. 

In the Declaration for 2016, Kabanets, among other property, indicates a house in Sumy with an area of 273.4 square meters and a cost of just over 700 thousand hryvnias.  and this house is no longer in the declaration, which covers 2017 -  only an indication of the termination of ownership of the residential building. In the declaration for 17 years and in the declarations submitted later, there is no housing at all – only a garage and land plots. 

UNN asked Viktor Kabants where he lives. 

"I live, in my house, well, not in the house, it is registered to my daughter," said Kabanets.

When asked that in the declaration he should indicate the housing in which the director of the Institute lives, he replied: 

"Why... Let's look at my declaration. I am neither rich nor poor. ( ... ) To the first question – I live in a townhouse, the house that we built from 2002 to 2007 – I gave my son Vitaly in the city of Sumy. At that time, I worked at Sumy National Agrarian University, I practically worked there all my life, and 18 land plots were officially allocated, including me.I then worked as a vice – rector of scientific work, and out of 18 plots that were allocated to the faculty, I built one. Good or bad-I think it's good.

The house was built on its own almost at that time, and I gave it away. And then my wife and I (built – ed.) – the house is not healthy, it is an attic, 200 square meters. And in a townhouse I now live 100 sq.m, my wife and I have enough of this, we bought it from the foundation, paid payments for 2 years, then repairs for 2 years, in 4 years we moved to a townhouse. There is no secret everyone sees everything, we have a small city, everything is visible. And today we live there. We registered the townhouse for our daughter, gave it to our son, and we need to give it to our daughter. And I also gave my daughter an apartment, which I received in Sumy back in 1993. ( ... ) Here I have distributed such property among my children and I believe that I did the right thing, because I am a lot of people today... with whom, God forbid, something happens-they have big quarrels at the family level and I would not like this to happen. My will – it is there, and I think that my daughter will not expel me from the townhouse, my son will also shelter me. There is no discord in our family, but God protects the protected." 

The position of the boar's father is generally clear, but the question of why there is no housing in the declaration remains open. 

Interestingly, Viktor Kabanets has even attracted the attention of law enforcement officers due to a conflict of interest – his son Vitaly works at the same institute. Thus, in 2017, the Sumy District Court of the Sumy region considered the case of bringing Kabants Sr. to administrative responsibility under Part 1 of Article 172, part 2 of Article 172 of the Administrative Code of Ukraine (failure to notify a person in cases established by law and the procedure about the presence of a real conflict of interests). Then the investigators found that by his decision, as the director of the Institute, Viktor Kabanets appointed his son Vitaly to the position of a junior researcher in the Department of innovation provider, development of the experimental base and intellectual property. Later, Kabanets Sr. transferred Kabanets Jr. to the position of senior researcher in the crop production department. Viktor Kabanets also assigned his son an additional payment. However, the court then did not reveal the existence of a real conflict of interest in the actions of the director of the Institute. 

Kabanets Sr. in a conversation with UNN does not deny this information, says that he wrote out to his son, among other employees, a bonus of 600 hryvnias and then went to the courts for two months. My son continues to work at the Institute – he is engaged in cannabis breeding. 

"I didn't write out any more bonuses to my son. Although it's a shame, they work together, sometimes they work more," says Viktor Kabanets. 

Vitaly Kabanets, interestingly, in addition to working at the Institute, has a 5% stake in a company with the eloquent name "Nouname". The company is registered in Kharkiv and operates in the field of wholesale trade in agricultural machinery and equipment, as well as in the field of Engineering, Geology and geodesy. It is interesting that for a person with such a full name and a similar place of residence, according to open data, more than four dozen companies are registered in different regions that carry out economic activities in various fields. 

Recall 

Former minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solsky was suspected by NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors of allegedly organizing a scheme to seize naan land with an area of 2,500 hectares.

Solsky himself says that the circumstances of seven years ago, which are mentioned in this case, relate to the period of his legal activity, when he helped participants of the anti-terrorist operation to get land plots. His defenders claim that Selsky did not get any benefit from this.

In 2019, the Supreme Court put the final point in the judicial red tape regarding the mentioned disputed land plots. The decision of the panel of judges of the Cassation economic Court confirmed the decisions of the courts of previous instances that the state enterprise "Iskra" and the state enterprise "Nadezhda" of the National Agrarian Academy of Sciences do not have state acts on the right to permanent use of these land plots.

"Rejecting the claim, the courts of previous instances came to the conclusion that there is no evidence of the transfer of disputed land plots to the plaintiffs in the order of succession, since different acts of transfer of land funds indicate different areas of land plots that were transferred from one enterprise to another, and the lack of proof of the fact of registration of the right to permanent use of land plots by legal entities whose legal successors are the plaintiffs," the Supreme Court said in its decision.