Alexander Katsuba, former deputy chairman of the board of Naftogaz of Ukraine, sought to appeal the 2017 verdict.
The Kiev Court of Appeal refused to restore the term for appealing a six-year-old sentence to the former deputy chairman of the board of Naftogaz of Ukraine, Alexander Katsuba, who was convicted of a corruption crime. As the “Commander in Chief” learned, the appeal issued the corresponding decision on December 11.
In May 2023, Katsuba filed an appeal against the verdict of the Shevchenkovsky District Court of Kyiv dated March 10, 2017. According to the verdict, the accused entered into an agreement with the prosecutor to plead guilty under the articles “Creation of a criminal organization” (Part 1 of Article 255 of the Criminal Code) and “Appropriation of property through abuse of official position” (Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code). Katsuba was sentenced to one year and five months in prison, which were credited “according to Savchenko’s law” (before the sentencing, the defendant was in a pre-trial detention center, so one day of pre-trial detention was counted as two days of imprisonment). He also paid UAH 100 million to the budget.
At the same time, Alexander Katsuba tried to convince the appeal, saying that on the day of the verdict he was not given a copy of the decision itself, and was not sent to his place of residence. Moreover: the convict stated that seven days after the verdict (March 17, 2017), he and his family were forced to leave Ukraine for Spain due to pressure from law enforcement. He lived there for almost three years and on January 30, 2020, returned to Ukraine again. According to him, quarantine due to Covid-19 and martial law in Ukraine prevented him from appealing the verdict in time.
In court, the prosecutor objected to the convict's request. He called Katsuba's arguments unfounded and asked that the petition be dismissed.
The panel of appellate judges came to the conclusion: the reasons given by the convicted person for missing the deadline for filing an appeal, which boiled down to the pandemic, martial law introduced in Ukraine and political pressure, cannot be considered valid. But missing the deadline for an appeal is due to the convict’s failure to comply with the requirements of the law on the procedure and deadline for appealing a sentence, the court added.
The Kiev Court of Appeal also noted that at the time of the verdict in 2017, Alexander Katsuba was present at the court hearing during the adoption and proclamation of the verdict; had a defense lawyer who was familiar with the contents of the verdict. In addition, Katsuba’s lawyer, against receipt, received two copies of the verdict of the Shevchenkovsky District Court of Kyiv dated March 10, 2017, one of which was to be handed over to the client.
The court also found out that in 2022, Katsuba’s lawyers tried to appeal the six-year-old verdict, but to no avail.
“Taking into account the above, the arguments given by the convicted person to justify the valid reasons for missing the deadline for appealing the verdict of the Shevchenkovsky District Court of Kiev dated March 10, 2017 are not convincing, and therefore are not recognized by the panel of judges as valid,” the appeal court noted.
A few remarks regarding Katsuba’s attempts to “dismantle” the 2017 verdict. According to the court registry, on the eve of the big war, Katsuba’s defenders began preparing to whiten the client’s reputation. However, in May 2022, the Kiev Court of Appeal rejected an attempt to restore the period for appealing the verdict. The arguments are the same as in the new decision: Katsuba was personally at the hearing on March 17, 2017, heard the verdict, his lawyer signed that he took two copies of the verdict. That is, the convicted person had enough time to appeal and not have to wait five or six years.
After an unsuccessful attempt, the defense of the ex-deputy chairman of the board of Naftogaz went to the Supreme Court with the intention of overturning the appeal decision on the refusal. This time, the lawyers’ explanations boiled down to the fact that on March 17, 2017, the presiding judge read out the operative part of the verdict, and not the full text. Plus, the full text of the verdict is not in the court register. It seems that all this in a heap, according to the lawyer, prevented Katsuba from appealing the verdict within 30 days. The Supreme Court did not agree with this and mockingly noted: “The lack of professionalism of the convicted person in the field of law also cannot be the basis for renewing the period for appealing the court decision, since in the court of first instance his defense was carried out by a professional defense lawyer.”
Let us add that the essence of Alexander Katsuba’s case concerns fraud with fuel worth more than UAH 450 million. In 2012-2013, while serving as deputy chairman of the board of Naftogaz, he helped the company of businessman Sergei Kurchenko, Gas of Ukraine 2020, to steal gasoline worth more than 450 million UAH from Naftogaz. Schemes of fictitious purchases of petroleum products were used to seize funds.
In addition, Alexander Katsuba is involved in another high-profile case - the so-called “Boiko towers”. During the reign of Viktor Yanukovych, the state company Chernomorneftegaz, where Katsuba worked as deputy director, bought two offshore drilling rigs from a gas drilling company with an overpayment of about $300 million.
At the same time, Alexander Katsuba has his own version. In particular, he admitted that in 2012 he was involved in the process of purchasing two oil production rigs, being in the position of deputy finance officer of Chernomorneftegaz. “I was one of about 15-20 people who endorsed the documents after they went through all the approvals. I did not sign the agreements, the top officials of Chernomorneftegaz and Naftogaz were authorized to prove the agreement, the deputies acted as performers in their area of work,” Katsuba said. He also called himself “too small a man in the structure of the gas industry” at that time.
At the same time, the ex-official from the Yanukovych era did not give a clear explanation: if he does not consider himself guilty, then why did he not immediately appeal the verdict. He only noted that six years ago he did not have a single chance to prove his innocence.
Earlier, a source from the “Glavkom”, who is familiar with the materials of the criminal proceedings, drew attention to a certain precedent that arose with the review of the case of Alexander Katsuba. “It turns out that Katsuba refuses the agreement. Under these conditions, he should go back to jail. If the appeal acquits Katsuba, then the institution of plea bargaining can be considered destroyed. After all, there have never been such decisions in Ukraine,” the publication’s interlocutor noted.
