Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
Why the SBU Systematically Targets Small and Medium-Sized Businesses
A strong small and medium-sized business sector is what distinguishes a European economy from the Ukrainian one.
This matters not only because citizens are self-employed and don’t beg the state for subsidies or benefits.
International theorists of democracy, such as Francis Fukuyama, have shown scientifically that small and medium-sized businesses act as a "safeguard" against a country sliding into authoritarianism. People engaged in entrepreneurial activity do not think in populist terms of cheap sausage, but in terms of a better future for the country.
Freedom of enterprise goes hand in hand with the fight against corruption, democracy, and respect for human rights.
Therefore the Ukrainian state should become the main ally of small and medium-sized businesses, to once and for all eliminate the temptations of authoritarianism. Instead, Ukraine chose, back in Kuchma’s era, in the 1990-ties, a toxic economic model.
It was and remains oligarchic, where the authorities prefer creating preferences for clans at the expense of state funds rather than developing small-scale entrepreneurship.
While small and medium-sized businesses suffer and are forced to close, oligarch Rinat Akhmetov reaps superprofits thanks to "Rotterdam Plus," and for Dmytro Firtash and Viktor Medvedchuk markets are "cleared" with the help of the Ministry of Economic Development or the SBU—whether those markets are for nitrogen fertilizers or liquefied gas. In reality, SBU crackdowns on business are a systemic phenomenon.
In recent months I, as a member of parliament, have received dozens of appeals about how the security service attacks specific enterprises or entire industries. I receive regular complaints about the SBU. For example, entrepreneur Armen Kechiyan from Boryspil district built two mini-plants in a field near Boryspil to produce nozzles for gasoline stations and fuel tank wagons, which he brought out from the occupied territories; searches were conducted in the office and at home, accounts and equipment were seized.
Only after my intervention was the seized property returned to the entrepreneur, and no suspicions were brought.
Another case is the raid by the SBU Anti-Corruption Department “K” on a small firm from Poltava, Art-Agro, which has just seven employees selling seed and herbicides. They likewise faced searches, account arrests, seizure of computers and products. As a result, a month and a half after the SBU raid no actions were taken at all, but nothing was returned, with a bribe being demanded.
Only after my parliamentary intervention were the entrepreneurs returned their equipment and 90% of the seized products. Or, for example, a case that caused an international scandal—it concerns the blocking of activities of the Austrian company Matimex, which produces food additives for meat products.
At the request of that same Department “K,” the SBU imposed a ban on customs clearing the Austrian company's shipment on the grounds that the food additives contained “narcotic substances.” At the same time, Matimex received a demand—100 thousand dollars as a one-time kickback and three thousand dollars from each truck.
That is, 12 thousand dollars monthly in “subscription” payments to SBU officers so they would not create obstacles. The Austrian ambassador personally came to the searches at Matimex’s office and was rudely prevented from entering by the SBU.
The ambassador stood for two hours in the hot sun outside the office. According to the business ombudsman Algirdas Šemeta—who is a former European Commissioner and Lithuania’s finance minister—this year the number of business complaints about the SBU is disproportionately higher than about other law enforcement agencies.
The business ombudsman’s office itself was created as an experiment to protect entrepreneurs from state arbitrariness with the support of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. But, as it turned out, the authorities are not interested in enshrining their powers to protect business in law.
Resistance comes from the Committee on Tax and Customs Policy chaired by Nina Yuzhanina, an associate of Ihor Kononenko and Petro Poroshenko. Also, in March, ombudsman Šemeta initiated at a meeting with Prime Minister Hroisman a proposal to regulate the issue of law enforcement raids on business without passing laws, which would take significant time and effort. This was assigned to Justice Minister Pavlo Petrenko, but all spring and summer the issue did not move.
If there is political will, this is not difficult to do. Likewise, depriving the SBU of investigative functions not inherent to it—such as economic crime investigations—is a political task for parliament. But why would the authorities support small and medium-sized businesses if later they become a base for protest sentiments? It is much better to work with oligarchs, who willingly share the stolen with their political accomplices.
ukropnews
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Чому СБУ систематично наїжджає на малий та середній бізнес". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: ANTIKOR.
