Yesterday, representatives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) detained Oleksii Salnikov, the head of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine. This is another episode in the framework of the investigation of top corruption in the judicial system, connected with the recent exposure of the head of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, Vsevolod Kniazev. Of course, the bribe of seven thousand dollars, which Salnikov took from the businessman, is just a trifle that does not mean anything against the background of the scale of his compatriot boss, who at one time made Salnikov dependent on the funds of the judicial system. But not everything is so clear.
The photo of Salnikov, previously published by ZN.UA, walking with Knyazev's accomplice, lawyer-mediator Oleg Horetskyi, past the Supreme Court of Ukraine, indicates that we will probably be able to find out the names of not only four judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine who traded justice. This is also evidenced by the information of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) representatives that after Knyazev's detention in the pre-trial detention center, Salnikov promised the bribe-giver to "negotiate" with one of the heads of the Supreme Court of Cassation.
However, in addition to this case, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) are investigating dozens of other, no less demonstrative cases worth millions of dollars. Both those that shook the entire country already during the war, and those whose results the country has been waiting for several years.
When will the anti-corruption bloc strengthen the investigation of journalists about corruption in the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine? What about the suspicion of ex-prosecutor general Iryna Venediktova? Will Boris Kaufman and Oleksandr Granovskyi be arrested and convicted and will Gennadii Trukhanov continue to rule Odesa? Does the case of ex-deputy chairman of the Office of the President of Ukraine (Kyrylo Tymoshenko and his business partners Yurii Golyk and Valentyn Reznichenko have any prospects? When will the specialized committee take out draft law No. 5661 from under the cloth and put a block on lawyers to delay cases in the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC)? How to beat Ruvin and sales reviews? Will the forces of the anti-corruption bloc be sufficient to fight corruption without a real reform of the law enforcement system, in which the authorities are not interested? How to make the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) independent and on whom within the country, apart from the public and international partners, should the anti-corruption bloc rely?
We asked Oleksandr Klymenko, the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), these and other questions.
About new schemes of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Venediktova's "luck" and suspicion of Trukhanov
— Mr. Oleksandr, even before the story with the "golden eggs" was published in our publication, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was engaged in procurement schemes from the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. When to expect the first results of the investigation?
— It is difficult to predict, since we are dealing with a huge amount of information. For each delivery of products, it is necessary to pick up the documentation, calculate its quantity, and after that establish its value and calculate the total amount of damages. But the proceedings are very active. It is under the control of both the management of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC) and the management of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).
— So, maybe we need to strengthen the case with detectives and prosecutors? Because there is a great dissonance when the halls of various forums greet the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Oleksii Reznikov with applause, while detectives are investigating the corruption of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine purchases for 409 items. By the way, this is not my data, but that of Andrii Kaluzhynskyi, the chief detective of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).
— But there is a presumption of innocence. We have to collect the proper evidence, confirm whether there was a crime, and then speak. Although in any case we will always lag behind those who commit crimes. Committing a crime is much easier than collecting and proving everything later.
— Therefore, the anti-corruption bloc is based on the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption. We had a large amount of information about how the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine prevents corruption, which, in fact, we talked about in an interview with the head of the the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine Oleksandr Novikov. Mr. Reznikov, together with his deputy for finance, Rostislav Zamlynskyi, and adviser Andrii Myroshnychenko, who comes from the "Hospital of the Future", the project of which is not being developed, cleared all audit and anti-corruption departments in the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine of the not close and unfamiliar people. With the resignation of Vyacheslav Shapoval and Bohdan Khmelnytskyi, representatives of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine have not been freed from corruption and continue to harm our army.
— Unfortunately, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine constantly creates various schemes that are used to make money. There are enough examples. Among the memorable ones: when a company offers a large list of food products to be supplied, it has prices both well above market for the most popular items, such as potatoes and carrots, and well below market. It is worth noting that such a price exists for those products that do not reach the soldiers in practice. And if you take the average price, you will get an adequate percentage that the grocery set will cost about this or that amount. But then miracles begin: the company wins the tender thanks to the low price offered, but in fact supplies only the most expensive products. And the cheapest ones that were in this company's catalog are not supplied.
We have a large number of proceedings regarding this ministry. Purchases of weapons, means of protection, contracts for repairs. However, an inflated price does not always indicate corruption, because in some cases, when weapons and ammunition were purchased, they were simply not sold at a lower price in Ukraine. There can be many reasons. At the beginning of the war, our foreign partners were generally afraid to supply weapons to Ukraine, so we had to buy them from intermediaries. In addition, cases where Russia intervenes in this market and deliberately raises the price or buys out Ukrainian contracts are excluded.
— Well, now you understand?
— Yes, and this is such a sensitive process. But we plan to have results by the end of the year.
— Do you investigate cases related to overdue receivables of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine? The 8.9 billion hryvnias announced by the ministry is not all. In response to the request of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine confirmed 36(!) billion hryvnias of receivables of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
— I cannot say whether we have information about all such suppliers of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, but some of them are under active investigation. Also, based on this information, the facts that the funds were paid – 100% advance payment, and the weapons were not delivered - are confirmed.
— And this could be a scheme of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine?
— Exactly! Therefore, we are now establishing why contracts were concluded with these companies, why a 100% advance payment was made, and whether there is a corruption component and abuse. Perhaps this is not an exception and this is such an economic relationship. It often happens that the party has not fulfilled the contracts, and representatives of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, as part of other processes, apply for the recovery of those funds that have been paid. In some cases, there are real companies that actually sell weapons or ammunition, or even are manufacturers, but they did not fulfill the contract due to objective reasons. Let's figure it out.
— The case of ex-prosecutor general Iryna Venediktova. In December, in an interview with our publication, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) chief detective Andrii Kaluzhinsky confirmed that the agency is continuing its investigation into the fact of interference in the activities of the prosecutor, which could prevent the serving of suspicion to the judges of the liquidated District Administrative Court of Kyiv in the case of the tapes of the head of the court, Pavlo Vovka. Half a year has passed, how far has the investigation progressed and is the suspicion real?
— These proceedings have no prospects. And they are not under the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).
—Why?! Kaluzhinskyi said that all the materials were returned to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). Where and why are these matters now? Who made the decision? Please explain here the position of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) in detail.
— Yes, indeed, we demanded from other bodies all criminal proceedings on the specified fact, one case, if I am not mistaken, from the Security Service of Ukraine, and the other from the State Bureau of Investigation of Ukraine. The third was under the investigation of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) detectives. According to the results of their study, it was established that the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has expired for some of the episodes, since the actions provided for in Article 343 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer) are not a crime, but only a misdemeanor. The statute of limitations for prosecution for a misdemeanor is only two years, in some cases three years. And the criminal proceedings related to the events that took place in the summer of 2020. The only "real" episode in these criminal proceedings was the episode of unauthorized recording of the conversation of prosecutors of the Office of the Prosecutor General in one of the restaurants in Kyiv. Such actions are a crime and are qualified under Article 359 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
However, in my opinion, any result of the investigation of these criminal proceedings will not lead to the referral of the case to court. Even if I am wrong, and it will be sent to court by some other body, then this court will definitely not be the Higher Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine, since none of the articles are corruption-related, which means that they are not subject to investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and are not under the jurisdiction of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC). We ourselves are talking about the fact that everyone must comply with the requirements of Article 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding liability.
In all these episodes, the prosecutor determined responsibility for another body of pre-trial investigation in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
— Where is Venediktova's phone? And if I'm not mistaken, the phone was in Oleksandr Omelchenko's unit as evidence. Probably, Madam Ambassador, reading this now, feels like a winner. And the officials on Bankova Street can be proud of the fact that they kept their word. I will not comment on what the public feels.
— Yes, such proceedings really exist, registered, it seems, in January 2022. And it does have a phone, it does not belong to the previous attorney general, but according to the materials of the criminal proceedings, it should have stored a number of records relating to the conversations of the previous attorney general. The content of these conversations is currently unknown to me.
After my appointment, I studied and listened to all criminal proceedings. Thus, during the hearing of Omelchenko's department, it was established that in one of the proceedings entered into the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations on the fact of interference, but already in the activities of the Prosecutor General, there is a telephone on which there are recordings of conversations. It is also stated that they were allegedly used by unidentified persons to influence the previous Prosecutor General.
During the wiretapping, it became clear that the phone is not with representatives of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). According to prosecutors, he was kept away from Kyiv because of the war. After a few days, the phone still appeared in the criminal proceedings, it was blocked, and the phone password disappeared. According to the prosecutors, they either did not listen to the recordings before sending them for examination, or simply forgot their content.
The expert of the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Examinations (head Oleksandr Ruvin. – I.V.), who conducted the examination, also does not remember the password from the phone. In addition, he also does not remember the content of the conversations that were recorded, does not recall, and cannot explain why the content of the conversations was not reflected in the examination itself.
The detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine unit (we are talking about the unit under the leadership of Boris Indychenko. – I.V.), who conducted the pre-trial investigation in this proceeding, as well as their leaders, were also unable to explain anything about the phone or the proceedings in general. This happened even before the appointment of a new director of the bureau.
After establishing these facts, the group of prosecutors and the group of detectives were changed, and the phone was handed over to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) for unlocking. Currently, according to my information, in the case of the former general prosecutor himself, they have not been questioned about the details and circumstances. The phone is already unlocked and we need to establish the content of the records, their authenticity and the absence of unauthorized interventions in the phone to change or replace the specified records, the investigation is ongoing. But there are really a lot of strange coincidences in the case, which are even more like regularities. Therefore, it is possible that the actions of the detectives and the prosecutor will also have to be investigated in this case.
— Thank you. Let's talk about Odessa. There is also something to talk about here. Will Gennadii Trukhanov be suspected in the case of Boris Kaufman – Oleksandr Granovskyi?
— I will definitely not announce a report of suspicions. The matter is being investigated. We are actually finalizing what we had left and proceeding to the conclusion of the investigation. Will there be any more suspicions in this case? I don't think so yet.
— It has been known since the time of Oleksandr Angert and Volodymyr Galanternik that Mayor Trukhanov is a very careful business partner. And, of course, he did not visit Kaufman's bunker. His "right hand" – Mykhailo Kuchuk – used to go there. Two more deputies also went there. By the way, we wrote about this fact in detail just a few days ago. And they did not speak as part of the agreement with the investigation? As well as developers who signed "memorandums" for a ten percent bribe with Kaufman and Granovskyi.
—A very strong group of detectives is working in this criminal case, it is really being actively investigated, it is not standing still, but I cannot reveal more details so as not to harm the investigation.
In order for us to be more effective in cases like this, it is important to restart the institution of agreements. We want to be able to enter into agreements with those involved in order to get to the ultimate beneficiaries and beneficiaries of corruption schemes and punish them as much as possible. Because mostly there is a hierarchy and there is a person who controls the whole process. But we reach some managers and deputies and very often do not reach the top. The legislation is written in such a way that the manager signs an agreement with the investigation to expose the profiteer, but with the possibility of receiving a punishment in the form of seven years of imprisonment. Few people agree to such terms of the agreement, or rather, no one agrees. This creates a circular bond. It is necessary to be able to apply a lower punishment than that provided for by the sanction of the article in corruption crimes.
— But there may be abuses on the part of the prosecutors who, after signing the agreements, will begin mass exonerations from responsibility.
— There is judicial control over this, which checks both public interests and the legality of the punishment applied or proposed in the agreement. This tool works throughout the civilized world.
— Kaufman often visited Bankova Street, and ex-head of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov at one time, on the instructions of the president, helped the owner of "Tedis Ukraine" in resolving the conflict with the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine in the story of 3.4 billion hryvnias, for which the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMK) fined the tobacco company in the fall of 2019. I am talking about the fact that there is no preserved corruption at the level of the city or region. Are you tracking other possible lines in any way? Left, right, up? Maybe it will be beneficial for Kaufman to make a deal on the existing terms?
— The investigation is conducted based on the fact of the committed crime, and not on a specific person. This is a slightly different situation. We can't take a person and find out what possible crimes they've ever committed. We have a specific activity of a certain criminal organization that laundered funds from the Odesa city budget. We are investigating this fact and, as part of this proceeding, have informed the persons of suspicion of a crime.
— Returning to the "lucky man" Trukhanov. In the JSC "Krayan" case, everything is not so simple and clear for him. Although, also, how to look at it. Our courts, on the order of the office of the President of Ukraine, remove mayos from their posts: one took his wife abroad in a company car, another wrote out financial assistance to an assistant who had previously contributed 24,000 hryvnias to his election fund. But this is the situation in Chernihiv and Rivne. But in Odesa, the situation is already different for the one who took the plant for himself and can influence the investigation. The representatives of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) were going to make a submission to the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC) regarding the removal of the mayor of Odesa from his post. Why didn't they do it? Moreover, why was Trukhanov's bracelet removed? Did the representatives of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) ask for an extension of the official's preventive measure?
— This is one of those proceedings pending in court. For a very long time, a preparatory court session has not been held. For various reasons. We analyzed them. The prosecutor prepared a number of motions, some of them were granted. By the way, several defendants have had their protective measures changed, and we hope that this case will go to trial in connection with such measures. However, I do not think that the only reason for delays is the burden on the court. We are also working in this direction and we will activate the line of consideration of cases in court.
Regarding suspension. It is also necessary to prove the risks and give them a proper justification. At the moment, it is difficult for me to say how we will act in this situation, we will look at the behavior of the participants in the process. That is, if the risks of influencing the course of the case through the use of the position are really confirmed, we will take measures.
Regarding the preventive measure, the prosecutor filed a request to extend the term of the duties in advance, namely on June 16, 2023, but this request was never considered by the court, as one of the judges of the panel was on vacation. The term of office ended on July 5, 2023. We will initiate before the court the re-imposition of duties on the accused.
About pending cases, "Great construction" and expertise as state sabotage
— The JSC "Krayan", District Administrative Court of the city of Kyiv, Zlochevskyi, Alperin, "PrivatBank ", "amber case" ... Just a little more, and the people involved in these cases, known throughout the country, will finally believe in impunity.
— Yes, this is a problem. There are cases where for more than 3.5 years not even a preparatory court session has taken place. There are very different cases of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC) meetings being disrupted, which we have also analyzed. We had many meetings with the procedural heads of these cases, plus prosecutors changed there, because those who supported the prosecution were now being mobilized. However, we hope that things will be intensified. By the way, the cases concerning the JSC "Krayan" (preparation lasts for more than 2.5 years) and amber (for more than 3.5 years) are heard by the same board of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC).
— Is this a hint about the quality of the collegium? Do you somehow communicate with the head of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC) on this topic?
— We do not question the good faith of any collegium of the Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC) board. As far as I know, the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC) constantly presents certain initiatives to the parliament in order to improve the legislation and prevent the prolongation of court proceedings. The court needs effective tools.
— That is, the ball is in the field of the specialized committee, which is headed by Mr. Ionushas and where, by the way, draft law No. 5661, which partially solves this problem, has been lying for the second year?
— We have a number of practices and recipes, and I know that the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC) also has them, but at the moment it looks like these issues are not relevant for the parliament.
— It is obvious that Odesa is not an exception to the rules. But how big is everything? How many such local stories do you consider? Have the detectives already reached the shadow office of Kyiv, which is managed by a well-known associate of Chernovetskyi, Denys Komarnytskyi? Which, by the way, economically suits both Klytschko and Yermak.
— Criminal proceedings regarding corruption at the local level have been opened in many cities. They are being actively investigated. And we are talking not only about regional centers, but also about smaller cities, which are also subject to our investigation.
— So visitors to bunkers across the country should remember this?
— Exactly! But we should also not forget that this situation can become even more large-scale and cynical, when funds for reconstruction go not only to large state programs, but also to large cities. Therefore, it is necessary to be ready to investigate a larger number of such facts.
— The case of Reznichenko-Holyk-Timoshenko within the case of the Dnipro Oblast. Is the list of those involved correct? Is there any perspective here?
— As part of this proceeding, a number of examinations are currently being conducted in order to establish the probable extent of the damage caused. The circle of all involved persons is only being established. Therefore, I cannot say anything more about the case. And the perspective depends on what evidence we collect. And it is in almost every case.
— But in every case, unforeseen circumstances occur.
— Such risks are more threatening to cases that begin to be documented secretly. For example, bribes, etc. Even in the case of the head of the Ternopil Regional Council and two deputy heads of the regional military administration of the same region, there was a leak of information in the case of receiving an illegal benefit. Therefore, we had to wait for a certain period of time to put our vigilance to sleep. And it worked – the people involved returned to criminal activity, and we realized it after that. But equally, in my opinion, this leak prevented us from documenting the involvement of one more high-ranking official. By the way, the source of the information leak was never established. Unfortunately, this happens quite often due to the fact that the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) is not an independent body and we still do not have an independent hearing of those involved. But where the fact has already been recorded, an official investigation is underway, the risks of harm are not so great.
— And "Big Construction" with almost the same number of people?
— Here everything rests on expertise. Conducting examinations in the construction and technical or land sector is the most difficult, as they last the longest and the queue for them is the longest. Even now, experts are extensively involved in damage assessment within the scope of the law on compensation for destroyed or damaged housing. There were difficulties even before the war - the queue stood for years, but now there are even more of them.
— And deadlines are running out... What to do with it? With a custom examination, with a queue without priorities? With ruins? This has been a diversion at the state level for a long time.
— This question is no longer for me, but for the Minister of Justice of Ukraine. This ministry certifies experts and supervises the quality of work of expert institutions. But I don't think that the state has any objective reasons not to bring order in this area after so many years. The problems for all parties are obvious. We appoint an examination in one institution, and a defense in another. As a result, we have several examinations in one case. Often with mutually exclusive conclusions. Plus, in various proceedings, in various bodies, examinations are also ongoing on the same fact. It is chaos and a field for abuse.
About the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which does not punish, the inside of the government and the problems of extradition of Bakhmatyuk and Ko
— Here you are talking about the recovery and possible increase in the number of abuses of donor money. But it is necessary to be ready to respond to it not only to the anti-corruption bloc, which has a little more than two thousand anti-corruption fighters in the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), 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). We have another 150,000 employees of the law enforcement system and prosecutor's office. The authorities are not interested in reforming them, as well as in honest expert institutions operating on the basis of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This is beneficial: you just have to decide something with the mayor. After all, he only needs to wish for something, and the security forces can break into any office, the issue has been resolved - thank you, you can go back. Manual control of security forces is the basis for the emergence of such cases as in Odesa.
— In order for the law enforcement system to work properly, it is necessary for the heads of the law enforcement system to be people appointed based on the results of independent competitions. So that a person comes to office and owes nothing to anyone. That this person has no contingent liability to anyone who appointed or recommended him for this position. Then it will work. In addition, the law enforcement system needs to be given criminal procedural legislation that really works.
— Here it is worth telling in more detail.
— An effective mechanism is needed so that the person who committed the crime can be brought to justice and the violated right restored. In our country, this system does not work, because for a long time before the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, changes were made manually for a specific situation, a specific case, and a person. After that, there were amendments regarding the terms of the investigations, which, in principle, do not happen anywhere in the world. It is about the terms of investigation in actual criminal proceedings. That is, criminal proceedings have been registered for the commission of a crime, there is a certain period for its investigation, but if you did not identify the person who committed this crime within this period, or you did not have time to collect all the evidence in the case and the investigating judge did not extend this period, the case should be closed. And it is actually closed and the crime is not investigated further, no one is to blame, and it does not matter that the amount of damages can be in the billions. In my opinion, the period of investigation in such criminal proceedings can be limited only by the statute of limitations for prosecution, as in other civilized countries.
The presence of such time periods gives rise to different practices in the order of their calculation in different criminal proceedings and in different situations – during the consolidation of proceedings, after the cancellation of the resolution on closure, in the conditions of martial law and before it, etc.
This is nonsense. First, they change what did not need to be changed, and then they also "improve"... This is what the previous parliament did, and the current one is doing the same. There was already an attempt to amend Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which would have buried half of our cases and allowed abuse with impunity.
— Are you talking about draft law No. 8235, among the authors of which is the head of the law enforcement committee, Serhii Ionushas?
— Unfortunately. It is not so much about the bill itself, as about individual amendments to it, submitted already in the process of consideration to the second reading, as far as I understand. But there is no need to improve anything here, it is simply necessary to cancel the terms of investigation in actual criminal proceedings. And everything will fall into place. Just as in order to make it impossible to delay cases, it is necessary to clarify only a few norms in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
— There is another problem: in every protracted case, we have a person involved who is hiding abroad. However, it is not the law enforcement committee, but the international partners who have a strange position here.
— There are two reasons for refusing extradition. First, the conditions of detention of prisoners in Ukraine are inadequate. European courts refer to the fact that this is a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Secondly, with the beginning of the war, the fact that the state cannot guarantee security on its territory was added. No one is safe from the fact that at some point a missile can fly anywhere.
— And what are the options? Three human lives will not be enough for us to rebuild our penitentiary system.
— It is possible to guarantee on behalf of the state that the extradited persons will be kept in proper conditions, and invite inspectors who will check this. Regarding the war, it can be guaranteed that those involved in these cases will be detained in the western regions of Ukraine. We have Zakarpattia Region, where there was no shelling. We always talk about it with representatives of other countries on any platforms. Our biggest problems are extradition and asset recovery. Asset recovery is possible after we have a final court order. And for us, the extradition of criminals is a guarantee of the inevitability of punishment. Otherwise, you can commit a serious crime of corruption in Ukraine, leave, and you will never be extradited. Here, a tough position of the state is needed, and we have an iron argument for this: one of the conditions for joining the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an effective fight against corruption. Without a truly effective extradition mechanism, we are engaged in imitation.
— Throughout the interview, we have constant references to the specialized committee, then to the authorities, then to the state. And we try to justify all these institutions in inactivity. On whom should the anti-corruption bloc rely in its fight?
— Civil society, certain public organizations, as well as international partners who see our problems and negotiate with their governments have been and are our only and constant partners.
— That is, there is currently no internal platform in the state where anti-corruption tools and improvement of legislative procedures could be effectively discussed?
— I do not see. The power of the anti-corruption committee without the support of a specialized one to solve problems is unfortunately lacking, although the anti-corruption committee helps us within its powers. In any case, if there is another site, we are not invited there, since the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) is not a separate institution. Even the discussion of draft laws passes us by, because we are just a structural unit. If they are invited, then only such governmental organizations as the Office of the Prosecutor General or the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).
About the dependence of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), the rejected draft law and the non-working or working group in the specialized committee
— One of the demands of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to Ukraine is the strengthening of the autonomy of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). Today, you and I touched on the deep problems that exist in the law enforcement system, and of which of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) is an administrative and procedural part. What is your plan to become a full-fledged and self-sufficient link of the anti-corruption group?
— The way we see reforming the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO is outlined in draft law No. 8402, which is supported by the anti-corruption committee and its head, Anastasia Radina. She is one of the authors of the draft law. Since 2015, nothing has changed in the legislation regarding the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). Of course, it was impossible to do everything perfectly at once. But over the years, almost all processes have been run. Therefore, for each step that we propose in our plan, we have an argument: this is where it didn't work and this is what needs to be done to make it work.
If we are talking about contests for the position of the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) and prosecutors, then we must understand that the selection conditions are far from ideal. If we talk about the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) prosecutors and heads of departments, we need to have a realistic assessment of their activities. So that it does not happen that one prosecutor qualitatively investigates ten cases, and the other - half as many and without paying due attention to it.
If we look even more broadly, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) should go through a real reform, become an independent legal entity, where an independent audit can be conducted. Here they say that Klymenko is ineffective, works poorly, puts pressure on prosecutors. What shall I do? Who to listen to? Only an independent commission that will conduct an independent audit, as is possible in the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and other authorities. But currently it is not possible in the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). That is, I want the legislation to include a rule on a truly independent commission that came, checked, and compiled a report based on the results of the audit, and for this report to be the basis for dismissal if the manager is ineffective according to transparent and publicly understandable criteria. And that's all.
— Unfortunately, even in the competition for the position of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) director, where there were almost ideal conditions and the prevailing voice of international experts, surprises happened during the discussion.
— Nothing is perfect, because there is always a human factor. But the system must be built correctly. Apart from that, it will be possible to judge the results of the competition for the post of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) director at least after a year. However, all decisions of this competition were made in accordance with the procedure and within the time limits specified by the legislation. And the competition for the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) lasted almost two years. No one understood the reasons for his permanent postponement. All this time, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), in fact, did not have an independent leader. After all, it is simply impossible to talk about the independence of the Prosecutor General, who, according to the law, performs the duties of the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) in his absence. Prosecutor General is a political position. And in fact, the body, which a priori should be independent, is managed by a politically appointed person. Therefore, if we are really fighting corruption, and not pretending, leaving the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) under the wing of the Joint State Political Directorate (JSPD) is unacceptable.
— Where is the most problematic section under the wing of the Joint State Political Directorate (JSPD)?
— This is Privacy. Yes, we have achieved certain results even within these limits. If earlier two out of ten procedures were successful, now four out of ten are completed without any problems. But already the sixth procedure always turns out to be a critical problem. It should be noted that this is a rather large number. In conditions of limited opportunities, it is difficult to find sources of information flows. If the representatives of National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) has an internal control department and can conduct integrity checks there, it is much more difficult for us. In order to determine that the leaked information is definitely not from the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), we need to carry out a check. This requires tools and a separate unit that will deal with it. The Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) does not have such a unit, we are a structural unit of the Prosecutor General's Office and use all the tools of the Joint State Political Directorate (JSPD).
A similar situation is with the registration of correspondence. If you bring any document or statement to the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), they will first be transported to a street called Riznytska and registered there. Only after this procedure will this document be returned to us. And here, to put it mildly, there are certain nuances. In addition, it is important not to forget about the budget. Yes, formally we have a separate budget, but we do not actually manage it. We do not have an accounting department, nor departments that carry out procurement, etc.
— What tools do you lack to adjust the team so that it meets the tasks of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO)? Does the draft law provide for re-certification of working prosecutors?
— Re-certifications – no, but the introduction of a certain system of evaluation of the prosecutor's work is foreseen. The one that exists now is formal and tied more to what bonus the prosecutor will receive. That is, today there are no clear criteria for evaluating the efficiency of employees. Apart from that, we consider it possible to implement a system of automatic distribution of cases between prosecutors. That, against the background of increased responsibility of the prosecutor, will ensure their complete independence within the scope of the tasks assigned to the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO).
But this is all about the future. Currently, there is the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) team that was formed before my appointment. We only got seven new positions at the end of last year. In addition, 13 prosecutors serve in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which creates a huge burden on each prosecutor. But currently there are no global problems in the team that existed before the appointment of the manager. There are no constant wars with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) regarding every criminal proceeding. There is a common understanding of the tasks, which is already a great achievement.
Are we working effectively? Given the resource we have, it is effective. Can we work more efficiently? Yes, we can! This requires a number of legislative changes. After all, the main result of the work of the anti-corruption bloc is to convict those guilty of corruption. It is already obvious: in order for our cases to move faster, we need to increase the number of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC) judges. Because their workload has increased by 35 percent in the last year alone. And it will constantly grow, because we send more cases to the court than they consider.
There are several options for increasing the operational capacity of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC). It is possible either to create more panels, or to give them the opportunity to consider the case individually in the court of first instance. That is, it will actually triple the number of meetings. And if this happens, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) must also manage to increase its staff, since we will not be able to cover all meetings with the current team.
Apart from that, the future reorganization of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) in the event that it is possible to pass a draft law on the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), increasing the bureau's staff, and creating its own expert institution. It is necessary to respond qualitatively and quantitatively to the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) in the context of future changes. If you think about the result, of course.
— But all these arguments were not enough for the profile committee? The draft law on the reform of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), for which even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is waiting, was rejected precisely at his level.
— Exactly! When we tried to develop the best model for the existence of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), we involved certain international experts, including the European Anti-Corruption Initiative. Such a model was found and laid out in draft law No. 8402. Why was this bill not supported? Probably, because no one wants institutional and procedural independence of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). After all, we propose to increase the powers of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) and provide the possibility for the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) to enter information about people's deputies into the OGPU. And this is already a strong danger for political corruption.
— Unfortunately, not a single case of political corruption was investigated in the parliament. Not a single envelope of financial assistance to deputies from the ruling party became evidence in court. Former Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) Artem Sytnyk spoke about the negative. You, no matter what happens in the system. In essence, you are talking about blocking investigations at the level of the Prosecutor General.
— Here is the complexity of documenting this type of crime, and the limited tools we have. Mostly, the problem lies in operational work, in how efficiently and qualitatively it can be carried out. Currently, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) is not able to carry out wiretapping on its own. That is, all the cases we have are without the use of this tool. We don't tap phones.
— What is the percentage of possible efficiency realization now? And what would happen if this tool was in the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and worked?
— I cannot reveal to you all available forms and methods of work. But it would definitely help us to give the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) the authority to enter data on people's deputies into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations of Ukraine. Because today we do not introduce them. We prepare and initiate before the Prosecutor General.
— And how often does the general prosecutor refuse the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO)?
— So far, from what the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) was preparing, there was no such case.
— And from what the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) was preparing? Give examples that give you reasons to claim that the Joint State Political Directorate (JSPD) blocks the entry of such information into the register.
— National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) does this directly to the Joint State Political Directorate (JSPD), I do not know these figures. But if we want high-profile cases of political corruption, information about the beginning and progress of such cases should remain within the walls of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO).
— Did you discuss these issues with Mr. Kostin? In general, how does the Prosecutor General perceive the ambition for complete independence of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO)?
— Unfortunately, we did not discuss in detail the points of the draft law or possible changes. The Prosecutor General is of the position that the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) reform should be returned to after the end of the war and our victory. To practice the best model of work later. But I believe that this is the wrong way. Authorities such as National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) and the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), as well as all state authorities, must be ready for the reconstruction process. And not to start preparing when the money has already gone and the reconstruction will begin.
But this is not just my opinion or ambition. This is one of the tools that will ensure the trust of international partners in Ukraine. They should see that anti-corruption bodies work effectively, protect their funds, and not imitate violent activity. And you don't have to spend a lot of time looking for such examples. After the rejection of draft law No. 8402 by the specialized committee, on the initiative of its chairman, a decision was made to create a working group with the participation of international experts. We have already received a proposal to provide a candidate for work in the group several times. We provide this candidacy, but the group does not start working in any way.
— And yet, after analyzing the problems of the institution and returning to the beginning of our conversation. I do not believe that you are not worried about the conflict with Omelchenko. Also, I do not believe that you are not worried about the relations with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and about the role and place of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) in the anti-corruption block. What are you thinking about when you go to sleep today?
— Of course, I'm worried. I am a human being. But as a professional, I am sure that I perform my duties in this position honestly and conscientiously, so I have nothing to worry about. I see the main task as being able to reform the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) and the anti-corruption prosecutor's office becoming an independent institution that cannot be influenced either from the inside or from the outside. Will we show results? I think yes! And I am sure that even before the end of the year we will have quite interesting cases to consider.