Looking for a “mole” in NABU

Last Wednesday, an abscess broke out in the “heart” of the anti-corruption bloc: an acute internal crisis, into which NABU and SAPP plunged, spilled out.

The reason is unprecedented - NABU's leaks in favor of Bankova may be occurring at the highest level of the anti-corruption bureau. To get an objective picture of what is happening, journalists from the publication ZN.UA not only read between the lines of official reports, but also talked with high-ranking sources working in the SAPO, NABU and OGPU.

The beginning of the conflict between the institutions became known after the SAPO, together with the Department of Strategic Investigations of the National Police, conducted a search of one of the NABU detectives, Yuriy Butusov wrote about this. At the same time, the name of the deputy head of the OPU Tatarov, whose pocket army was allegedly used by the head of the SAPO Alexander Klimenko, thundered throughout the whole country. Thus, a shadow was cast over the head of the SAP.

The SAPO immediately issued a restrained statement, explaining that the investigation into the leak of information to NABU as part of one of the criminal proceedings was ongoing, and the police were involved because NABU did not have enough of its own forces. (We are talking about criminal proceedings against the former head of the Dnepropetrovsk Regional State Administration Reznichenko, as well as his partner, the current consultant of the Regional State Administration Yuriy Golik, where one and a half billion of the budget was dissolved as part of the “Great Construction”). NABU immediately responded: they say, don’t lie, we have the resources to find the “mole”.

The people of Ukraine, watching what was happening, completely confused by the testimony of those whom they previously trusted more than other law enforcement officers, began to build their own conspiracy theories, the conclusions of which boiled down to one thing: Bankova “hacked” both NABU and SAPO. The patronage of public opinion leaders from the anti-corruption sphere, who immediately publicly sided with Alexander Klimenko, did not help much either.

The enemy sides carried out the resuscitation operation independently. Three days were enough for the head of the SAPO Alexander Klimenko and the director of NABU Semyon Krivonos to conclude a truce and shake hands. Before this, Krivonos announced that his first deputy, Gizo Uglava, had been suspended from his duties for the duration of the investigation, thereby confirming the seriousness of the situation.

Obviously, they are actively trying to heal the wound publicly in order to preserve, if not the reputation of the anti-corruption bloc, then the interaction of its institutions within the framework of thousands of open cases. Klimenko and Krivonos can be understood. But the pus flows - it is necessary to cut, wash and sew up again.

The hypothetical “mole” (this, of course, still needs to be proven) has been in the leadership of NABU since its founding. And if Gizo Uglava really violated the law, then in terms of the scale of the consequences this is a matter at the level of the head of the Supreme Court, Knyazev. And our international partners who were direct participants in the creation of NABU. Either way, we're in the middle of a perfect storm.

What actually happened? Should Bankova be worried, which has become densely populated with consultants involved in top-level corruption cases even during the war? What could be the consequences for the state as a whole if the anti-corrosion bloc fails to clear itself? And to what level should this cleansing generally reach in order to tear out from the body of the anti-corrosion block the ugly roots that the authorities have planted in it?

The Reznichenko/Golik case, during the investigation of which a leak was recorded

We cannot do without a brief reminder of the essence of the matter, from which it all actually began. In the summer of 2022, responding to an investigation by journalists from the publication “Nashi Groshi” about tenders won by Budinvest Engineering LLC for road repairs in the Dnipropetrovsk region worth more than UAH 1.5 billion, NABU and SAPO opened criminal proceedings. The case had a preliminary qualification under Articles 364 (abuse of power and official position) and 209 (money laundering) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and affected key people in the president’s team.

Everything in this case is remarkable, starting with the lucrative romantic relationship of ex-governor Reznichenko, who was quickly dismissed by the president, the recent revival from the ashes of the former deputy head of the OPU Kirill Tymoshenko in the Ministry of Defense, and ending with the concrete “roof” of the president’s office for the irreplaceable consultant of “Big Construction” Yuri Golik. All of them are involved in the case.

In early April, in order to keep abreast of the matter, ZN.UA spoke with NABU sources close to the investigation. Even then we knew that the investigation had made some progress. The main thing in the case is to prove that the state has suffered damage. And this was possible, despite the resistance of the State Audit Service, controlled by the Minister of Finance Sergei Marchenko, which we have already written about in detail. The minister, who is also Yuriy Golik’s friend and cycling partner, never gave the go-ahead to the head of the State Audit Service to sign an official conclusion for NABU. However, there were honest workers there, whose help the bureau took advantage of.

According to the examination, which the investigation did obtain despite all obstacles, government losses due to the overestimation of the cost of materials amounted to almost 300 million UAH. And the investigation has this document. The remainder of UAH 1 billion 200 million is classified as misuse of budget funds, in addition to legalization of proceeds from crime.

At the same time, in early April, a series of searches took place in the Dnieper. According to sources in NABU, the investigation focused on a wider circle of people associated with companies through which, according to detectives, money was withdrawn. And these are not only high-ranking officials of the regional administration, but also the so-called pounds.

As for high-ranking officials, a search was conducted at the Deputy Chairman of the Dnepropetrovsk Regional State Administration Igor Bespalchuk, as a result of which communication equipment and the like were confiscated. Detectives also visited the office of the company “Budinvest Engineering” (whose founder is Reznichenko’s business partner Yana Khlanta), where they also seized communications equipment and computer equipment. In addition, the fitness trainer herself received guests.

Even then, sources in the SAPS, summing up the results of the searches, were skeptical. In their opinion, the searches were ineffective: “Either the persons involved observe exemplary information hygiene, or there was a new leak of information and they were warned in advance.”

NABU did not think so. “Usually we are not shy to say if searches are leaked, but not this time,” the source asserted. “A search is a story that is difficult to predict, you don’t know what you will find. You can catch the person involved by surprise, but he will have the latest model iPhone, securely locked. At the same time, we must understand that we are dealing with a fairly experienced criminal group; these people have been living and moving in the corresponding environment for several days. They are all well aware that criminal proceedings are being investigated, and they have enough consultants on how to behave correctly and how to secure information.”

https://zn.ua/img/forall/u/550/7/%D0%A4%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%9E_1%20(4).jpg

“Yuri Golik has comprehensive and constant access to the government quarter and public authorities as an external consultant. The consultant conducts most of his business activities in one of the most protected places in our country. Documenting his criminal activities is, to put it mildly, somewhat complicated,” another source clarifies.

There were no searches at Golik's place in April. However, NABU searched him in 2023, although certain difficulties arose with this. Detectives simply had to stop his car, search him and seize his communications equipment, including his phone. It was he who caused the war between departments. But not at once.

“The phone contains indirect evidence that Golik is in a corrupt system,” the source said in April, “But so that you understand what Golik’s phone is: this is the latest model of iPhone, security systems, modems, identifiers, which he constantly changes, in It doesn't have SIM cards. Therefore, using his mobile phone it is impossible to determine where he is. NABU carried out an entire operation to catch and search him.”

Those who have been working in the system for a long time and are engaged in operational-search activities have no illusions about this person. “There are simply cases where we know a lot, but we can’t prove much,” adds the source. “The whole country knows that he is the architect of many schemes, but there is no direct evidence. Not because Golik is untouchable, not because someone may be leaking the case, but because he is a very prepared person. If you imagine how crimes are committed, then Golik is always on the side.

He didn't sign anything. He is simply a communicator from the OPU. Circuit Architect. He comes up with something, helps organize it at the managerial level, without communicating with anyone except Reznichenko himself, if we talk specifically about the matter. If the conversation with the consultant is not recorded, then that’s it. He's gone."

But literally three weeks (!) after this conversation, a breakthrough occurs in the case. Detectives, continuing to work with the phone, find confirmation that Golik received detailed information about the progress of the investigation through an intermediary - businessman and former head of the Brovary Regional State Administration Georgy Birkadze, who, like Golik, has an office in the president’s office. It was Birkadze, when communicating with a source from NABU, who made a mistake, which detectives were able to track in Golik’s phone. Birkadze's place was also searched.

Golik’s phone and the “little detective” factor who acted according to the law

This is very important. Considering the case of “Great Construction” (and the Reznichenko/Golik case is about it), we must clearly understand that the pre-war presidential project, initially split into two equal-sized competitive fragments (Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Kubrakov, who was recently dismissed, and the Ministry of Infrastructure had their own history success), alive and technologically switched to a military footing. The same cannot be said about our government.

On this occasion, politically observant people immediately had a question: why exactly now did Golik’s phone reveal its secrets, although it was confiscated a year ago? Why exactly at the moment of the resignation of Kubrakov, who lost the war to his former partners, does the telephone appear and undermine the situation with Golik sitting on Bankovaya? Terrible suspicions. Also, against the backdrop of how revealingly the leaders of public opinion from Antikor, while drowning the corrupt official Golik, do not notice Kubrakov’s problems. Forgetting that the righteous role of exposing corruption (and Alexander Kubrakov and “his own” for anti-corruption Mustafa Nayem collaborated with NABU in the case of bribery of two people’s deputies) does not cancel the “merits” of this team in the construction and legislative field of restoration. Dashing got them all confused, or what?

But we are for an objective picture. Therefore, having briefly noted the problems of anticorrosive agents (we hope that only in communication), let’s descend to the level of a conventional detective who discovered the fact of leaking information in a case he was investigating and simply acted according to the law.

“Golik’s phone was locked for a long time,” says our source. “The unlocking procedure, so that all data could be pumped out of it, was carried out by international partners after lengthy negotiations and legalization of the process within an international framework. The bureau received it back at the end of November last year.”

However, according to the source, there was practically nothing in it that would be related to criminal proceedings. All chats were cleared; detectives had only a cache at their disposal: more than 100 thousand different photos, videos and audio files. During preliminary searches, keywords that were relevant to the case were searched. “Detectives don’t have the task of simply snooping around in people’s personal lives, you know,” the source clarifies.

A preliminary search yielded no results. Then the blurred eye was replaced with a fresh one, giving Golik’s device to another detective so that he could look at everything again and listen again. This took several months. And the detective was lucky. Golik’s chat with Birkadze, the intermediary between Golik and NABU, was automatically cleared every ten seconds. But Birkadze sent Golik photos of messages from a NABU informant. After automatic deletion, these photos remained in the cache of Golik’s phone. Of course, they did not come one after another, but were scattered like pearls in the ocean. One could be No. 1000, the second – No. 2000, the third – No. 65,000... That’s why it took so long to compile the overall picture.

According to sources, the three people corresponded with each other starting in 2021. Detectives have already identified person No. 1 - this is a NABU detective, conventionally “Valera” (he did not investigate the Reznichenko/Golik case, but worked in a secret unit undercover). Person No. 2 is Georgy Birkadze, who was in constant contact with Valera.

With person No. 3 – a certain high-ranking “Japanese” – it is more difficult. He hardly participates in correspondence, but he is often mentioned. Most likely, he is one of the leaders of NABU. “From the context of the correspondence, it is clear that this is a person who has complete information about all cases, supervised all divisions, and it was necessary to take permission from him to carry out actions and obtain resources for the investigation,” says a source in the SAPS.

The former director of NABU is no longer needed, because the leaks continued after his dismissal. The current one is also a minus, because he came later. The first deputy director of NABU Gizo Uglava remained. Here it is worth clarifying that the facts of leaks were revealed in the department, which is headed by the protege of the first deputy director. Which destroys another conspiracy theory that the exposure of Uglava was organized by the former head of the Main Detective Division (GPD), Andrei Kaluzhinsky, together with former director Artem Sytnik.

Reaction of NABU Director Krivonos and loss of trust within the bureau

In cases where a violation of the law is detected by NABU employees, the law provides that the one who discovered this violation is obliged to personally notify two officials - the director of NABU and the head of the Internal Control Department (ICD). There is a certain logic here: this allows you to maintain secrecy. If such documents had been registered, relatively speaking, in the office, they would have found out about all this on the same day.

Next are the questions themselves.

On April 24, a detective who discovered photos of correspondence and materials on his case in Golik’s phone cache, according to instructions, submitted a memo to NABU Director Semyon Krivonos. The director is obliged to immediately notify the Prosecutor General or his deputy (head of SAPO). In addition, give the command to register the signal in the ERDR.

But Semyon Krivonos did not do this.

Only on May 3, the document was registered in the ERDR.

Only on May 9, Krivonos informed the head of the SAP Klimenko.

On May 10, Klimenko appointed a group of UVK detectives to conduct an internal investigation, and the head of the SAPS himself became a procedural prosecutor in this case.

All this took 20 (!) days. Moreover, according to sources in NABU, nothing happened at the NABU UVK after May 10. no investigative actions. The detective who discovered the facts was not even interviewed.

Why did Krivonos hesitate? Here the testimony of the parties does not coincide.

Firstly, NABU claims that the “report” filed by the detective did not directly indicate the possible involvement of the first deputy in the leaks. This allegedly objectively slowed down the process, removing it from the list of priorities for the director. However, the context of the information in question already indicated that this could only be one of the heads of the bureau, familiar with the work of all divisions.

Moreover, entering information about names could lead to the transfer of the case to the State Bureau of Investigation, which is completely controlled by Bankovaya. Although the task of the UVK was to check all possible versions as part of the investigation, which NABU did not start on time. You already understand the level of problems, right? But let's move on.

Secondly, all searches in the case of leaking investigative data, which were subsequently carried out by the SAPS with the participation of the National Police, without warning the director of NABU, were also leaked. And here we are talking primarily about Birkadze. Who leaked the searches if only Klimenko, Krivonos, the head of the UVK and the detective knew?

The versions, as you understand, are different between the parties. At the same time, some knowledgeable people rightfully recall the police involved by the SAPS and the judge who gave permission for the searches. As for NABU, sources from there claim: SAP is to blame for everything, because in its secrecy behind NABU’s back, it overdid it and sent requests with the plot of possible defendants to the banks. “A minute later their chests were on Uglava’s table,” the source clarifies. For ten years without rotation in a leadership position at NABU, Uglava could not lift a finger to obtain information important to him. SAPO denies this, stating that there was no plot in the requests.

Thirdly, NABU claims that the head of the SAP Klimenko was in constant contact with Krivonos after the 10th and knew almost all the motives for his decisions. Krivonos allegedly wanted Uglava to leave on his own during the investigation. However, he needed time to talk to Uhlava. How much more if, in the end, 95% of the information about the leak in the Reznichenko/Golik case has already been lost due to delays in the internal investigation and leaking of searches?

Fourthly, the atmosphere in NABU. According to sources, “these were the worst two weeks in the life of the detective, who with his decision confirmed the viability of the institution, once specially created for this purpose from below, through a competition for detectives. And not from above, through a manager who forms a team vertically, for himself. At the same time, it was clear that people at the very top of the bureau see who the problem is associated with, but do not make any decisions.” “And it was borderline dangerous, you know?” – says the source, “They didn’t believe the detective who acted according to the law, they didn’t believe that Uglava could do this. Like, the style of communication is not the same, it’s definitely not him.”

Here you can talk as much as you like on topics related to personal trust or distrust of someone. And even more so to his first deputy, who worked under the first director of NABU and did not raise questions among the general public. We won’t even comment on the style of the correspondence, because the tone of a market trader was also not expected from the head of the Verkhovna Rada Knyazev (always in impeccable order).

But there is a key fifth thing: if the director of NABU had acted according to the law, then a legally correct chain would have been built, an internal investigation would now be carried out and the reputation of the anti-corruption block would not be damaged. As well as trust within the NABU team.

There is another subtle point in this story related to the fate of a particular person. Both NABU (even part of the leadership) and the SAPO believe that the great undercover detective “Valera” (we are talking about detective Valery Polyuge. - I.V.), who was searched, was used in the dark. Next comes the drama.

“Valera is a very decent person and a professional, tough detective. He carried out the entire secret part of the operation against Knyazev,” says one of the eyewitnesses inside NABU. “He lives in a 30-meter apartment. Yes, his messages were in the photos. But the whole point is that he might not understand the goal.

Imagine the situation: you leak everything that happens in the bureau, and you need to somehow legalize communication with certain people. When talking about legalization, I mean creating a legal niche in case something goes wrong. The best way is to instruct the conditional “Valera”, to say: “Look, there is a great contact, you need to interact.”

In this situation, Birkadze can even be imagined as a NABU agent on Bankova. However, the question arises: why hasn’t Golik been imprisoned in three years? In fact, everything that is happening now in relation to “Valera”, who is being made a scapegoat, indicates the low quality of institutional internal procedures at NABU.”

The work of the so-called D2 unit (Second Main Special Detective Unit), which initially existed separately from other units and was always directly subordinate to the Headquarters, often raises many questions in the bureau itself. Indeed, in addition to official work, the detectives carried out many “manual” instructions from the first deputy. And now all this will definitely come out. Therefore, the current situation is a reason to restore order.

Levers of unlimited influence of the first deputy and restructuring of NABU

To understand the scale of the problem associated with the role of Gizo Uglava in this story, we need to recall the scale of the powers of the first deputy. Literally two days before the scandal, ZN.UA published an article by the head of the legal department of the CPC, Elena Shcherban, which related to the restructuring of NABU divisions.

In short, according to the CPC, the main problem is that after the disbandment of the Main Detective Division (GPD), which was headed by Andrey Kaluzhinsky under Sytnik, power in NABU is distributed between four separate divisions. Each of them has their own leader.

They are supervised not by a procedural person, but by an administrative person - the Uglava. He does not have the right to access the materials of the pre-trial investigation. In addition, he does not sign any documents, that is, he is not responsible for anything. The solution is either to give him procedural rights and legal responsibility, or to return to the old model, when between the curator and the detectives there is someone with procedural powers who can coordinate everyone. As Kaluzhinsky did earlier.

We immediately received feedback and accusations of publishing material where double standards were allegedly applied. Including from sources in NABU, which, in their opinion, simply returned to the original model of its structure. “Why do you, when talking about the draconian powers of the Uglava, forget about the four heads of divisions endowed with the same rights that Kaluzhinsky had? Why are you revoking their default role? They are subordinate to Uglava in the same way as Kaluzhinsky was subordinate to him. What is the problem?".

Let's try to explain.

NABU is a specific central authority with a special status. From the point of view of process administration, work is carried out in three parallel legal planes.

The first is the administrative vertical. According to the law, department heads have administrative powers, which they exercise in one way or another. There is administrative guidance for this. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Uglava, Krivonos or Sytnik. Certain legal powers matter.

The second is the criminal process and criminal procedures. Here the detective doesn't need anyone except the prosecutor. A conditional administrative vertical in this plane and no legal powers. This is important to understand.

The third is operational-search activity, where the administrative leadership also has no authority.

What then is the essence of the supervision of the first deputy?

But there is no legal mechanism that would oblige the conditional Kaluzhinsky to be accountable to the Uglava in due time. There is only an internal order from the director on the supervision of the Uglava. There is only the solution of the most conventional Kaluzhinsky: I accept the rules of the game on the basis of trust in the leaders.

Unfortunately, within the framework of the new structure, supervision was reduced to the removal of information by administrative management. On a regular, weekly basis, department heads must submit information about what detectives plan to do at the level of each department and unit. With the names of the defendants and so on. Previously, they also shared information, but according to some, relatively speaking, resonant processes. “If, conditionally, we are going to search Avakov’s son, then it is logical that the management should know about this, because they must be ready to respond and take a position,” says the source.

“And most importantly, let’s assume that you are in the position of first deputy and the detectives provide you with some important information. You live with it, operate on it, use it, and give the detective feedback to help solve the case. So: now there is no feedback from NABU. The management works exclusively for reception,” adds the interlocutor.

“It can be interpreted in different ways,” another source clarifies, “Because, on the one hand, by internal order, the first deputy responds, directs, coordinates, and so on. On the other hand, does he have the right to possess information that is a secret of the investigation or operational investigation? Moreover, if doubts arise, relatively speaking, about his integrity. In such a situation, if there is one head of the pre-trial investigation body, and he decides to limit the first deputy’s access to this or that information, then it is much easier to limit it within one body. That is, if you have trust, you tell, but if you doubt, then you block this channel. But it is, firstly, difficult for four managers to simultaneously block the flow of information, and secondly, they still need to somehow exchange information. It is necessary for someone to understand what is happening in each of the departments. Otherwise - chaos. When everyone runs in one direction and interferes with each other. One is planning an operation, the other got involved ahead of time and actually ruined the operation, which was more important and effective.”

No matter how the investigation into the case of leaks within NABU ends, it is obvious that the question of the optimal structure of the bureau and the responsibility of administrative curators is relevant. Also, a separate legislative norm on rotation is required by the position of the first deputy in order to exclude monopoly, mutual responsibility and other “charms” of eternal rule.

Risks and opportunities of the crisis

Firstly, it is already quite clear that the effectiveness of NABU is not about the number of detectives, its own expertise, or even about the quality of the law. It is primarily about people, principles and trust. If they are not there, then even with all the bells and whistles there will be no result. Confidence in NABU today has been undermined both at the level of process organization and structure, and at the level of management’s reaction to the red signal from below. Will the current director of NABU Krivonos be able to restore an atmosphere of trust in the institute? This question is more important than the number of undoubtedly significant implementations that he managed to present to society.

Moreover, an internal official investigation at NABU has not yet begun either into the facts of leaks or into the facts of the Uglava’s knowledge. And if we talk about dismissal under the article, then without an official investigation it is simply impossible.

Secondly, despite the lack of a correct legal response from the head of NABU, the institution built from below worked. The little detective discovered the violation and acted according to the law. Such things cannot be kept silent. Because of a missing nail, a horseshoe is lost; because of a lost horseshoe, a message is not delivered. Because the message is late, the war is lost. A policy of small steps is critical, particularly when things get done wrong. Talking about the problem and tolerance of violations leads to the fact that everyone begins to get used to it.

In this situation, much depends on the position taken not only by the director, but also by the team of NABU detectives. Case leaks have long become systemic. But everyone gradually got used to remaining silent, receiving not very clear answers from the leaders to their questions. Now is your chance to stand up and ask your questions again. Not for the sake of names, but for the sake of preserving the institution and its mission. Otherwise, the white crows will simply leave, and NABU will end.

Thirdly, an investigation into the leaks is now underway. 95% of the evidence was simply destroyed after three weeks of delay. But 5% remained. And that's a lot. If the director of NABU gives investigators a real opportunity to work. According to our information, there is every reason to raise suspicion against Uglave. Will SAPO turn to the State Bureau of Investigation for help? This is a question to which I don’t even want to look for an answer. However, perhaps this path should also be followed.

Fourthly, as a result of many years of work by the mole, Golik’s role in the Reznichenko case was most likely successfully buried. However, as a result of the work of honest detectives, we have the opportunity to tell the reader the truth about what is happening.

Any crisis (including this one) can either give a new impetus to healthy growth or become the reason for the final disaster. Therefore, either the anti-corruption bloc will reach a new level strong and purified, or because of the rains we will bury not only the Golik case, the threads of which lead directly to Bankova, but also the entire anti-corruption bloc, the successful work of which is a key guarantee of Ukraine’s future accession to the EU and allocation to our country money for post-war reconstruction.

We will definitely come out of this storm different. But which one - the best version of ourselves or vice versa - depends on how we go through it. Will we preserve the values? Will we remove the concept of “our own” in government, anti-corruption, and the civil sector? This is, if you like, an existential challenge, the correct answer to which can become a guarantee of the preservation of the state. And victories, first of all, over ourselves.