The High Anti-Corruption Court on Dec. 28 failed to arrest President Volodymyr Zelensky’s Deputy Chief of Staff Oleh Tatarov for the third time because the prosecutors did not show up for the hearing.
The hearing was delayed until Dec. 30.
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 Kostyantyn Dubonos on behalf of Mykytas to get false evaluation results that helped the company.
Tatarov denies the accusations.
Earlier, the court already failed to arrest Tatarov, twice. Each time, it was due to the actions of the Prosecutor General’s Office, which prompted accusations that it was protecting Tatarov.
The Dec. 28 hearing on Tatarov’s arrest was disrupted due to the second change in the group of prosecutors in the case. They were replaced because the Prosecutor General’s Office transferred the case from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).
On Dec. 1, the previous group of prosecutors were replaced by Venediktova as they were preparing to bring charges against Tatarov 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 into the Tatarov case by replacing prosecutors without proper legal grounds on Dec. 1.
Transfer of the case
On Dec. 14, Serhiy Vovk, a judge at Kyiv’s Pechersk Court, ordered Venedikova to transfer the case from the NABU to the SBU, which is believed by civic watchdogs to be more politically dependent and less effective than the NABU.
Vovk has a controversial reputation: In 2012, he sentenced then-opposition politician Yuriy Lutsenko to four years in jail in a graft case that has been recognized by European and Ukrainian authorities as politically motivated. In 2015, Vovk was also charged with issuing an unlawful ruling in a separate civil case and was temporarily suspended.
The NABU and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (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.
Anti-corruption prosecutors appealed Vovk’s ruling to the High Anti-Corruption Court. However, the Pechersk Court refused to hand over case materials and Venediktova appealed Vovk’s ruling to the Kyiv Court of Appeals, which has no authority to consider NABU-related cases.
Anti-corruption activists believe that Venediktova’s decision to bypass the High Anti-Corruption Court was an attempt to save Tatarov because the anti-corruption court was less likely to rule against the NABU.
As a result, the Kyiv Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to consider the transfer, and Venediktova’s deputy Oleksiy Symonenko used this as a pretext for giving the case to the SBU on Dec. 24. Due to the transfer, the High Anti-Corruption Court on Dec. 24 postponed a hearing on Tatarov’s arrest.
Both the NABU and SAPO lambasted the decision on the transfer.
“The Prosecutor General’s Office has intentionally made an unlawful decision that blatantly violates the requirements of Ukraine’s Criminal Procedure Code,” the NABU said.
The NABU also said that “instead of protecting the interests of the state, which incurred losses due to the suspect’s actions, the Prosecutor General’s Office is de facto protecting him.”
“These actions completely discredit a state body whose actions must be based on the rule of law, justice, fairness, lack of bias and objectivity,” the bureau added. “The Prosecutor General’s Office spurned all of this to protect an official suspected of corruption.”
Tatarov protected
On Dec. 21, acting Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Maksym Gryshchuk authorized the charges for Tatarov. Immediately after that, Venediktova stripped him of the job of acting deputy prosecutor general, although he remained the acting chief anti-corruption prosecutor. Anti-corruption activists believe this to be Venediktova’s revenge for his stance on Tatarov.
Zelensky has also been accused of protecting Tatarov by failing to suspend him during the investigation.
Mykhailo Podolyak, an aide to Zelensky’s Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak, claimed on Dec. 21 that Tatarov had asked the President’s Office to suspend him. The Anti-Corruption Action Center accused the President’s Office of lying, since no official documents on Tatarov’s suspension have been published.
Later the censor.net news site reported that Tatarov keeps going to work and has not been suspended. Tatarov confirmed this information on Dec. 24, saying that he is still working.
The Tatarov-Mykytas case involves many influential powerbrokers. Mykytas has testified 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 4-year suspended sentence as part of the plea bargain, while Soloma received a 3-year suspended sentence.
