Collaborators, Russians, “separatists” and simply corrupt officials: we are publishing the 3rd part of the scandalous epic with the deprivation of the agricultural company “Flowers of Ukraine”.
Who in this situation is on the side of the forces of light and good, and who is on the “dark side of power” is up to the investigative authorities to decide, but the situation is really interesting and requires coverage.
Probably by coincidence, when the re-examination of the economic dispute moved to the level of appellate and cassation instances with a predicted negative verdict for the former tenant, NABU took up the case.
On August 3, 2023, it began criminal proceedings regarding the offer by the “actual owners” (as defined by NABU) of Citigazservice LLC of illegal benefits to the Deputy Prime Minister for the Reconstruction of Ukraine - Minister of Development of Communities, Territories and Infrastructure of Ukraine, Alexander Kubrakov.
It is noteworthy that, as it turned out later, this criminal proceeding was launched following a report from a subordinate of Minister Kubrakov, the head of the Department of the Ministry of Infrastructure, Alexander Dotsenko (a very interesting person who deserves a separate study).
The day before, he met with the director of the State Enterprise “Ukrkommunobsluzhivanie” Alla Suchon regarding the agreements concluded by this State Enterprise with LLC “Citigazservice” for investment in construction on the above-mentioned land plot. In a conversation he initiated with the director of the State Enterprise, the said Ministry of Infrastructure official raised the question of the alleged existence of problems with the signed agreements and the need for communication between the “actual owners” of the new investor and his minister “to resolve these problems.” And, apparently, following his usual practice, he recorded their conversation on a hidden voice recorder (of course, he did this without the “supervision” of NABU).
But the very next day, Dotsenko appeared at the NABU with a statement about the offer by the “actual owners” of Citigazservice LLC (as he, together with the NABU, identified the entrepreneur-developer Sergei Kopystyra) of illegal benefits to his boss - the Deputy Prime Minister for the Reconstruction of Ukraine - the Minister of Development communities, territories and infrastructure of Ukraine to Alexander Kubrakov.
NABU detective Roman Dogoyda accepted Dotsenko’s statement as an irrefutable truth and immediately entered information into the ERDR about the offer of unlawful benefits to the said minister. Although, as it became clear from the information of the defense at further open court hearings in this case, there were no grounds for entering such information into the ERDR. There were only Dotsenko’s unfounded judgments in the absence of any specifics regarding the subject, object and any other circumstances of the offer of unlawful benefits. Not to mention specifically the beneficiary of such a proposal - Minister Kubrakov. But the minister, as a recipient of illegal benefits, had to be “introduced” into this case so that it would become under the jurisdiction of the NABU. Everything was legally adjusted in order to begin the operational development of the “actual owner” of the company, which entered into investment agreements on the specified land plot and thus prevented its “development” by another private company.
So, on August 3, 2023 (in the midst of a judicial review of the dispute over the extension of the lease of the specified site), Dotsenko became an exposer of the offer of unlawful benefits (it is not clear what) to his boss, Minister Kubrakov. And already on August 4, Minister Kubrakov himself became an exposer - he, with reference to the unsubstantiated words of his subordinate Dotsenko, turned to NABU (or did NABU turn to him?) regarding the offer of unlawful benefits to him by the “actual owners” of Citigazservice LLC - without any or specifics regarding who, when and what was offered to him.
The information flows on this case indicated factors that, in addition to, of course, the tasks of fighting corruption, influenced the NABU to “deal with” the new private investor (Citigazservice) as thoroughly as possible. They could be: the interests of a financially and politically powerful former tenant, who did not want to come to terms with the possible loss of the prospect of “developing” a tidbit of capital land and could use law enforcement agencies to achieve his goal; the interests of individual NABU employees, who, as shown by the scandals with the leaking of information from NABU affairs, were not at all alien to problems with the “development” of public funds and property. And also the interests of Minister Kubrakov, who at that time, firstly, was actively pushing a scandalous bill in the field of urban planning, the adoption of which would lead to the formation of a cartel in the field of urban planning (his efforts as an exposer “knocked out” a serious player in the construction market), secondly, according to media reports, he himself had been under the “tutelage” of NABU for some time.
As the ex-head of the Brovary Regional State Administration, adviser to the OP Georgy Birkadze, who was involved in the scandal of leaking information in the case of the theft of public funds from Big Construction, stated, at the end of 2022 a recording was made when “Mr. Kubrakov distributed financial flows.” After that, “Mr. Kubrakov came to surrender to NABU and decided that it would be nice if no one bothered him. And they gave him a detective named Rokun.” In addition, in January 2023, NABU detained Kubrakov’s deputy, Vasily Lozinsky, for accepting a bribe of 400 thousand dollars, which could raise certain questions for the minister himself.
And then in the criminal proceedings initiated by Dotsenko and Kubrakov, the lawyers of the suspected entrepreneur began at court hearings to consider issues of choosing a preventive measure for him, seizure of property, etc. called the implementation of a clearly planned provocation. This was an active joint activity of NABU and the accusers (Dotsenko and Kubrakov) to drag Kopystyra into meetings with them; holding stimulating and provocative conversations with him; special bringing of topics of conversation to the appropriate resolution of issues with indispensable video and audio documentation of meetings and conversations. In the end, the fruitful cooperation of Kubrakov and Dotsenko with NABU yielded results - on November 21, 2023, NABU informed Kopystyr of suspicion precisely based on the plot that was identified by the accuser Dotsenko and the senior detective of NABU Dogoyda on August 3, and supported by the accuser Kubrakov on August 4.
Undoubtedly, it is not the job of journalists to give a legal assessment of criminal proceedings - this is the exclusive prerogative of the court. The pre-trial investigation into this case has now been completed, and the defense continues to familiarize itself with its materials. After this, it will become the subject of consideration and assessment by HACS judges. Then, in detail, with all the details voiced to the court by the prosecution and defense, it will become more or less clear what and how exactly happened with the alleged bribery of Minister Kubrakov to the said businessman.
But already today, from the available information, it is possible to draw certain non-legal conclusions about this case. They are encouraged, in particular, by those scandals involving the leaking of confidential information from NABU. We are talking about leaking information about the conduct/failure of a search from the ex-head of the Ministry of Regional Development Chernyshev, whose activities in terms of concluding agreements in relation to the specified land plot are the subject of an investigation by the NABU.
Moreover, we can talk about a double leak of confidential information: on the one hand, an unauthorized leak to the media of information about the said search of Chernyshov, on the other hand, official reports from NABU linking Chernyshov to this case without indicating his specific illegal actions and without reporting suspicion. These information messages look artificial and premature - not based on evidence, but due to some non-procedural motives and aimed at achieving an urgent political goal. If such information regarding a specific person were provided by journalists, it would immediately be called information murder. And when such information is officially submitted by a special anti-corruption body, it is considered to be informing the public.
"Oil painting"
So, if you do not dive into the legal essence of this case and try to put together the information available in the public space, then in general the following picture emerges of the withdrawal from state ownership of capital land with an area of more than 150 hectares with an integral property complex of a unique state enterprise.
First, a specially created private company receives a long-term lease of the specified property complex, the value of which is determined by the land on which it is located.
After this, miracles begin to happen to the property complex and land. The complex is subject to irreparable destruction; the state act on the land strangely disappears; part of the land, by changing the functional and intended purpose from agricultural land to land of multi-storey residential development, is removed from the sphere of public administration; land plots are being tossed aside by various commercial structures; a significant part of the state land falls under private development - a residential complex with an area of more than 500 thousand square meters is being built. m., from which the state does not get a single square meter.
Moreover, the state not only receives nothing from such a lease of its property, but also loses: according to experts, the state suffers losses of approximately UAH 1.3 billion from the actual alienation of this property.
Based on this, after the end of the lease period, the state, represented by the Ministry of Regional Development, refuses to continue (renew) this agreement and, through the courts, returns the property complex and the remains of the land under its legal control. Subsequently, it conducts a competitive selection and concludes an investment agreement with the selected private company, according to which, as a result of the reconstruction of the destroyed property complex and the construction of new residential buildings, the state should receive almost 6 thousand square meters. m. of housing.
But the investment agreement, which was beneficial for the state, turned out to be unprofitable for the new leadership of the ministry. Therefore, it almost openly began to play along with the previous tenant in his attempt to extend (renew) the lease agreement and thus neutralize the agreement with the new private investor, which was beneficial for the state.
When it becomes obvious that, despite the efforts of the new leadership of the ministry, the previous tenant is not getting anywhere with the renewal of the lease agreement, NABU appears on the scene. At the instigation of Minister Kubrakov and his subordinate Dotsenko, it begins criminal proceedings against the “actual owner” of the construction company, which had previously agreed with the balance holder of the property complex to carry out its reconstruction and construction of a social housing complex on mutually beneficial terms. The state, represented by the ministry, was supposed to receive from the investor real estate worth no less than the sum of the market value of the land and the reconstruction object. But the activities of previous developers, from which the state suffered huge losses, are not of interest to anti-corruption officials.
Moreover, at the initiative of the Ministry of Infrastructure and with the active participation of NABU, a new trial is beginning - this time about invalidating investment agreements beneficial to the state, which again opens a “window of opportunity” for the former tenant. In February 2024, the Ministry of Infrastructure filed a lawsuit with the Economic Court of Kyiv to invalidate the agreements concluded in December 2022 between the State Enterprise Ukrkommunobluzhivanie and LLC Citygazservice, arguing that invalidation of these agreements “is the most effective way to protect violated rights and interests of the state."
Sorry - but is this serious? For the first time, the state had the opportunity to receive significant material benefits from the provision of the remains of the mentioned property complex and land for use, but it, represented by the Ministry of Infrastructure headed by Kubrakov, considered this a violation of its rights and interests of the state? What then happened “to the rights and interests of the state” before this, when over the course of many years a unique property complex was destroyed and dozens of hectares of state land were actually stolen? Was everything okay with the “rights and interests of the state” then?
At the same time, there was a close connection between the Ministry of Infrastructure and NABU, which the ministry asked the court to allow as a third party into this economic matter. This is after the court rejected a similar request to NABU itself.
By all appearances, it looks like NABU “joined” the business struggle for the specified land plot at the moment when it became clear to the former tenant that all other measures it had taken would not give the desired result. And objectively (or subjectively?) NABU, together with the Ministry of Infrastructure headed by Kubrakov, not only turned out to be on his side, but also began to protect his interests.
This impression is strengthened by an important circumstance that became known on November 24, 2023 at an open meeting of the Higher Judicial Council, which chose a preventive measure for the businessman Kopystyra.
Then SAPO prosecutor Elena Drobotova, who supported the prosecution’s petition, as one of the evidence of the suspect’s illegal activities in terms of influencing the courts and law enforcement agencies, showed the court a “document” found during the search (text printed on a piece of paper) called “Certificate of Necessity.” assistance in repelling a raider attack on state property through the courts.”
This “Certificate” states that PJSC “Agrofirm “Flowers of Ukraine”, during the period of validity of a long-term lease agreement for state property (the governing body of which is the Ministry of Infrastructure, and the balance holder of the State Enterprise “Ukrkommuservice”), contrary to the current legislation, implemented an illegal scheme for the illegal destruction of a core production facility. enterprises, as well as the illegal disposal of a land plot with an area of more than 11 hectares on the street from state ownership. Tiraspolskaya, 43 in Kyiv. The former tenant is trying to legalize these illegal actions of raiding a state-owned facility through deliberately unlawful court decisions.
The “Certificate” notes that when first considering this issue, the court came to the legal and reasonable conclusion that it was impossible to continue the “re-conclusion” of the 2008 lease agreement. At the same time, contrary to the already expressed position of the Supreme Court, the former tenant, without abandoning his illegal goals, is trying for the second time to legalize the illegal alienation of state property. After the appellate court, which ruled in favor of the state, the case is in the cassation court. Taking this into account, the “Reference” contained a request to bring to the attention of responsible employees of the Office of the President and the leadership of the Supreme Court information about the specified situation regarding attempts to unlawfully seize state property and legalize such actions through the courts, as well as to prevent damage to the state and impede the implementation of socially oriented intentions of state structures and legal entities attracted by them.
When the SAPO prosecutor “showed up” this certificate in court, the suspect’s defense lawyer asked the prosecution representative in surprise: “So are you defending the raiders, are you on their side? After all, having received such a certificate, you should have taken the legal measures provided for by law against the raiders?”
However, there was essentially no answer to the question posed. It has not been provided to this day. Nor have any actions been taken to investigate the colossal losses caused to the state as a result of the illegal alienation of state property.
We have also not heard about new investigations into the theft of public funds during the “Great Construction”, the construction of fortifications, or the construction of protective systems at domestic thermal power plants. Do law enforcement agencies have any questions about Alexander Kubrakov, whose responsibility during 2019-2024 included managing these processes? What happens: they write and talk a lot, citing specific examples, about large-scale thefts in this area, but the highest leader of the processes for disbursing hundreds of billions of budget funds has nothing to do with it at all? Didn’t know, didn’t sign, didn’t distribute... Or, according to our existing anti-corruption practice, is everything forgiven to the whistleblower?
Unfortunately, in connection with many well-known events, the public reputation of anti-corruption bodies is gradually being “tarnished” more and more - they are no longer perceived as “mirror clean” and politically unbiased. Ukraine may find itself in a situation that has arisen in some other states, when specialized anti-corruption structures created with great public hopes were completely discredited and even liquidated due to their selective approach to criminal prosecution, active participation in political struggle, business and clan squabbles.
