Prosecutor illegally closes Rotterdam+ case for the third time
On April 9, prosecutor Vitalii Ponomarenko illegally closed the Rotterdam+ coal pricing scheme for the third time. Previously, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine has informed that they are ready to send the case to the court and are waiting for a procedural decision of the prosecutor. Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova repeatedly refused to change Ponomarenko, who was blocking the investigation, although she unnecessarily changed prosecutors in other cases (like the dumped corruption case of presidential deputy chief of staff Oleg Tatarov). Now Ponomarenko’s decision may be canceled by the deputy head of the Special Anti-Prosecutor’s Office or Venediktova.
Law Enforcement Committee wants to destroy exclusive jurisdiction of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine
The law enforcement committee of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, recommended adopting draft law No.4681, which in fact would legalize the illegal practice of taking cases away from NABU/HACC through Pechersk Court or cancel important decisions made by prosecutors in these cases. The law will also significantly damage the consistency of the criminal procedure as a whole and harm investigations conducted by other law enforcement authorities.
Kyiv District Administrative Court helps Kolomoisky to avoid $170 million fine
The Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine completed the investigation into collusion by fuel companies associated with billionaire oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky and imposed a $170 million fine on them. However, just a few days before the decision, the infamous Kyiv District Administrative Court ruled to withdraw important evidence gathered by the NABU from the proceeding. This potentially may help Kolomoisky to win an appeal over the decision of the committee.
Constitutional Court reviews provisions on special confiscation
In March, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine started to consider another constitutional appeal initiated mainly by pro-Russian members of Parliament, which aims to undermine anti-corruption reforms. This is a direct consequence of almost six months of the inaction of the President and the Parliament to resolve the crisis around the CCU, provoked by the decision on the e-declaration system.
The proceeding considers provisions on special confiscation, which means the right to confiscate proceeds of crime that may be indirectly owned by a perpetrator or be in legal ownership of third parties. It is an extremely important provision for asset recovery in high-profile corruption cases. Once it is canceled, it will be impossible to confiscate any assets in that kind of case. The establishment of an effective asset confiscation regime was a part of the requirements of the EU-Ukraine visa liberalization action plan.
