In the first part of the interview, the director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) Semen Kryvonis answered questions regarding the institution's crisis related to leaks of operational information on the Holik- Reznychenko case to Bankova Street, the subsequent internal disciplinary proceedings, the dismissal of the first deputy director Hizo Uhlava, and the continued restructuring of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
In the final part of the conversation, moving on to the topic of the key investigations of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, as well as the factors that reduce their effectiveness, we asked the director to comment on whether the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine is investigating cases related to corruption in the legislative branch of government. Semen Kryvonis called the information that Hizo Uhlava blackmailed political figures on Bankova Street with operational data on the "envelope" system in parliament in exchange for help in court and a return to the rumors of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, but he did not limit himself in stating the problem of investigating this category of cases of top corruption.
— Well, first of all, I will definitely not reveal to you the secret of operational developments and pre-trial investigations of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. I will not tell you now which of the people's deputies we have materials for, and which we do not... Whether the "envelope" system operates in parliament or not... The director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine should be more restrained and operate with facts. There is a suspicion, then this is already a fact that I can talk about. However, for ten years now (the law on the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was adopted on October 14, 2014. – I.V.) it is not a matter of names, but of the state approach. The fact that the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office has no practical ability to respond to the information received and enter information about the start of a pre-trial investigation into people's deputies into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (USPTI) is a systemic problem. The fact that the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) cannot approve individual petitions for investigative search actions against people's deputies is a systemic problem. Without such powers from the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine becomes very limited in its ability to take effective actions and, as a result, this institution loses time and evidence.
— What about people’s deputy Iryna Kormyshkina (formerly Allahverdieva), whom the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine did suspect of illegal enrichment? The High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC) essentially forced Prosecutor General Andrii Kostin to enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations and start proceedings. After the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine filed a corresponding lawsuit. It took two years in total. And the fact that yet another parliament controlled by, yet another president does not hand over its people is also a systemic problem.
— Unfortunately, not long ago, having made the right changes to the law on the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, having given the anti-corruption prosecutor's office the status of a legal entity, the current parliament did not introduce several key instruments necessary for the anti-corruption bloc to really and effectively combat top corruption. And this is a fact.
— Is there any prospect in investigating the role of the presidential office consultant Yuryi Holyk? It is worth noting that this case not only became a trigger for the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, but also highlighted the umbrella role of political leaders on Bankova Street, namely their role in corruption schemes related to construction. In particular, here we are talking about the case of laundering budget funds during road construction with losses of UAH 286 million already confirmed by the investigation. Or is the presentation of suspicion to the Yuryi Holik's business partner, the former head of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration (RSA) Valentyn Reznychenko – this is already the highest point?
— As I have already said, I am not announcing suspicions. Besides, I think one can judge how much this case has suffered because of information leaks by the result that has already been obtained. The presentation of suspicion to the former head of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration is a direct answer to your question. But it is worth noting that the pre-trial proceedings are ongoing and final conclusions can only be made after the investigation is completed.
— Another high-profile investigation, also with information leaks, is the case of the former head of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (SC) Kniazev, where the lists of candidates for membership in the High Qualification Commission of Judges were leaked. It has already been transferred to the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine, but a separate episode of the investigation concerning the role of the judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, to whom the envelopes were written and whose names have already been mentioned in the media, has been frozen. Why did this happen?
— As for the judges of the Grand Chamber, at this stage there is not enough evidence to bring charges, except for the fact that envelopes with names were found on the head of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (SCU), and it is also worth noting that and money was also found in the possession of a number of judges. And this needs to be said directly. I cannot talk in more detail about the amount of evidence that is at the disposal of the investigation, because it is unknown to the defendants. But the main thing is that this evidence is sufficient to continue the investigation, and not close the case. We always have the opportunity to obtain additional facts of involvement in the corruption scheme of certain judges, including those who were found to have funds. We understand the level of public interest and we are actively working on this.
— However, you intersect with the Supreme Court of Ukraine not only within the framework of this investigation, but also as institutions. And here, too, it seems, there are problems. The case of the former head of the State Aviation Administration of Ukraine Denys Antoniuk, who, according to the investigation and the decisions of the two chambers of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine, for selfish reasons provided illegal advantages to PJSC "International Airlines of Ukraine", which is Ihor Kolomoisky's company. Denys Antoniuk was sentenced to three and a half years in prison and has already served nine months. But the Supreme Court of Ukraine overturned the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine. On the one hand, it sent a signal: "Kolomoisky has everything under control," and on the other, it laid a mine under the public administration system as a whole with such judicial practice. Since I questioned the finality of the government resolution.
— The Supreme Court of Ukraine sometimes cancels the decisions of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine, but this is not a system. For our part, we are working to ensure that the investigation enters the court with stronger positions. We strive to ensure that our cases are of the highest quality. Do I see a problem in the case of the former head of the State Aviation Service of Ukraine? I do, but I cannot comment on a specific decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. However, I will say that now in the Supreme Court of Ukraine there is a very similar case about abuse in favor of third parties. (The case of causing UAH 70 million in losses to the Joint-Stock Company "Ukrainian Railway", also investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office. – I.V.) As far as I know, a question has now been referred to the joint chamber for clarification as to what mandatory elements of abuse must be established. And I really hope that all the key points in this matter will be fully clarified. Although this will not affect the decision in any way.
— Continuing the line of information leaks (and there are many of them in the global cases of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine), I would like to remind you about the cases of the former head of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU), Kyrylo Shevchenko, who miraculously left for London before the notice of suspicion was served, as well as the former head of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, Dmytro Sennychenko, who left us after the searches were conducted. Thus, thanks to information leaks, the most important bosses are saved.
— There is a contradiction in your question: there would be no global cases if they were, as you say, "filled with information leaks". All the cases you mentioned ended with suspicions and indictments.
And if we talk specifically, it is worth remembering that the former head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine received suspicion while holding office. In addition to him, 16 more people received suspicions. And to say that this was a leak of information is, at the very least, manipulation. Moreover, in this case, 35 million have already been reimbursed to the state budget and 16 million have been allocated to the "Drone Army" project. As for the former head of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, searches were indeed conducted there first, at his place and at his entire team's. It is clear that a person reads a court ruling, which describes a short plot, and draws his own conclusions. This was the moment of a full-scale invasion and at the end of the summer of 22, if I am not mistaken, he left the territory of Ukraine. And he received suspicion already during my directorship in March 2023. But for some reason everyone forgets the case of the head of the State Migration Service of Ukraine. He was fired immediately after the searches were conducted in 2021, and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine handed him a suspicion only three and a half years after his dismissal. How did this happen? Was he fired because it was an information leak? Of course not.
— Well, the authorities now have another form of information leakage, namely, when they leak no longer needed people who were close to them. The once super-valuable deputies of the head of the presidential office Rostyslav Shurma and Andrii Smyrnov were fired right before they were handed the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine suspicion notices. And here it is already possible to come up with different versions of why this happened.
— I am not responsible for rumors and do not comment on the personnel policies of other government agencies. Months or even years pass from the moment a case is entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations until the notice of suspicion is served. Therefore, I do not quite understand how the dismissals of former office employees can be linked to the suspicions of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
— The office received information that the investigation was at the final stage and a notice of suspicion was being prepared, and the office was cleared.
— Dismissal after searches or before notification of suspicion is not always associated with information leakage. Sometimes there are indeed signs of information transfer, but it is not a fact that someone is physically transferring it. Here it is worth recalling two more systemic problems: independent wiretapping, which the representatives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine still do not have, and independent examination. Obviously, if the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine applies for an examination of a top corrupt official to some conditional forensic institute that is under the management of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine or the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) of Ukraine, then it is impossible to maintain complete secrecy in the case. I think it is not difficult for you to guess how long it will take for potential defendants to find out what this examination is about. And what is the chance that the information will not only be passed on, but also distorted? This chance is huge. I am not even talking about the results of the examination.
— That is why, in the case of the illegal enrichment of the head of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMK) Pavlo Kyrylenko by UAH 56 million, you did without an examination of his numerous real estate properties before filing a charge?
— Indeed, in this case, at the initial stage, we did not involve an expert, since the amounts specified in the purchase agreements already exceeded the legal income of the person. But now the examination has already been conducted and it confirmed the validity of the suspicion.
In any case, it should not be the case that the independent investigation of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine turns to institutions that are completely politically dependent for an examination.
— Who are you telling this to now?
— To independent media, public activists and representatives of all branches of government, of course. In order for the provisions of the law on the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) to work (and it provides for an independent examination), the law on forensic examination must be amended. And this is the responsibility of the parliament. The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine are responsible for preparing such a bill.
— Well, the office of the President of Ukraine is responsible for the inspiration of all of them together. I think it is important not to forget to clarify this. Especially since we are moving to the European Union (EU). By the way, the new Minister of Justice of Ukraine Olha Stefanishyna is responsible for the legal side of the negotiations.
— We are in communication with the Minister of Justice of Ukraine. This non-working norm in the law on the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine is in the field of view of our international partners. Not only in the negotiating framework of the European Union, but also the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Therefore, I am quite optimistic. Independent examination of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and access of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office to the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations on people's deputies are tools that the authorities should give to the anti-corruption bloc.
— Returning to the of information leaks in the cases of top corrupt officials. The case of the former Minister of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine Mykola Solskyi, who was eventually placed under suspicion. The defendants in his case had search warrants.
— I will try to outline the problem systemically here: today, individuals not associated with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) and the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC) have the opportunity to gain access to court decisions, including warrants for conducting searches or other investigative actions. We have identified a group of people with law enforcement skills and technical capabilities who used such access to the register of court decisions for selfish purposes. People systematically monitored the register for search warrants. We promptly received information that the defendants were downloading court decisions and documenting this activity. There will be a result. The representatives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine stopped the activity of one specific group, but a loophole remains at the legislative and technical level.
We initiated the issue of amending the regulations that govern this before the High Council of Justice (HCJ). There should be an opportunity to close such court decisions so that they do not appear in the register. The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered that such a decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) is illegal. Now in the relevant committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine there is a rather controversial bill concerning the closing of the register of court decisions. But there is a block that concerns us directly and the possibility of closing such types of court decisions by order of a detective or prosecutor. This is a very important block for the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
— The case of the former adviser to the Office of the President of Ukraine (OPU) and former head of one of the departments of Security Service of Ukraine (SSU), Artem Shilo. The defendants knew that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was investigating the thefts at the Joint-Stock Company "Ukrainian Railway" back in August 2022 and decided to wind up their work on the railway. In general, sources in the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) shrug their shoulders, saying that Artem Shilo has bigger fish in his background. Only one Ihor is worth a lot.
— The group members began to wind up their work on the railway when they learned from one of the defendants that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was conducting an investigation. That is, I have no confirmed objective data that there was a leak of information in this case. As for the bigger or smaller fish, I am sure that we should not discredit the results of the detectives who have done a lot of professional work. We investigate everything that comes into our field of vision. This is a good case, and the pre-trial investigation is still ongoing.
— Why is Mr. Kiperman, who is involved in the case of causing damage to PJSC "National Energy Company "Ukrenergo" in the amount of UAH 716 million, still not on the international wanted list and freely traveling around the world?
— The case of causing millions of losses to PJSC "National Energy Company "Ukrenergo" is already in court and four people are accused in it, including the organizer, who has been on the international wanted list since May, there is a red alert from the International Criminal Police Organization – Interpol.
— If you go to the website of the International Criminal Police Organization, the name Kiperman is not there. Or is he on the closed list, which includes terrorists, especially dangerous criminals and spies? But he is not among the first, second or third. Doesn't this mean that they simply do not want to find him?
— The website of the International Criminal Police Organization has two components: the one that any user sees and the system itself. Roughly speaking, the fact that you enter a name into the search and do not find a specific wanted person does not mean that he is not there. (In the process of preparing the interview, the director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) provided ZN.UA with a document sent by the National Police of Ukraine in response to a request of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, confirming that "The Red Alert regarding Mykhailo Yuriyovych Kiperman was published in the Interpol General Secretariat's accounting system on 14.05.2024." – I.V.)
— Why do people's deputies involved in criminal cases flee? Yaroslav Dubnevych, Andrii Odarchenko. It recently became known that Serhii Kuzminykh was allowed to travel abroad on a business trip.
— The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine did not allow him to travel abroad on a business trip. There are some suspects and those already accused in court, whose restrictions are changed by the court. The obligation not to leave the place of residence or the territory of the region can be replaced by permission to travel only within the territory of Ukraine. Or the period of movement restrictions ends altogether, and the court no longer extends it.
— So, who is responsible for the fact that people's deputies, who are defendants in top corruption cases are literally running away from responsibility?
— About the people's deputy who is accused of bribery with cryptocurrency. (We are talking about Andrii Odarchenko. – I.V.) According to our information, he crossed the border outside the customs border control zone. In this particular case, he was not required to wear an electronic bracelet. It was not extended by the court. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine does not have the right to control defendants in criminal cases from the moment the case is transferred to court, without the appropriate court sanction. It is important to note that border control is the responsibility of the border service. But here again, it is a question of the system. Top corrupt officials are released on bail, after a certain time their obligations in terms of restricting movement are usually softened. The legal process can last for years. Which is what the defendants and their lawyers are actually striving for, knowing full well what "Lozovyi's amendments" are. The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine does not have enough bracelets... That is, there is no well-established state system that would guarantee the inevitability of punishment.
— The system is just very well made and is aimed at convenience in favor of those who evade the army and corrupt officials. In this regard, have you by any chance asked the authorities for help in organizing productive negotiations on the extradition of those who have fled? Or is the position of the Europeans, who cannot let our corrupt officials go "where military action is taking place," acceptable to everyone?
— As for the extradition of participants in criminal proceedings, it is worth noting that this issue is not resolved at the government level or at any other level except the court. It is the court in a particular country that makes the decision on extradition, taking into account certain circumstances, including those that may threaten a person's life. And it is the full-scale war that is ongoing in our country that often becomes the reason for refusing extradition. But there are also positive cases when a person can still be returned to Ukraine to be brought to justice. The latest of these is the extradition of one of the suspects in the seizure of real estate of the state enterprise National Cinematheque of Ukraine.
— Fifty percent of the state budget goes to the country's defense sector. It is also where there are the most opportunities for corruption. I understand that some of the scandalous cases involving the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine are handled by the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) and the Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine (BESU). However, it does not feel like this is the priority of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. Even the report for the first half of 2024 talks about a modest five thousand bulletproof vests that one private company failed to deliver. And that's it?
— Defense is precisely one of the priorities of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. But it is worth noting that investigations into weapons purchases, including all defense orders, are very complex and long-term processes. In the case of Optimumspetsdetal LLC, which began in 2019, the final suspicions regarding the final defendants were reached only at the end of 2023, if I'm not mistaken. This is due to the fact that these are multi-episode proceedings that involve many jurisdictions, including international assistance. In addition, it may also involve conducting very complex assessments to determine economic losses, which can last for years.
— How many defense cases are in production? And what human resources are available for these tasks?
— More than 60 productions. Currently, the division employs almost 20 people. We need another ten people, but we will complete this in the process of increasing the staff.
— Will you somehow respond to the scandal with State Foreign Trade Enterprise ”SpetsTechnoExport” (STE) of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine (HUR)?
— We respond to everything. We have criminal proceedings that concerned state purchases of State Foreign Trade Enterprise ”SpetsTechnoExport” (STE). They were opened before the scandals. We do not characterize our activities through this prism at all, we conduct analytical work, take into account, and are already investigating some things.
— The case of local authorities. In Odessa, where they have been trying to get Boris Kaufman for a long time, is there nothing new to be found? Some names of people collecting tribute are heard. Ivan Draliuk is one of them. In Kyiv, journalists are investigating Vitalii Klitschko's deputy Vlolodymyr Prokopiv…. Serhii Nadal with his daughter's elite real estate in Miami... A wave is coming across Dnipro. But it is difficult to verify everyone there, given the "independent" law enforcement agencies and the large amount of false information on Telegram channels. Are you, on your part, working in Dnipro?
— Speaking about Odessa, we do not leave this oasis. In Kyiv, detectives are currently conducting analytical work on the presence of an investigative period for the acquisition of property by the deputy mayor, its value and the presence of signs of non-declaration and illegal enrichment. The same work is being carried out in relation to other officials of city administrations.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) works systematically. We have territorial departments in which we plan to increase the number of detectives. After the adoption of amendments to the law, we have the opportunity to expand the staff of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine by a hundred people annually. And from the next tranches, we plan to increase the territorial departments. We also have our division in Dnipro. We are planning to create another division but have not yet decided to create it in Khmelnytskyi or Vinnytsia. We are conducting analytical work. In general, we pay a lot of attention to the work of local governments. And I expect good results.
— About the fight against smuggling. People who were declared the country's main smugglers in 2021, up to the point of imposing sanctions on the initiative of the president, were very quietly released from sanctions three years later. Including dozens of legal entities. This happened without explanation. Are the representatives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine not interested in this? Will you investigate how these people and enterprises ended up on the sanctions list and how they fell out of it?
— A question for those who imposed sanctions and who lifted them.
— So, category "A" civil servants from law enforcement agencies imposed and lifted these sanctions. Aren't they your clients?
— If we have information that signs of a corruption offense were identified in the process of lifting sanctions, we will definitely respond to this in the context of crimes under investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. That is, in terms of imposing and lifting sanctions, this is not our area. Absolutely not, it is not within our jurisdiction. But if there will be a corruption story there, then yes, in this case it will be within our competence.
If we talk about customs in general, then it is the focus of our investigations. We have a case on the activities of customs in the Rivne, Lviv, Zakarpattia regions and part of the Chernivtsi region. Large-scale searches, detentions were conducted, suspicions were brought. Several people are in custody, including one of the organizers of the scheme. There were also investigative actions in the central office of the Customs Service of Ukraine. We already have good results and will have more successes in the future.
— When international partners created the anti-corruption bloc institutions (the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) – the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) – the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) – the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC)), they were talking about a certain island that would not shrink like shagreen leather, but on the contrary, grow, spreading healthy practices throughout the law enforcement system. But a catastrophe happened: the island itself is experiencing a crisis and is drifting in an indifferent and corrupt ocean of tens of thousands of law enforcement officers at all levels, who are strongly influenced by political figures.
— Firstly, it is worth noting that any crisis is an opportunity for development. Secondly, we are not drifting, but we know exactly where we are sailing.
With the beginning of a full-scale invasion, the influx of global finances into Ukraine, in the conditions of a certain closed government, an increase in the rights of law enforcement officers, a narrowing of the rights of society – corruption risks have increased tenfold. But at the same time, due to international assistance, pressure from partners, as well as circumstances related to the need to survive, tectonic changes have occurred in the anti-corruption sphere, which it was impossible to talk about before. Civil society has regained its voice. Independent institution such as the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, increased the staff of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, Supervisory Boards in key agencies, transparent procurement in specific industries. An open competition for the head of the State Customs Service of Ukraine, an open competition for the head of the Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine (BESU).
Is this enough? No, it is not enough. You can't just expose corruption by stopping the perpetrators. These revelations must be backed by systemic work on institutional changes. And very fast changes, so that the corruption environment does not have time to form. If it is a matter of procedure, then the procedure must be changed quickly. If it is a matter of openness, then the degree of openness must be changed. If it is a matter of corporate governance and the need to change approaches, then they must be implemented. That is, this is constant, very difficult government work. This must be the same equal track in efforts that we now have in increasing our defense capability. Moreover, we must have such a trend throughout the entire law enforcement system.
There is another important nuance. The responsibility of society plays a very important role. So, what do you think, should the head of the medical and social expert commission (MSEC), who has accumulated a bed full of dollars, be held solely responsible for the corruption crime? Of course, all these pseudo-disabled prosecutors are also subjects of the committed offense. Because giving bribes to the head of the medical and social expert commission or the head of the Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support (TCC) is a crime. It does not work one way. And therefore, those who evade military service in this way should also be held criminally liable.
— That is what the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine should do decisively. The State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) transferred the case on suspicion of the head of the Khmelnytskyi regional center of medical and social expertise, deputy of the Khmelnytskyi regional council from the Servant of the People party Tetiana Krupa to you.
— Yes, the case was recently transferred to us by jurisdiction. Detectives are studying the materials, conducting all the necessary investigative actions. I cannot say more now due to the need to maintain the secrecy of the investigation.
— In Europe, there is a system of financial monitoring of each citizen. There are huge fines for grey wages, non-payment of taxes, etc. This is very disciplined and teaches to be responsible.
— We can talk about such things and about such total anti-corruption control in relation to citizens, when everything is balanced in the state, the law enforcement system is healthy, when there is no opportunity to take bribes for a value-added tax (VAT), when there are no tax pits, corrupt tax managers, etc. The entire management of the Kharkiv tax service received suspicion from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, because they took bribes for unblocking invoices and removing enterprises from risky ones. It turns out that you can take 1.5% for unblocking and the entire process is managed manually. The environment itself contributes to the fact that no matter which manager comes, he will be involved in bribes.
I think this is a disaster. And no matter how much we investigate and expose these tax officials, but if there is a system that allows you to manually remove a company from risk or unblock an invoice for 1.5-2-3% of the turnover, then what is the state talking about? And there is no need to say that this is one such corrupt official. Unblocking does not happen at the level of the regional tax office. Unblocking is the most severe vertical that leads to the center.
And now I am saying responsibly that if this happened in one region, where the entire management was recorded as taking bribes, then it is the same throughout the country. That is, it is obvious that the problem is not in one person or in a separate tax service. The problem is that the system allows for manual withdrawal of money from businesses for money.
— That is, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine also has questions for Mr. Arakhamia, Hetmantsev and Sokur, who in his status as acting deputy head of the State Tax Service of Ukraine oversees all this operationally? So questions arise not only for minor Kharkiv officials?
— I have repeatedly said that I do not operate with names and announcements. Let's put it this way: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine carries out systematic work not only to identify crimes, but also to eliminate corruption risks. One of the tools that we actively use as a preventive measure at the first stage is sending letters about the need to eliminate corruption risks.
Unfortunately, the system operates in many aspects that we have talked about not at its full capacity. Moreover, these aspects do not allow the anti-corruption block to work properly. The main tasks of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine should be to highlight schemes, solve crimes and bring to justice. And the government must eliminate opportunities for these schemes. It will not work any other way. But I am very optimistic, and we will certainly solve all this too.