Political orders
We described cases here in which actions of the NACP have the political nature and the use of the anti-corruption agency for their own interests.

The NACP has repeatedly helped the corrupt officials, it closed its eyes to obvious conflict of interests. Or it punished for following the law in order to remove uncomfortable officials.
Saved Martynenko from the "uncomfortable" prosecutor and detective
In 2010, the Member of Parliament from Nasha Ukrayina-Narodna samooborona Viktor Shemchuk, while being the head of the federation of water and motor sports, looked for the sponsor to fund participation of Ukrainian team of water and motor sports in the US championship.

The head of Nasha Ukrayina-Narodna samooborona faction Mykola Martynenko financed the participation in competitions. He transferred 250,000 EUR from his offshore company Bradcrest investments s.a. to the account of Shemchuk's wife company. And Ukrainian team together with Shemchuk's boat eventually took part in the American competition.

In 2018, Shemchuk, while being the deputy head of Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors, prepared the conclusion regarding the reprimand to the SAPO's prosecutor Andriy Perov for slamming the door in court in the case of the same Mykola Martynenko.

This decision was immediately used by attorneys of former Member of Parliament to remove the prosecutor from the case. Martynenko was charged with embezzlement of 695 million UAH at state enterprises of Eastern Mining and Processing Plant and National Nuclear Energy Generating Company of Ukraine Energoatom. It is possible that the participation of Shemchuk and the team in the championship of water and motor sports in the USA was paid by this money.

The NABU detectives during investigation of "Martynenko's case" questionned Shemchuk as the witness for obtaining this money. And the prosecutor Andriy Perov led this investigation.

However, the NACP did not see the conflict of interests in Shemchuk's actions, despite the fact that he and his wife were even questioned in Martynenko's case as witnesses.

At the same time, the NACP saw the potential conflict of interests (on foolish grounds) in actions of former NABU's detective Igor Semak, who led Martynenko's case.

Using the order of the agency he was removed from the case. The NACP decided that the detective could have personal interest in bringing Martynenko to justice only because he worked as the assistant to Viktoriya Voyitsitska, the Member of Parliament from Samopomich party. The latter criticized Martynenko in Facebook.
Official of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine was punished for following the law
One of close relatives of the state commissioner of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine, Agiya Zagrebelska drove on her Toyota car with the power of attorney. The relative sold the car for 300,000 UAH, and Zagrebelska submitted information on significant changes in property status to the NAPC three days after she received funds from the sale of vehicle and regarding documents.

The NACP filed the protocol against Zagrebelska for allegedly breaking the anti-corruption law. The agency decided that the official should have informed them about significant changes in property status ten days after the withdrawal of the car from registration, and not when Zagrebelska was officially notified and received the income. However, the law states the opposite. The notification is submitted in ten-day period from the moment of receipt of the income.

For example, the official knew about the sale of the car earlier. If she had submitted such notification to the NACP before receiving funds, then, according to the NACP, she had to declare the income that she had not received yet.

In February 2018, Solomyanskyi District Court of Kyiv found Zagrebelska guilty just on the ground of the NACP's protocol. This absurd decision was approved by the Court of Appeal and now she can be released. Zagrebelska will send the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

The State Commissioner is known for investigations in gambling business, intermediary "shell companies" with access to the base of accessments of the State Property Fund, and various schemes in the sphere of the Ministry of Justice.

Due to the investigation of Agiya Zagrebelska the Anti-Monopoly Committee imposed fine in the amount of 869,27 million USD on companies, which in 2016 participated in procurement of food services by the Ministry of Defense. The total amount of fines is the largest in the history of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine among other cases concerning conspiracy at bids.
Rescue of Filatov from the NABU
Journalists found that Oleksiy Filatov, the deputy head of the Presidential Administration, did not submit in his declaration information about the son and the common-law wife who works in the law firm Aequo. Although, the law directly obliges to declare all persons with whom the official has common life.

The NABU opened the case on non-submission the information in the declaration by Filatov about his wife and son, which should be easy to investigate. However, the NACP came with help to Filatov, who is taking care of the judicial reform in Poroshenko's office.

The NACP reported that "due to the absence of authority to perform power functions and administrative jurisdiction in the name of the state, the Presidential Administration is not the state body in understanding of the law".

This was done after officials of the Presidential Administration have been obediently submitting their declarations in accordance with the law during more than one year.

The withdrawal of the Presidential Administration behind brackets of state bodies helped all heads and employees of the PA. And it became the reason for the collapse of the NABU's case against Filatov. In autumn, Nazar Kholodnytskyi's prosecutors transferred his case to the National Police.
Made on