Dozens of high-profile corruption cases, involving at least 120 people, may soon be closed in Ukraine. This can happen through formal and specially created loopholes in the law. These loopholes are called “Lozovoy amendments.”
They provide that any (not just corruption) case can be closed if the court recognizes that before bringing suspicion to specific individuals, investigators or detectives conducted the investigation for longer than a certain period, notes ZN.ua.
After all, due to the “Lozovoy amendment”, since 2018, complex corruption cases can only be investigated for 18 months before a suspicion is served. During the war, this period was increased to 30 months. At first glance, this time is enough. But when we are talking about a large-scale economic scheme with an international element that has been built over the years, such restrictions are just another chance for the violator to get away with it.
According to the latest survey commissioned by the Razumkov Center for Mirror of the Week, more than half of citizens see this as a problem. Thus, 54.1% confirm that it is necessary to abolish temporary restrictions on the time frame for investigating serious corruption crimes.
At the same time, the Rada has not been able to consider bills No. 10100 and No. 10060-2, which resolve this issue, for more than a month. It is obvious that such delay by the law enforcement committee, headed by MP Sergei Jonusas, greatly plays into the hands of corrupt officials.
Thus, one of the first episodes to go under the knife because of the “Lozovoy amendment” was the UAH 19.3 billion episode of the “Rotterdam+” case, a scheme whose beneficiary is the oligarch Rinat Akhmetov. Added to this was the closed case of the “king of smuggling” Vadim Alperin, the search for whom President Zelensky himself called for in 2019.
Deputy head of the OP Oleg Tatarov was probably able to successfully take advantage of Lozovoy’s “amendments.” His corruption case was closed on April 21 last year after numerous manipulations.
Also, because of the same “Lozovoy’s amendments,” VAKS judge Tkachenko refused to consider the petition to seize Kolomoisky’s property and released the detained defendant in the Privatbank case. And soon all recorded episodes of crimes worth tens of billions in the Privatbank case may be buried according to the same principle.
At the same time, “Lozovoy’s amendments” are purely Ukrainian legal know-how, created for the sole purpose: to get “our own” people out of punishment.
Therefore, for our international partners, who have no practice of limiting the time frame of an investigation before serving a suspicion, such closure of cases “from scratch” looks like complete absurdity.
For example, the corruption case of Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash has been investigated in the United States since 2006. At the same time, he was charged only in 2013 - seven years after the start of the investigation.
So what are those “Lozovoy amendments”? And why has the “Zelensky parliament” been unable to abolish the absurd norms of the “Poroshenko parliament” in four years of work? We tell you below.
What are the “Lozovoy amendments”?
“Lozovoy’s amendments” was the name given to a group of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, which Andrei Lozovoy, a former people’s deputy from Oleg Lyashko’s Radical Party, introduced into one of the bills. Lozovoy played the role of a kind of scapegoat, whose reputation was not a pity for presenting such “legal nonsense.” After all, the amendments themselves were clearly a joint “product” of the then ruling parties.
By that time, NABU and SAPO had already implemented a number of high-profile cases. It was in 2017 that the ex-head of the fiscal service, Roman Nasirov, and the people’s deputy from the pro-government coalition, Nikolai Martynenko, were detained. Then it became obvious that no new institutions were inviolable. Therefore, the then government saw the way of salvation for itself precisely in legislative changes.
Even before Lozovoy’s amendments came into force, they caused a scandal. After all, without discussion, justification and in violation of the regulations, they were introduced into the bill, the purpose of which was to ensure changes to a number of procedural codes through the so-called reform of the Supreme Court.
In 2017, we at the Anti-Corruption Center (ACC) and other experts warned that these amendments together pose a systemic threat for years to come. However, then, in response to the warnings, the deputies only noted that the amendments come into force six months after the entry into force of the law and should apply only to cases begun after these six months - from March 16, 2018.
The issue of repealing the amendments was approached after the change of government in 2019. The corresponding bill was initiated by President Zelensky. However, then the newly elected people’s deputies creakingly canceled only part of Lozovoy’s “edits” concerning the state monopoly on examinations and the ability to appoint the latter exclusively through the courts.
At the same time, they categorically refused to cancel some of the notorious amendments regarding deadlines, which, in particular, made it possible to “excuse” those suspected of corruption from responsibility.
Therefore, due to parliamentary delays, the following rules still remain in force:
1) limiting the period for conducting a pre-trial investigation before the announcement of suspicion in actual criminal proceedings. That is, investigators have 12 or 18 months (depending on the case) to conduct an investigation before serving a suspicion on a person;
2) the obligation to close the case in case of violation of the deadline before or after suspicion. That is, even if the offender is already in a pre-trial detention center and there is evidence that he is guilty, due to a violation of the deadlines, literally for a day the case should be closed;
3) only a judge, and not a prosecutor, as was the case before, can extend the investigation period;
4) it is allowed to appeal suspicions in criminal proceedings in court.
With the outbreak of full-scale war, Parliament tried to stop the deadlines for the period of martial law, but did so in a way that once again allowed for different interpretations of the law. Finally, after a year and a half of war, it became obvious that the deadlines could nullify all efforts in investigating Russian crimes against peace and security. Therefore, in August of this year, the Rada also adopted a law that canceled the deadlines for these cases. At that time, 98 thousand such industries were subject to closure. However, people's deputies decided not to save corruption cases.
Supreme Court strikes
Later, the “reformed” Supreme Court also added fuel to the fire to “Lozovoy’s amendments,” the former chairman of which NABU and SAPO were caught taking a bribe of $2.7 million this year.
One of the first controversial decisions, which gave the “Lozovoy amendments” a new breath, was made by the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court in February 2022. Thus, in one of the corruption cases that the police were investigating, the Supreme Court ruled: even if the case was started before the “Lozovoy amendments” came into effect on March 15, 2018, it can also be closed after the end of the investigation. Roughly speaking, the Supreme Court gave the “Lozovoy amendments” a retroactive effect in time, while the law clearly states that these norms, including the ability to close a case within a time limit, apply only to cases opened after the entry into force of these amendments.
Even after the invasion began, the Supreme Court did not stop the practice of “stamping” such decisions. On October 31, 2022, the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court, with the participation of the current head of the Supreme Court Stanislav Kravchenko, decided that if two cases are combined and in one of them the pre-trial investigation began after the “Lozovoy amendments” were put into effect, then the whole case can also be completely closed.
In effect, Supreme Court judges have taken on the role of legislators. Moreover, such rules began to appear in the practice of the Supreme Court already at a time when the investigation in many cases had long been completed and the deadlines were calculated completely differently than what the judges determined. And throughout all these years, no questions have arisen regarding such matters. In them, investigative judges had no problem giving permission to searches, choosing preventive measures, and seizing property.
In parallel with the practice of the Supreme Court and sometimes with reference to it, the High Anti-Corruption Court also began to close the first cases.
In particular, the court closed the case regarding the Dubnevichi CHPP with losses of UAH 1.4 billion. We are talking about a scheme in the Lviv region involving the theft of gas by the management of Novorozdolsk and Novoyavorovskaya CHPPs. The final beneficiaries of the scheme are the current people's deputy Yaroslav Dubnevich and his brother Bogdan. Both voted for the “Lozovoy amendments” in the previous convocation of parliament.
Subsequently, the HACC Appeals Chamber resumed some of the cases closed in the first instance, but it is too early to rejoice. After all, these cases will then end up in the same Supreme Court, where, most likely, they will be finally buried.
Who will be cleared of corruption charges in the near future?
The closure of the first episode of “Rotterdam+”, the case of the “king of smuggling” Alperin and the use of “Lozovoy’s edits” to please Kolomoisky are just the first signs.
Further more. Among dozens of cases, we have selected several that at one time caused a great stir. Obviously, their closure will have no less resonance.
We will continue to talk about cases that are candidates for closure. Because there is no doubt that the authorities will not soon solve the problem with “Lozovoy’s amendments”.
Judge Vovk's case
In July 2020, NABU and SAPO handed suspicions to the judges of the OASC: the chairman of the court Pavel Vovk, his deputy Evgeniy Ablov and five other judges. There are 11 defendants in total in the case.
According to the prosecutor's office, Vovk and the company acted as part of a criminal organization that aimed to seize state power by establishing control over the judicial authorities and creating artificial obstacles to their work. This is in addition to serving the interests of political elites and business circles.
In March 2021, prosecutors went to the investigating judge to extend the investigation. This is precisely the order established by the “Lozovoy amendments”.
The defense turned the consideration of the petition into a circus and dragged on for several days: the lawyers were constantly late for the hearing, filed groundless challenges to the judge, the suspects complained about their health, and even separately hired a blind lawyer. They also put pressure on the investigating judge through the Supreme Court.
In the end, the judge refused to extend the investigation on the last day of the deadline. Prosecutors completed their investigation that same day. The case was subsequently sent to court.
However, now the defense insists that the case was sent to court outside the deadlines and, according to Lozovoy’s “edits,” it should be closed.
Privatbank case for UAH 8.4 billion
The Privatbank case is one of the largest in the history of anti-corruption authorities. The amount of losses only in those episodes where there are suspects is more than UAH 17 billion.
The cases closest to closure now are cases of suspicion of Igor Kolomoisky himself, as well as proceedings against key managers of PrivatBank Alexander Dubilet, Vladimir Yatsenko, Lyudmila Shmalchenko and three other people.
This is the same case in which Yatsenko was vividly removed from a plane in Boryspil in 2021 while attempting to escape. According to investigators, the day before Privatbank was declared insolvent, the suspects withdrew billions in favor of controlled legal entities, in particular the Ingosstrakh and Claresholm Marketing Ltd companies.
However, the investigation may soon turn out to be useless due to the “Lozovoy amendments” and their peculiar interpretation by the courts. Here all hope remains with the judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, whose appeal chamber recently refused to transfer the case to one of the local courts in Kolomoisky’s native Dnieper.
The case of the Energoset company
He is accused of organizing the seizure of funds from Cherkassyoblenergo and Zaporozhyeoblenergo and their legalization, as well as abuse of official position. Other defendants in the case include ex and. O. Chairman of the Board of Cherkassyoblenergo Svetlana Kuzminskaya and her first deputy Alexey Bespalov. The investigation established that the defendants organized an illegal scheme through which they allegedly seized funds from state-owned enterprises and large consumers of electricity.
Thanks to the evidence obtained by NABU, it has already been possible to invalidate 27 transactions worth more than UAH 1.5 billion. This became the basis for the return of UAH 558 million to state enterprises.
We at the CPC have calculated that more than 30 cases by NABU and SAPO may be closed due to the “Lozovoy amendment” and the practice of the Supreme Court. The amount of losses or thefts in such cases amounts to about 40 billion UAH.
These cases of top corruption, on which years of detective work have been spent, examinations have been carried out, thousands of volumes of evidence have been collected, are closed without consideration. Hundreds and thousands more cases of corruption and high treason are also at risk of being closed due to the notorious amendments. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to calculate the exact number of such cases in the police, SBI and SBU. It is only clear that we are talking about thousands of criminal proceedings.
Now the Rada has a way to save at least part of the cases against corrupt officials thanks to bills No. 10100 and No. 10060-2, where the repeal of the disastrous “Lozovoy amendments” was combined with the no less necessary reform of the SAP. However, the majority of parliamentarians continue to ignore the problem, probably in their own interests.
How many more cases will be closed while the committee and parliament ignore the problem is unknown.
