I was very skeptical about the activities of Artem Sytnik, the first director of NABU. I have repeatedly noted that I do not believe in the moral virtues of investigators from the prosecutor’s office. This skepticism especially grew after the corruption scandal in which Mr. Sytnyk got involved.
By court decision, he was even included in the “Unified State Register of Persons who have committed corruption or corruption-related offenses.” But Ukraine is the first and, perhaps, the only state in the world in which a person who committed a corruption offense, and this was recognized by the court, continued to lead the main anti-corruption institution.
By the way, our “grant fighters against corruption” did not see anything absurd in this.
But, as they say there, we will still regret Artem Sytnik, because in his place a person was appointed who is not at all a stranger to the leadership of the Office of the President of Ukraine. And it acts, at least for now, in unison with those thanks to whom it received its post.
Therefore, we should hardly be surprised by new and new steps taken by NABU officials, which raise doubts about their compliance with morality and, in general, with the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In this context, the events taking place around the criminal story related to the fact that the state-owned Ukrenergo supplied United Energy LLC, which is not alien to Mr. Kolomoisky, with electricity, and then did everything so as not to receive payment from it, I personally am not surprised causes. There is only sympathy and respect for the Chairman of the Board of Alliance Bank, Mrs. Frolova, whom NABU wants to turn into a scapegoat for the refusal of this guarantor bank to pay for the openly criminal actions of the management of the state company.
Commenting on this story, I already noted that the NABU’s attempt to make Yulia Frolova the main culprit is connected with the desire to divert responsibility for the robbery of the state from the people behind United Energy LLC and from the chairman of the board of Ukrenergo, for which it is still not even clear carried out official procedural actions in the form of interrogation and determination of the status in this criminal case - witness or suspect. Which, in my opinion, is also not surprising. He received his position not without the influence of the leadership on Bankova to satisfy the interests of the main beneficiaries of the current government.
Considering this logic, it is not surprising that NABU now requires judges considering Ukrenergo’s claim against Alliance Bank in the appellate instance to involve NABU as a third party on Ukrenergo’s side.
NABU is interfering in the economic process, violating, moreover, the norms of the Economic Procedural Code, in order to be able to put pressure on the judges and get a favorable decision, since NABU has no legal arguments left - the law is on the side of Alliance Bank.
This desire of the NABU to put pressure on the judges is quite understandable, because if the Northern Economic Court of Appeal rules in favor of the bank, then those responsible for the failure to return UAH 1.7 billion to the state company Ukrenergo will have to be found among its leadership and one oligarch, who, despite to which, remains one of the main beneficiaries of the current government. And this is exactly what the NABU leadership does not want at all.
The absurdity of the situation is complemented by the fact that it was at the request of NABU that VACS seized UAH 657 million in the accounts of New Energy Ukraine LLC (transferred from the accounts of United Energy LLC) for the purpose of further confiscation in favor of Ukrenergo.
With this petition, NABU directly acknowledges the fact that the damage was caused precisely by the unlawful actions of PJSC NEC Ukrenergo. And at the same time, for some reason, it is on the side of the offenders that NABU is trying to join the process. How, other than the desire to “excuse” the management of Ukrenergo (which was an accomplice in the robbery of public funds, could have stopped it several times, but did not do so) and pin the blame on the switchman bank, can such actions be explained?
Although there are more than enough questions for the head of Ukrenergo. For example, why did they allow the state to be robbed by a company associated with Kolomoisky? By the way, this is not the first time. For example, there should be a question why Ukrenergo began selling electricity to this company at a “discount” in 2020.
We should also not forget that there are criminal cases related to the state-owned Energoatom and Centrenergo, and also to Kolomoisky’s companies, where there is not a single bank, and the state has also been robbed.
At the same time, two top managers of Ukrenergo (Kondrashov and Vishnevsky), who were the technical executors of the scheme, are openly outside Ukraine, and NABU is doing nothing to return them or at least interrogate them, but is trying to push through the judges in order to get the solution he needs.
That is, we see a systematic robbery of state-owned companies, but at the same time NABU is trying to pin all these criminal transactions on the “switchmen”, removing from under attack the managers who were appointed as “understandable” managers to Mr. Kolomoisky.
For then the question will inevitably arise about who contributed to their appointment and for what purpose. But this is exactly what the head of NABU does not want to do.
In general, the Western partners expected that the body created with their support would fight corruption, and not protect it. But in such cases, the question always arises about the political will of state leaders to fight corruption, and not to lead it.
