Journalist Denys Bihus on March 1 published more evidence refuting the claim by the Prosecutor General’s Office that it did not order ads promoting Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko to be broadcast on national television and radio stations.
He published a copy of a letter sent by Chernihiv Oblast prosecutors to the National Public Television and Radio Company asking them to place the Lutsenko ads.
Chernihiv Oblast prosecutors also attached a letter from the National Television and Radio Council, according to which the ads can be considered public service ads and can be placed for free.
A letter sent by Chernihiv Oblast prosecutors to the National Television and Radio Council asking them to place ads for Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko (Source: Denys Bihus).
The letter also contains a link to Lutsenko ad videos uploaded by Natalia Obvintseva, who works at the Political Consulting Center. The center provides public relations services to President Petro Poroshenko’s ex-Chief of Staff Boris Lozhkin and Poroshenko Bloc lawmaker Oleksandr Tretyakov, who are both associates of Poroshenko and Lutsenko.
Obvintseva told Bihus that she was friends with Lutsenko’s spokeswoman Larysa Sargan, and had been given the ads by Sargan’s acquaintances.
Sargan claimed to Bihus that she was not friends with Obvintseva and denied having had anything to do with her acquaintances sending the videos to Obvintseva.
But Sargan confirmed that the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Association had sent a letter to Chernihiv Oblast’s prosecutor’s office, asking them for help, and the regional prosecutor’s office had sent letters to regional television channels about Lutsenko ads. However, Sargan denied having anything to do with the initiatives of Chernihiv Oblast’s prosecutor’s office.
The press service of Chernihiv Oblast’s prosecutor’s office on Feb. 26 confirmed to the Kyiv Post that they had sent the e-mail to National Public Television and Radio Company asking them to place ads touting Lutsenko’s alleged achievements.
Daria Yurovska, a program director at National Public Television and Radio Company, told the Detector Media news site on Feb. 23 that her company had refused to place the ads because they contradict the company’s advertising policy.
The ads have been shown on other major commercial television and radio stations in Ukraine.
Lutsenko himself indirectly acknowledged being behind the ads in a Feb. 22 interview with the Levy Bereg news site.
“There’s the notion of informing society. This is one of my duties,” he told Levy Bereg when asked about the ads. “Society should know not only the lies of those who cover up for embezzlement, but also the state agency’s official standpoint.”
Next day, however, the Prosecutor General’s Office went into denial.
Sargan said on Feb. 23 that the Prosecutor General’s Office “did not produce or order the videos that are currently being broadcast on TV and radio.”
“At the same time, the Prosecutor General’s Office is grateful to those who uploaded these videos because they showcase our positive work,” she said.
The Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Association, a little-known non-governmental organization, said on Feb. 26 that it had produced and placed the ads for the Prosecutor General’s Office.
The NGO has been accused of being a front for Lutsenko, used by him to promote his political ambitions, which it denies.
The Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Association has also sided with Lutsenko by recently accusing Finance Minister Oleksandr Danyliuk of corruption. Danyliuk has been in conflict with Lutsenko and has called for his resignation.
The NGO’s office is located at 18-V Academician Tupolev Street, right next to the office center of Lutsenko’s son Oleksandr on 19 Academician Tupolev Street.
One of Lutsenko’s alleged achievements about which he boasted in the ads was the confiscation of money and state bonds worth $1.5 billion linked to Serhiy Kurchenko, an ally of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych by a Kramatorsk court in March.
The ruling was made secret but it was published in January by Al Jazeera. Independent lawyers argue that the ruling fails to provide legal grounds for the confiscation and may lead to Ukraine returning the funds to the offshore firms involved.
Meanwhile, investment bank ICU, headed by the president’s personal banker Makar Paseniuk and ex-National Bank of Ukraine Chief Valeria Gontareva, served as a broker for Kurchenko’s schemes, according to the ruling. ICU denies accusations of wrongdoing but Poroshenko’s critics argue that its involvement is the reason why the court ruling was made secret.
