Corruption in the Supreme Court, the arrest of its head, and the strange election of a new one. A move by the marked king

Corruption in the Supreme Court, the arrest of its head, and the strange election of a new one. A move by the marked king

A swift election of a new head of the Supreme Court took place against the backdrop of an elite conspiracy. For ten consecutive days everyone was silent about the nearly three million dollar (!) bribe and the arrest of the head of the Supreme Court (!) Knyazev—the president, the government, parliament, party leaders, and faction heads.

Only after Friday’s vote for the new head of the Supreme Court, when the positioning of figures inside the SC became clear, was a resolution immediately registered in the Verkhovna Rada “On the need for harsh and uncompromising elimination of manifestations of corruption in the justice system.” A move by the marked king — notes the publication ZN.UA.

And while our uncompromising deputies break spears over how Bankova will carry out “optimization of Ukraine’s judicial system in accordance with the challenges and demands of the real situation,” we can already state that:

first, the newly elected head of the Supreme Court, Stanislav Kravchenko, like Knyazev, is a compromise and agreed-upon figure both within the SC itself and in power and political circles. The “old guard” is fighting to the death, and the small nips from NABU heal over it like on a dog;

second, the strategy of competitions and selections has failed, no matter how many internationals were involved or how strict the conditions for candidates were. The civic sector will have to admit that a “single pill for everything” did not work — not only in the judicial system — and must devise a new strategy to defend reforms;

third, the main focus is the High Council of Justice (HCJ), which must soon approve the composition of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ). The HCJ’s ability/willingness to take leadership in changing the judicial system and give the HQCJ a chance to renew its blood is the main issue on the near-term agenda;

fourth, the anti-corruption bloc has become almost the only support of healthy forces in the country. Only the reliable link NAPC—NABU—SAP—HACC can pull us out of the abyss we have fallen into. But if it does not hold — and the new NABU director Semen Kryvonos has not yet defined his party — we will have much more work than we expected. Both now and after Victory.

Your DisHonour

If Knyazev’s Telegram channel with the prophetic name “Your DisHonour” died the day its owner was detained, the public silence of the authorities did not preclude active behind-the-scenes work. As ZN.UA already reported, the relevant parliamentary committee insisted on the operational selection of a new head. In particular, our sources in parliament said that acting Supreme Court head Dmytro Luspenyk spent more than three hours at a committee meeting a week before the plenum, where he was strongly advised not to delay the election of a new head, since “someone has to sort this out.”

Candidates included the head of the Selection Commission for HQCJ members, judge of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court Ivan Mishchenko (14 votes “for”), judge of the Administrative Cassation Court of the SC Albert Yezeryov (2), judge of the Administrative Cassation Court NV Natalia Kovalenko (13). The head of the Criminal Cassation Court within the SC, Stanislav Kravchenko, kept the intrigue about his participation until the end. In the end he became head of the SC (108 votes).

Behind Kravchenko stands a rich record: a negative opinion from the Public Integrity Council (PIC) in 2017 year, when he applied for a Supreme Court judgeship; court rulings that were the subject of ECtHR review and which he concealed; problems declaring a hectare of land in Kozeltsi; a decision to change Pukach’s detention to a travel restriction, which allowed him to hide until July 2009,” — which current HCJ member Roman Maselko openly wrote in 2017 year.

26 May 2023. Plenum of the Supreme Court. The closed club of the hastily chosen changed its master... Photo: Supreme Court/Facebook

It’s important to clarify that the Supreme Court is quite heterogeneous. According to our sources, three days before the detention of SC head Knyazev and intermediary lawyer Horetsky for the bribe, several Supreme Court judges met with American partners involved in judicial reform. While NABU was handling Knyazev from the outside, using the friend and personal notary of the SC head, Kyrylo Horburov, as an agent, SC judges inside were composing their own picture of what was happening. However, at the vote the progressive wing of the SC remained in a critical minority.

Despite the wave of outrage about Kravchenko’s “integrity” and his campaign promises to provide apartments to judges at state expense that flooded the information space on the eve of the vote, the Supreme Court made its choice. And, not having recovered from the blow Knyazev dealt to its reputation and legitimacy, it politically fell.

“The balances inside the Supreme Court have always been influenced by the heads of the four cassation courts of the SC,” our source in the Supreme Court says. “A few days before the vote there was a Zoom meeting where judges discussed the plenum date and a possible reform of the Grand Chamber of the SC. The head of the relevant parliamentary committee Maslov did not accidentally include a point on optimization of the judicial system in his resolution. Under the banner of necessary changes, Bankova can easily reboot the Grand Chamber. Currently there are 21 judges there; after a reboot there could be 10–15. Their number will include judges by the quota of cassation heads. The fewer people, the easier to control. Why is this so important? Because in the Grand Chamber of the SC appeals are heard against HCJ decisions to bring judges to disciplinary responsibility. A controlled Grand Chamber is also a noose on the HCJ’s neck, which dismisses offending judges from the system. It is here, in the Grand Chamber, that appeals are heard in all cases concerning the president, parliament, the HCJ and the HQCJ.”

Plus, a new qualification evaluation and integrity check of the entire SC could be announced (under the guise of justice), allowing up to 100 new people to be brought into the Supreme Court. Currently the Supreme Court has 167 judges on a staff of 200. Up to 100 judges could opt for a well-paid pension if checks occur. Some will be eliminated after the checks. Although this is a pure venture that technically could block the SC’s work for years,” the source said.

However, such a bill certainly will not get stuck for two years in Maslov’s drawer. As the presidential (!) bill on the liquidation of OASK once got stuck with the current Prosecutor General Kostin. Especially since the text of the aforementioned Rada resolution appeals directly to the NSDC, which the president chairs. For Zelensky this could be a perfect reason to dramatically seize the judicial reform hammer from the civic sector and shocked international partners. And take revenge for the failure of 2019, when they did not allow him to reboot the Supreme Court.

Failure of competitions and the blow to the PIC

Knyazev brilliantly passed the competition to the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court in 2017 year. The rapporteur on Knyazev’s candidacy was Andriy Kozlov, supported by civic organizations and one of the most scrupulous and relentless members of the HQCJ. Knyazev — a judge from Mykolaiv, a PhD and former lawyer who speaks English fluently — ranked third among 55 selected judges. How could a smart, well-mannered, cultured judge, who at the time of the competition lived with his in-laws in a two-room apartment, rise to become head of the SC—applauded by colleagues and greeted by partners in the US, EU and the UK—and turn out to be a brazen corrupter? Where did the jargon in the style of an experienced hawker (almost “fenya”) in his published conversations with accomplices come from? Why did a competition that involved active civic participation not guarantee a clean result?

April, 2023. A delegation of the Supreme Court led by V. Knyazev shares experience in combating corruption at a meeting with representatives of the United States Supreme Court.

On the day of the interview with the still mustache-less Knyazev (8:20:00—9:15:00) the HQCJ failed the applicant Pavlo Vovk, head of OASK. By the way, his TG channel also has a prophetic name — “Under the Gown.” But that’s not the only signal from the universe. The Public Integrity Council was lenient toward candidate Knyazev and limited itself not to a negative opinion but to reporting some inconsistencies regarding property and politically incorrect statements by the future SC head.

At that time, by law, the HQCJ could ignore the PIC opinion, which, in the view of civic organizations, allowed the formation of the Supreme Court from people from the old system. This was partly confirmed by the SC vote for the conservative Kravchenko. Ironically, on the day of Knyazev’s interview the PIC was represented by Serhiy Verlanov—the same future head of the State Tax Service whom NABU declared wanted in January 2021 year. According to the investigation, the official suspected of abusing his office “canceled” budget replenishment of more than two billion hryvnias. I have no comments. Only questions.

Why is there not one hundred percent confidence in the new composition of the HCJ today, even though all its members passed through the sieve of the reformed Ethics Council? Why does the image involuntarily arise of the head of the Ethics Council, SC judge Lev Kyshakevych — a friend of Knyazev, who in May joined the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court? For what merits? I don’t know. NABU has not yet brought charges against other judges who took money for a lawful (!) decision in favor of Zhyvago.

Why did we feel disappointment after the competition for the NABU director when Semen Kryvonos’s presence on the list from the very start pointed to him as the future winner likely to please the president’s office? Wow, what intuition we have! And on the selection commission was the well-known international Dragos Cos, who fought fiercely for the future head of SAP Oleksandr Klymenko. But for some reason he did not oppose the final trio with the obvious favorite Kryvonos.

“One can conclude that even international experts and their predominant voting rights are not a panacea to ensure a fully objective result. This is confirmed by the selection to the High Council of Justice. The listed mistakes should be taken into account when modeling subsequent procedures,” wrote candidly immediately after the NABU competition Elena Shcherban, an analyst at the Anti-Corruption Action Center (ACAC).

Selection procedures are overregulated and not standardized; every new selection becomes some competition of toughness with the previous one. As a result we become participants in an absurdity when today we applaud a selection commission that successfully identified 32 best candidates to the HQCJ, and tomorrow we publish a list of “undesirables” among these 32 whom “under no circumstances should be appointed to the HQCJ.” How did they get on the list if they were selected by a commission that included impeccably authoritative international experts?

It is already obvious that the path of endless vetting of candidates for the judicial, law enforcement and anti-corruption systems at the start does not guarantee a long-term result. Nor does the participation of internationals and civil society in the selection process. The organism of the system has a devilishly aggressive gastric juice that instantly dissolves “outsiders,” turning them into “one of us.” And the voice of conscience that could save in this situation is not heard by everyone.

A test for the HCJ and the entire system

The scale of the challenges facing the judicial system, which is undergoing a real catastrophe, is hard to overestimate. After removing the scab of the “common fund” times of Yanukovych and the protracted liquidation of the OASK octopus by two (!) presidents with its influence on the political system — the Knyazev case may seem not so large. But that is only at first glance.

Two months after Knyazev became head of the SC, ten members of the High Council of Justice resigned. The council’s activity stopped for a year. Two days after the HCJ members’ departure, the full-scale invasion began, and in March parliament adopted a law transferring a number of the HCJ’s powers to the head of the Supreme Court. Including sole decisions on the secondment of hundreds of judges from temporarily occupied territories to safer locations. For example, last spring from a Mykolaiv court where jurisdiction had not been changed due to the war, Knyazev by a sole closed decision transferred judge Svitlana Hrechana to Kyiv. Later the new Pechersky District Court judge of the capital lifted the seizure from the Ocean Plaza shopping center, where the ears of sanctioned owners stick out. As sources claim, at the request of Servant of the People faction head Davyd Arakhamia.

Thus, until the appointment of the new HCJ composition, Knyazev concentrated in his hands virtually dictatorial public power in the judicial system. And, as it turned out, non-public power as well.

You can read and listen to NABU summaries about Oleg Horetsky and Knyazev’s back office at the law firm “Horetsky and Partners.” We will cite two facts with which SC judges went to internationals before NABU’s exposure of Knyazev.

First, besides control over the SC and the HCJ, on 20 April 2022 Knyazev appointed his fellow countryman Oleksiy Salnikov as head of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine (SJAU). This body oversees all finances, tenders and procurements of the judiciary. One can only guess what Salnikov talked about with Horetsky near the Supreme Court building literally three hours before the NABU operation. But judging by how quickly and sharply the head of the SJAU condemned corruption in the system, Salnikov did not reveal any secrets to Horetsky. Or he revealed them, but condemned them anyway.

Photo from the author’s archive. Intermediary lawyer Oleg Horetsky, head of the SJAU Oleksiy Salnikov and former SJAU employee Anastasiia Dziatkievych during a business walk near the Supreme Court. Three hours before the NABU operation.

Second, Knyazev invited Oleg Horetsky to the March forum of heads of commercial courts in Lviv. The lawyer attended not only all closed working events for the judges but also informal ones. He sat on Knyazev’s right, handed out business cards and, without leaving his post, “resolved issues regarding some important cases.” And commercial courts are the country’s entire business. After the forum judges openly began to talk about a back office and Knyazev’s “special mission” in the reform of Ukraine’s judicial system. Something that was impossible under the former SC head Valentyna Danishevska.

March, 2023. Head of the law firm “Horetsky and Partners” among the heads of commercial courts of Ukraine at the forum in Lviv. Photo: femida.ua

The role and responsibility of the HCJ in the situation that has arisen are global. As are questions about some of its members. According to judges who were at the Lviv forum, Horetsky did not come alone but in the company of two HCJ members — the experienced Oksana Blazhivska (appointed by the president’s quota) and the inexperienced Yuliia Bokova (elected by the congress of judges, still influenced by judicial clans). What’s the catch? Was the back office in the SC and the reformed HCJ the same?

According to our information, a group crystallized within the current HCJ whose members informally communicated with Knyazev. And Horetsky. Shared celebrations, meetings in restaurants, etc. A joint celebration took place for the birthday of HCJ deputy head Dmytro Lukianov. Besides those already mentioned, among the inner circle were Mykola Moroz (Rada quota), Olha Popikova (congress of judges). HCJ head Hryhorii Usyk was also in contact with Knyazev, although status may have played a role for both. And possible gratitude from Usyk to Knyazev for support obtained in the president’s office. Thus, roughly seven of 17 current HCJ members were in Knyazev’s orbit.

July, 2022. HCJ member Oksana Blazhivska in the company of important speakers of the online marathon “Business under martial law,” where not only SJAU head A. Salnikov and intermediary lawyer Oleg Horetsky appeared, but also Knyazev’s personal notary — Kyrylo Horburov.

Could they influence the HCJ’s overall strategy? Of course. And influence the outcome of the upcoming vote on HQCJ members? Undoubtedly. However, according to our information, at the time of Knyazev’s detention the HCJ had not yet begun discussing candidates. Plus, according to an official statement by SAP head Oleksandr Klymenko, the investigation (despite three leaked pages with Knyazev’s marks published in the media) has no evidence of the former SC head’s real influence on the HCJ’s process of selecting HQCJ candidates.

By the time Stanislav Kravchenko was elected the new head of the Supreme Court, who already became an HCJ member, approval of the new HQCJ composition was planned for Monday. However Kravchenko may hold up the process for some time if he decides to take part in internal consultations on candidate selection, which he now already has the lawful right to do. Civic organizations, aware of the risks of delay, insist on clarifying the voting procedure. “To remove any insinuations amid Knyazev’s arrest, it’s worth holding not only an open but also a roll-call vote,” they say.

Despite the ambiguity of the facts in the HCJ amid the collapse of the Supreme Court (thanks to Knyazev’s efforts, the SC’s reputation in the eyes of citizens is practically zero and its head has no trust) there is still a chance for it to take leadership in the judicial system. To appoint HQCJ members and infuse new blood into the judiciary. The presence of healthy forces in the HCJ, plus four unfilled vacancies and the necessary honest internal discussion, can form the basis for this.

A new role for the anti-corruption bloc

After ACAC literally clawed out the competition for the head of SAP, the effectiveness of NABU and the entire anti-corruption bloc increased many times. There is a result. Without it no competitions, selections or checks make sense. The arrest of a figure of Knyazev’s scale, which surprised Bankova, is a clear signal to the authorities and elites: the law is watching you. Even if you work in the president’s office and all the country’s key power officials come to your birthday. Even if you are the defense minister and suddenly thought that nothing threatens your “eggs at 17 UAH apiece.” Even if you were rewarded for a service rendered in the prosecutor general’s chair with a comfortable life in fairy-tale Switzerland... Even if you became the new head of the SC and decided you would be covered from the very top. Knyazev thought so too.

It is not surprising that at the anti-corruption bloc briefing all attention regarding the three million dollar bribe for the head of the Supreme Court was focused on NABU director Semen Kryvonos. He reported on the largest corruption case in Ukraine’s history. But this is not yet his merit. For now Kryvonos only stood beside a professional team. Note also that information about the operation did not leak from him: he called the president not before but immediately after its successful execution.

16 May, 2023. NABU Director Semen Kryvonis, SAP head Oleksandr Klymenko, SAP prosecutor Oleksandra Omelchenko, head of the second detectives’ unit of NABU Borys Indichenko at a briefing in the case of corruption of SC head Knyazev.

…In summary, even after Knyazev’s detention the Supreme Court did not fulfill its main anti-crisis task: to signal to society and international partners that the lesson has been learned. Instead, the closed club of the hastily chosen changed its master (Americans informally say cooperation with new SC head Kravchenko will be formal) and hung another lock on the door. But “Akela missed,” giving the green light to authorities who, taking advantage of the occasion, will first take down the Grand Chamber and then purge the entire Supreme Court.

In this situation the only hope is launching the HQCJ, which will open the door into the system for two-and-a-half thousand new judges. By creating a strong base at the most fundamental level, this will later make it possible to heal the top.

There is no hope for real judicial reform from above. And while we fight for what distinguishes us from Russia, our elites, tucking their soiled tails, are working to strengthen Russian values of unfreedom and opacity — in Ukraine. All who remained silent

Inna Vedernikova, published in ZN.UA