Prosecutors on Dec. 30 withdrew a motion to arrest President Volodymyr Zelensky’s deputy chief of staff Oleh Tatarov in a bribery case, triggering public indignation. Prosecutor Andriy Hrytsan said at a hearing of the High Anti-Corruption Court that the motion was withdrawn because the prosecutors cannot say if the notice of suspicion for Tatarov has sufficient grounds.
This contradicts the opinion of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), who believe the grounds to be sufficient. Hrytsan’s statement also contradicts a ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court, which recognized the bribery accusations as valid when it authorized on Dec. 2 the arrest of forensic expert Kostyantyn Dubonos, who was allegedly bribed by Tatarov.
Zelensky and his protege, Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova, have been accused of protecting Tatarov from prosecution ever since information on the investigation into him first surfaced on Dec. 1. Tatarov is among numerous influential suspects whose cases appear to be blocked by Venediktova’s office.
The Prosecutor General’s Office and Zelensky’s office did not respond to requests for comment. Earlier, Venediktova denied any wrongdoing. Zelensky said on Dec. 25 that Tatarov must prove his innocence, but added that he would only fire Tatarov if the deputy chief of staff was involved in corruption recently while working for him.
Tatarov is under investigation in a case linked to Maksym Mykytas, a former lawmaker and ex-president of state-owned construction firm Ukrbud. Mykytas has been charged with alleged embezzlement conducted through an Ukrbud housing development contract for Ukraine’s National Guard in 2016-2017. On Dec. 18, Tatarov, who used to serve as a lawyer for Ukrbud, was charged with bribing forensic expert Dubonos on behalf of Mykytas to get false evaluation results that helped the company.
Tatarov denies the accusations.
Hrytsan also claimed at the Dec. 30 hearing that acting Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Maksym Gryshchuk had no right to authorize the charges for Tatarov because only the prosecutor general and his deputies can authorize charges for lawyers. This contradicts the fact that Tatarov suspended his lawyer’s license in August, and state officials cannot combine their jobs with the status of lawyers.
On Dec. 2, the NABU published correspondence between Mykytas, Tatarov and Serhiy Yakusevych, a former deputy CEO of Ukrbud, discussing how to decrease the losses to the state in the forensic assessment from Hr 20 million to Hr 7 million. The bureau also published correspondence between Mykytas, Yakusevych and an employee of an Ukrbud affiliate on transferring a Hr 250,000 parking lot to forensic expert Dubonos for free – allegedly as a bribe.
Sabotage
The Tatarov case has faced continued sabotage by prosecutors and courts.
On Dec. 1, Venediktova replaced the group of prosecutors in the Tatarov case as they were preparing to bring charges against the deputy chief of staff and going to a court to apply for his arrest. As a result, the charges were blocked.
Later, the NABU opened a criminal case into what it believes to be Venediktova’s unlawful interference in the Tatarov case by replacing prosecutors in order to save him from prosecution.
On Dec. 14, Serhiy Vovk, a discredited judge at Kyiv’s Pechersk Court, ordered Venedikova to transfer the case from the NABU to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), which is believed by civic watchdogs to be more politically dependent and less effective than the NABU. Venediktova’s deputy Oleksiy Symonenko used this as a pretext for giving the case to the SBU on Dec. 24.
The NABU and the SAPO believe the transfer of the Tatarov case to be unlawful.
Under Ukrainian law, the Tatarov bribery case falls directly into NABU’s jurisdiction, and NABU cases cannot be considered by other law enforcement agencies. Disputes on NABU’s jurisdiction can only be considered by the High Anti-Corruption Court and cannot be heard by the Pechersk Court.
Due to the transfer of the case to the SBU, the prosecutors in charge of it were changed again.
Acting Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Gryshchuk, who authorized the charges against Tatarov on Dec. 18, was removed by Venediktova from the group of prosecutors – something that anti-graft activists see as revenge on his stance on Tatarov. She also canceled the August decree on appointing him as the acting chief anti-corruption prosecutor and acting deputy prosecutor general, although he is expected to keep heading the anti-corruption prosecutor’s office.
Olena Shcherban, a legal expert at the Anti-Corruption Action Center, told the Kyiv Post that the new prosecutors have the reputation of ones who often do the “dirty work.” She said they are not even supposed to oversee SBU cases under the law since they are in charge of State Investigation Bureau cases.
Meanwhile, the National Police on Dec. 29 charged Mykytas with kidnapping in what his lawyer believes to be an attempt to pressure the former lawmaker due to his testimony against Tatarov.
The Tatarov-Mykytas case involves many influential powerbrokers. Mykytas has testified against Tatarov and has also given testimony that he bribed ex-Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman, ex-National Guard head Yuriy Allerov and Serhiy Moysak, a judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court, according to the censor.net news site. They all deny the accusations of wrongdoing.
On Dec. 1, NABU and anti-corruption prosecutors charged Mykytas with bribery, and he agreed to a plea bargain.
Mykytas’ accomplices, Olena Soloma and Alysa Grynchuk, also agreed to a plea bargain. On Nov. 16, Grynchuk was handed a four-year suspended sentence as part of the plea bargain, while Soloma received a 3-year suspended sentence.
