“Pasta Business” by Vysotsky. Skeletons in the closet of the new Minagro chief

The Ministry of Agrarian Policy is again in the spotlight of anti-corruption authorities. Recently, the Rada fired the head of the department, Nikolai Solsky, who was suspected of appropriating state land. And while the ministry is without a leader, the duties of the head are now performed by first deputy Taras Vysotsky. And this is ironic, because Vysotsky himself is also involved in an unexpected corruption case.

According to NABU-SAP, Vysotsky, with the complicity of Deputy Minister of Economy Alexander Griban, allegedly purchased pasta for people living near the front at three times inflated prices at the height of the Russian invasion.

This news then caused obvious indignation: “There is a war in the country, and we buy pasta for humanitarian aid for 65 UAH.” At the same time, the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and the farmers explained: there was no other way out with such order volumes and short delivery times.

What actually happened in the so-called “pasta case”, what exactly the current head of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy Vysotsky is suspected of, where the money went, and how the investigation will develop further - we explain in the material.

What is Vysotsky suspected of?

NABU began an investigation into possible illegal actions of Vysotsky in the spring of 2022. The investigation established that at the very beginning of the full-scale invasion, during March-April 2022, Vysotsky, as Deputy Minister of Agricultural Policy, probably lobbied two Ukrainian companies to supply pasta products to a number of military administrations. These companies are Olympus LLC and Winsight Light LLC.

It is worth noting here that at that time the administration could purchase food for the population only from a list of suppliers determined by the Ministry of Agrarian Policy, having agreed upon this with Vysotsky as the first deputy minister.

According to investigators, in March 2022, the official contacted the Olymp company so that it would fulfill this government order. It was about purchasing pasta for the population in front-line areas at the rate of 1 pack per person.

According to Vysotsky, there were 10 million citizens there, and purchases were made at almost 63 UAH per kilogram. Then, according to the case materials, the price for such products varied within 20 UAH. Ukrzaliznytsia paid for the products from the state.

At the same time, NABU established that the owner of Olimp, Anatoly Vlasenko, purchased pasta at an inflated price from a Polish company headed by his son Alexey Vlasenko. The foreign company itself purchased them from the manufacturer at the market price of 30 UAH/kg.

According to investigators, the second company, Vinsite Light, was advised to Vysotsky by another person involved in the case - former Deputy Minister of Economy Alexander Griban, suspected of complicity. He passed on the company’s contacts via messenger, after which Vysotsky contacted its representative personally. As a result of the conversation, the parties agreed on an agreement for the supply of pasta at a price of 55 UAH/kg. The examination established the market price for this product within the range of 30-33 UAH.

The scheme presented by NABU is almost identical. The Ukrainian Winsight Light bought pasta at an already inflated price from a Romanian intermediary, who purchased it at the market price from the manufacturer himself. As a result, according to the investigation, Ukrzaliznytsia overpaid three times, and the total losses for the state as a result of two purchases amounted to UAH 63 million.

The investigation indicates that Vysotsky did not evaluate the ability of national producers to deliver pasta to people at a significantly lower price, and then lobbied for the interests of the above companies. At the same time, the key witnesses in this case are now the same representatives of national manufacturers and suppliers of pasta. They basically assured that under certain conditions they could fulfill such a state order - produce the necessary products.

The actions of Taras Vysotsky NABU-SAP qualified as abuse of official position, leading to grave consequences, that is, under Part 2 of Art. 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Alexander Griban was charged with complicity.

By the way, Vysotsky also appears as a witness in similar cases. In particular, he explained a similar procedure in criminal proceedings for the purchase of canned food in the Odessa region at an inflated price of UAH 7 million.

Why did you buy pasta at such a price? Explanation of protection

The defense considers the suspicions unfounded. They say that at the critical moment of the beginning of a full-scale invasion, the largest Ukrainian suppliers could not fulfill the state order for the purchase of thousands of tons of products.

Vysotsky, in particular, argued that 60% of Ukrainian pasta production was blocked due to its temporary occupation or location in a war zone. And the rest would not be able to supply such volumes of products - in particular due to the inability to work at full capacity in combat conditions and the risk of getting into enterprises.

In addition, since March 2022, Vysotsky allegedly repeatedly turned to the largest grocery chains Fozzy, Auchan, ATB, Novus and Metro, which had completely different price variations from 30 to 124 UAH per kilogram, but none was able to deliver the products in two days. Moreover, some networks generally required full prepayment of the cost.

The defense also argued that the defendants did not have any selfish motive, since NABU-SAP, when proving the validity of the suspicions, did not provide evidence that Vysotsky and Griban received at least some benefit.

Preventive measures and enforcement measures

Both Taras Vysotsky and Alexander Griban at the end of August 2023, HACS nevertheless chose preventive measures. The investigating judge decided that the suspicions he declared were well-founded, and that the risks of concealing, destroying or distorting evidence and influencing witnesses, other suspects or experts did exist.

However, the court refused to take both deputy ministers into custody. The investigating judge applied bail to Vysotsky and Griban at UAH 805,000 and UAH 939,000 respectively, banning them for two months, among other things, from communicating with each other regarding the case. At the same time, the SAPO prosecutor asked for bail of 5 and 9 million UAH.

Subsequently, in October 2023, the HACS Appeals Chamber nevertheless increased Griban’s bail to 2.7 million, and Vysotsky’s to 5 million UAH and, among other duties, obliged the latter to wear a bracelet. Vysotsky could not wear it for more than two months due to a shortage of devices in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Therefore, in December, in part because of this and due process, the investigating judge waived this duty.

It is also interesting that, unlike Griban, who resigned of his own free will at the end of June 2023, Vysotsky all this time continued to fulfill his official duties as Deputy Minister of Agricultural Policy.

NABU-SAP asked to remove him from office in September. They believed that Vysotsky could influence witnesses who are employees of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy or other government bodies and are under his influence, as well as agricultural producers. However, the investigating judge of the Supreme Court of Justice refused to remove Vysotsky due to the unjustified and excessive use of such a security measure. SAP did not appeal this decision.

Abuse of official position or arithmetic error in the investigation?

The Ministry of Agrarian Policy and a number of agricultural associations took the side of Taras Vysotsky.

On August 25, immediately after the suspicion was announced against Vysotsky, the ministry published a statement in which it tried to refute the position of the investigation. They say that the department conducted an internal audit and did not reveal any illegal behavior by Vysotsky. In addition, the investigation allegedly made an arithmetic error when calculating the cost of pasta for the period March-May 2022, so the entire production is groundless.

In turn, the prosecutor, when considering the petition to remove Vysotsky, noted that this application contains distorted information and unreliable figures. Law enforcement officers also questioned the inspection carried out by the Ministry of Agrarian Policy, because it was carried out by employees who could have been under the influence of Vysotsky himself.

The case was also noticed by 29 agricultural associations, which called the actions of NABU-SAP erroneous, since thanks to Vysotsky, it was possible to avoid interruptions in the supply of products and ensure food security in Ukraine. They asked NABU to take their position into account when carrying out the investigation.

What will happen next?

The “pasta business” of Vysotsky and Griban caused a great public outcry, in particular given its circumstances - a full-scale Russian invasion and the urgent need of the population for humanitarian assistance.

Since the case is still at the stage of pre-trial investigation, the collection of evidence continues. As of October 2023, the prosecution reported:

• conducting 28 interrogations, 18 searches, 60 inspections and 12 temporary access to things and documents;
• receiving three examinations;
• opening 20 protocols with materials of covert investigative (search) actions;
• obtaining information within the framework of international legal assistance from other states.

The pre-trial investigation into the case has been ongoing for almost two years, and Vysotsky and Griban have been under investigation for more than 8 months.

It is not yet known when the case will be completed. After all, although the investigation had time to investigate only until February 24 of this year, due to the need to obtain information from abroad, the investigation was stopped on January 12, 2024. By the way, the prosecution previously reported that the rapid completion of the case was hampered by the Ministry of Agrarian Policy, which did not provide the investigation with all the necessary materials on time.

The so-called “pasta case” is unique in its own way, because it is one of the first cases open to the public about how relevant ministries allegedly abused humanitarian aid at the beginning of a full-scale war.

Now there are more and more such cases. In particular, on February 13, NABU reported that officials of the Kharkiv Regional State Administration were exposed for abusing humanitarian aid worth UAH 15 million in a similar scheme. On February 26, HACS chose a preventive measure in the form of UAH 3.6 million bail for the suspected chief of staff.