The fight against corruption in Ukraine is obviously taking on distorted forms. This is manifested, in particular, in the use of anti-corruption bodies for political purposes and to combat business competitors. There is also artificial publicity given to certain cases in order to divert public attention from really big corruption.
To combat which either there is not enough effort (as was the case, for example, with the investigation of the “black accounting” of the Party of Regions, which could have undermined the foundations of domestic political corruption, but ended in nothing), or when they want to cover up large-scale corruption at the expense of other specially organized and promoted business
On November 21 last year, the country was rocked by another high-profile anti-corruption event: on that day, NABU detained and reported suspicions of providing illegal benefits to three extraordinary individuals - two people’s deputies and a capital developer.
What made this event particularly significant was the fact that undue benefits were offered/provided to high-level government officials - the Deputy Prime Minister for the Reconstruction of Ukraine - the Minister of Development of Communities, Territories and Infrastructure of Ukraine Alexander Kubrakov and the Chairman of the State Agency for Reconstruction and Infrastructure Development Mustafa Nayem. The political and legal piquancy of this event also lay in the fact that these officials not only refused the offered bribes, but also acted as whistleblowers and actively assisted the anti-corruption authorities in documenting the actions of persons who had encroached on their integrity.
At the same time, many questions immediately arose regarding this extraordinary event, which became even more numerous when the information boom began to subside and details of these high-profile cases began to emerge.
Oddly enough, over time, priority public attention began to focus not on the affairs of politicians at the highest level - people's deputies Sergei Labazyuk and Andrei Odarchenko, but on the case of entrepreneur-developer Sergei Kopystyra. NABU and SAPO accused him of offering/providing Vice Prime Minister Kubrakov with unlawful benefits in the form of real estate in new buildings built on the lands of the ministry he heads.
We were talking about the lands of the State Agricultural Firm "Flowers of Ukraine", which were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine (Ministry of Regional Development). It was on them, according to NABU and SAP, that structures close to the developer Kopystyri planned to build a housing and social complex. In December 2022, the contract to the Ministry of State Enterprise "Ukrkommunobluzhivanie" entered into an agreement with LLC "Citygazservice" for the reconstruction and construction of a corresponding housing and social complex on a land plot of 11.5 hectares.
According to NABU and SAP, an illegal benefit was offered to Alexander Kubrakov by the developer for maintaining the agreement concluded with the company on the construction of a residential complex and facilitating the receipt of the necessary permits.
There was a strong impression that NABU made special efforts to attract public attention to this particular case. It not only periodically issued information messages with the appropriate connotation, but also gradually expanded its procedural activities in this case.
It was at the peak of the struggle for the position of head of the Ministry of Infrastructure (to which, according to media reports, Alexey Chernyshov was supposed to return instead of Alexander Kubrakov) that NABU actively began to “go” towards the old-new minister Chernyshov. Outwardly, this looked like an attempt, using procedural possibilities, on the one hand, to prevent his return to this position, and on the other, to keep Kubrakov in it and generally at the top of political power. Rumor has it that the “Austrian” heavyweight gas worker Dmitry Firtash joined this process, whose interests were “cut off” with Chernyshov’s activities as head of the Naftogaz of Ukraine company.
In unison with NABU and SAP, public activists and journalists close to anti-corruption structures, who were clearly privy to the operational and investigative details of this case, developed vigorous activity in this area. It even got to the point of a serious scandal involving the leak and publication of confidential information about the conduct/failure to conduct a search at Chernyshov’s place, as a result of which NABU opened another criminal proceeding.
Chernyshov himself added fuel to this information flame. He made direct and rather frank contact with journalists, stating, among other things, one very interesting and extremely important circumstance regarding the land plot that appears in the mentioned case. This circumstance actually sheds light both on the legal nuances of this case and on the motivation and focus of the activities of anti-corruption authorities.
Chernyshov said that before him, the Ministry of Regional Development lost almost three-quarters of the land on which the state agricultural firm “Flowers of Ukraine” was located. This land was gradually seized and “developed” by large developers. During his tenure as minister, the Ministry of Regional Development managed to return the remnants of this state land to state ownership and the state had the opportunity to use it in its own interests.
Such a statement actually changes the matter significantly. After all, if we proceed from the state’s positions, then the cutting edge of all state bodies (not only the ministry itself, but also NABU and SAP) should first of all be aimed at the raiders, who tore apart almost one hundred hectares of the capital’s land piece by piece, resulting in a huge infliction on the state. material damage. However, NABU and SAPO preferred not to see this problem, even despite the fact that the relevant participants in criminal proceedings officially and publicly told them about it. Obviously, their interest lay in something completely different, because they directed their investigation in the opposite direction from the raiders...
The sad fate of the state agricultural firm "Flowers of Ukraine"
There was once a flourishing State Agricultural Firm “Flowers of Ukraine” in Kyiv. In the full sense of the word “blooming” - in the subject and scale of activity. And also - the only one and unique in its profile and specialization, with a powerful material and technical base, genetic and reproductive material of unique flower samples, as well as a land bank of expensive land with an area of more than 150 hectares in the Podolsk district of Kyiv on the street. Tiraspolskaya, 43.
The estimated market value of the land fund of the specified state enterprise alone exceeded half a billion US dollars - this does not take into account the unique material and technical base of the full production cycle and the latest integral property complex.
As is known, in the late 90s - early 2000s, the lion's share of productively operating state-owned enterprises suffered a sad fate - they first fell into decay (objectively or deliberately brought to bankruptcy), and then fell into the hands of clever hands for next to nothing or for nothing. As a result, the state lost colossal assets, and the dodgers at its expense simultaneously became rich.
A similar fate did not pass over the State Agricultural Firm “Flowers of Ukraine”.
It so happened that in 2004, at the same address where the state-owned Agrofirm “Flowers of Ukraine” is located (Kiev, Tiraspolskaya St., 43), a Private Joint Stock Company with an absolutely identical name was founded - “Agrofirm “Flowers of Ukraine” - with the main activity “growing other annual and biennial crops.” The final beneficiary of this joint-stock company was Vasily Ivanovich Khmelnitsky.
Vasily Khmelnitsky is a famous businessman and politician, people's deputy of Ukraine of five convocations. He was not seen in the mass cultivation of flowers, but had a great interest in the construction business as a majority shareholder of one of the largest Ukrainian construction companies UDP, which carried out large-scale infrastructure projects, in particular, residential complexes in Kyiv “Novopecherskie Lipki”, “Boulevard of Fountains”, “Park City”, RiverStone, Ocean Plaza shopping center. The media attributes the implementation of the latest project (Ocean Plaza shopping center) to Khmelnitsky in tandem with Russian billionaire Arkady Rotenberg (a childhood friend of the Russian dictator Putin, whose company, in particular, acted as the general contractor for the construction of the Kerch Bridge).
It so happened that immediately after the creation of the private agricultural firm "Flowers of Ukraine" with the integral property complex and land of the state agricultural firm "Flowers of Ukraine" all sorts of metamorphoses began to occur.
As a result of the “effective management” of this state-owned enterprise, there was a gradual destruction of the unique integral property complex. Then the original land deed disappeared from the ownership and management of the state successor - the Ministry of Housing and Communal Services.... Further, by decisions of the Kyiv City Council, which had no legal relation to these lands (because these are state-owned lands, not communal ones), the state’s ownership of the land of the state-owned “Flowers of Ukraine Agricultural Firm” was abolished.
In 2004, part of its lands were removed from the sphere of public administration by changing the functional and purpose - from agricultural lands to lands of multi-storey residential development. Then land lease agreements were concluded with the relevant private structures (in particular, agreement dated April 29, 2005 No. 85-6-00198).
In 2008, the unique complex of the state-owned Agrofirm “Flowers of Ukraine”, together with all land assets, was transferred to a long-term (10 years) lease to the private “Agrofirm “Flowers of Ukraine”. According to experts in the “development” of capital property, this happened not without the participation and assistance of a connoisseur of greenhouse farming and the then chairman of the Shevchenko district state administration of Kyiv, Viktor Pilipishin. A certain legal and commercial gesheft took place - a property complex located on the “golden” capital land from one company “Flowers of Ukraine” was transferred to the use of another company “Flowers of Ukraine”. The only nuance was that one company was state-owned, and the other was private.
On October 14, 2013, the Department of Urban Planning and Architecture of the Kyiv City State Administration, contrary to the approved General Plan of the city of Kyiv (according to this plan, these are agricultural lands), but with reference to decisions taken specifically for this purpose by the Kyiv City Council, issued LLC MZhK Obolon and KP Spetszhitlofond (participation this KP exempted from paying rent payments). Urban planning conditions and restrictions on the development of land on the street. Tiraspolskaya 43, in the Podolsky district of Kyiv for the construction of a 16-storey residential complex with an area of more than 263 thousand sq.m. (No. 18254/0/12/009-13). This is despite the fact that this site has never belonged and does not belong to communal property.
In fact, in 2015-2021, a dozen 25-story commercial residential buildings with an area of more than 500 thousand square meters were built and put into operation at the specified address. m.
But upon the implementation of this project, the state of Ukraine (represented by the Ministry of Regional Development, as the legal successor and owner of the land plots, and the State Agricultural Firm “Flowers of Ukraine”) did not receive a single square meter of housing or other real estate. That is, as a result of such “effective management” of state property and its use by a private structure, the state received exactly zero.
Zero is if you look at the result straightforwardly. And according to certain expert estimates, as of 2018, the net loss to the state from such use of state property amounted to approximately 1.3 billion hryvnia.
The tenant liked the rental
Considering such negative results for the state from leasing state property, the Ministry of Regional Development (despite the incomprehensibly loyal attitude towards the tenant on the part of the State Property Fund) did not consider it advisable to renew the lease agreement with the specified private company. He advocated the return of the leased property to state ownership in accordance with the procedure established by law.
But the company, which in its charter documents defined its main activity as “growing other annual and biennial crops,” decided not to simply stop its “non-core activity” - the construction of commercial housing on the lands of a leased state property complex.
In 2018, according to a practice-tested scheme (developers call it “toilet”) on a state-owned land plot on the street. Tiraspolskaya 43 in the Podolsk district of Kyiv, three private objects with an area of several square meters each (the size of a toilet) were registered. On this basis, a well-chosen land surveyor entered this land plot into the state land cadastre as belonging to the reserve lands of the settlement and without a specific type of property.
This was preparation for the next stage - renewal (reconclusion) of the lease agreement on the street. Tiraspolskaya, 43. After which the private company, as the owner and tenant of the real estate, again acquired the corresponding rights to the land plot.
For this purpose, she contacted the regional branch of the State Property Fund and the Ministry of Regional Development with letters to renew the 2008 lease agreement - on the same terms and for the same period (10 years). But she was refused with reference to the fact that, firstly, the current legislation does not provide grounds for extending the lease of a single property complex by renewing it without an auction, and secondly, the Ministry of Regional Development planned to use the specified property complex for its own needs.
Then the former tenant decided to bypass the landlord altogether and act differently - to extend (renew) the lease agreement by court decision. And he filed a lawsuit in the economic court of Kyiv to recognize the lease agreement for the entire (single) property complex of the State Agricultural Firm “Flowers of Ukraine” No. 4086 TsMK dated September 24, 2008 as renegotiated on the same terms for another 10 years. The Ministry of Regional Development, as the owner of the property, objected to this claim and asked the court to request evidence confirming the impossibility of satisfying the claim of a private company, which thus wants to “take over” the state property complex and land. However, the court ignored the arguments of the Ministry of Regional Development and fully satisfied the claim of the private agricultural firm “Flowers of Ukraine”, deciding to recognize the 2008 lease agreement in the wording proposed by this company as renegotiated.
But the highest courts recognized this decision of the economic court of Kyiv as illegal, canceled it and made a new decision - in favor of the state.
They say that already in 2020-2021, certain NABU employees began to become interested in the issues of “opposition” to the extension of the said lease agreement (in the interests of a private company). And after some time (in 2023), this interest materialized in several criminal cases, the investigation of which, apparently, coincided quite accidentally with the interests of the specified private company.
After the final court verdict in this dispute in favor of the state, the Ministry of Regional Development (which at that time was headed by Alexey Chernyshov), with the involvement of specialists, experts and industry lawyers, ensured the return to state ownership of the remnants of the integral property complex of the State Agricultural Firm "Flowers of Ukraine" (what remained after " effective" use) and the land plot underneath it, as well as three neighboring land plots with a total area of 23 hectares. and an estimated value of more than 300 million hryvnia. Probably, it was precisely these areas that Chernyshov spoke about in the mentioned interview.
In December 2022, the Ministry of Regional Development selected a private investor to implement a project for the reconstruction and construction of a social facility on the street. Tiraspolskaya, 43 in the Podolsky district of Kyiv. Based on the results of the competitive selection, agreements were concluded between the balance holder of the integral property complex and the user of the land plot (SE Ukrkommunobsluzhivanie) and the private investor Citigazservice LLC.
An important provision of these agreements from the point of view of state interests was that they provided for the transfer to the state, represented by the Ministry of Regional Development and the specified State Enterprise, of residential properties with an area of at least 5,747 square meters, or at least 144 apartments for persons who need them by law. At the same time, the land plot and real estate remained in state ownership.
Agree: the difference between these agreements and the lease agreement mentioned above is striking! If under the previous ten-year lease agreement for the state integral property complex and land plot the state received zero apartments and suffered millions in losses, then under the new private investment agreements in the returned state property the state was supposed to receive more than 140 apartments.
Whose interests did the ministry defend?
In December 2022, the Ministry of Regional Development (which was previously headed by Alexey Chernyshov) was annexed to the Ministry of Infrastructure. Thus, a new mega ministry was formed - the Ministry of Development of Communities, Territories and Infrastructure of Ukraine, which was headed by Alexander Kubrakov, who also received the status of Deputy Prime Minister for the Reconstruction of Ukraine.
The change in the head of the Ministry of Regional Development caused not only personnel and organizational changes, but also, as it turned out later, changes in attitude towards state property. If the previous minister acted as a “gatherer” of ministerial land, then his successor, it seems, took the side of those who wanted to feast on this land for free.
It’s paradoxical, but true: under the new minister, a new trial began on the same subject - on the land plot on the street, which was returned under the legal control of the state under the previous minister. Tiraspolskaya, 43 in the Podolsk district of Kyiv and the property complex located on it.
But the most interesting thing was not that this process was started, despite the court’s end to this dispute, but how radically the position of the ministry, headed by Kubrakov, changed.
Thus, the Ministry of Infrastructure, in a very “creative” way, in the presence of a final decision of the Supreme Court in favor of the state, managed to lose to the specified private company in the court of first instance a new economic process to renew the lease agreement. Without informing any of the parties to the contract. What looked like some kind of get-together by agreement with a predetermined result.
Further, the Ministry of Infrastructure, represented by its leadership, avoided filing an appeal against the clearly unfavorable for the state and obviously illegal decision of the court of first instance, according to which the specified private company actually re-received at its disposal the state property complex and land. On the same terms that she disposed of them over the previous ten years - with obvious benefit for herself and zero (minus) result for the state. Apparently, the leadership of the Ministry of Infrastructure was absolutely indifferent to the fact that with this development of events, the state is losing more than 140 apartments under contracts (December 2022) with a new private investor (Citygazservice). Apparently, for him other bets were much more significant.
It came to a legal paradox: in court hearings, a representative of the Ministry of Infrastructure, referring to the “under-registration” of the transfer of the State Enterprise “Ukrkommunobsluzhivanie” to the management of the newly created ministry (Ministry of Infrastructure), could not decide on a position regarding the state property transferred to the newly created ministry, its status and the belonging of such property to state property. This position of the representative of the Ministry of Infrastructure could not contradict the position of the leadership of the Ministry of Infrastructure, and it was definitely beneficial to the former tenant, who tried at any cost not to let go of a tasty piece of state land.
A notable feature of the position of the leadership of the Ministry of Infrastructure on this issue was also the avoidance of direct fulfillment of responsibilities for placing on the balance sheet the property complex and land plots transferred to it in the process of reorganization of the Ministry of Regional Development, as well as their corresponding state registrations.
Many signs indirectly, or even directly, pointed to the coincidence of interests of the Ministry of Infrastructure headed by Kubrakov and the private agricultural firm “Flowers of Ukraine” regarding the fate of the remnants of the integral property complex of the state agricultural company “Flowers of Ukraine” and the land on which it is located.
However, the repeated economic case initiated by the former tenant by the highest courts, taking into account the position of the prosecutor's office of the city of Kyiv, was decided for the second time in favor of the state.
