Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
Tetyana Chornovol: Three surnames should remain on the list for property confiscation
3 in September, people's deputies Tetyana Chornovol (People’s Front) and Oleh Barna (BPP) registered in the Verkhovna Rada a draft law 3052 “On a special regime of special confiscation of property.”
Due to systemic financial abuses by former high-ranking officials of the Yanukovych regime, who contributed to the destabilization of the national economy, the document proposed confiscating property of a specific list of persons:
Also automatically included in the list of “lucky ones” were persons against whom sanctions have been applied – Ukrainian and international. In addition, property registered to other persons would be subject to confiscation if its actual beneficiary is a person from the listed group, and property transferred to third parties after the Maidan would also be subject to confiscation.
But the draft law was not added to the agenda — not even all coalition MPs welcomed the initiative. “If adopted, the law will lead Ukraine to lawsuits in international courts and multiple compensations to bandits – at our expense,” commented MP from the presidential bloc Serhiy Leshchenko on his Facebook.
In essence, the proposed bill allows taking property from the specified persons without a court decision on the merits of a crime. Thus, confiscation in the draft’s current form could lead to Ukraine losing in Strasbourg and, on some episodes, in The Hague. Opponents of the bill believe Ukraine would then have to pay compensation to all the “plunderers” of the former regime.
The EU did not explicitly condemn the initiative, but it already reminded that “the right to property is guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.” That document, the representation’s statement noted, is part of the set of values and principles that form the basis of the Ukraine–EU association. And the Parliamentary Expert Group on Eurointegration, having analyzed the document, concluded that it contradicts Article 14 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych – removed from the post of President of Ukraine;
Serhiy Hennadiyovych Arbuzov – former acting Prime Minister of Ukraine;
Mykola Yanovych Azarov – former Prime Minister of Ukraine;
Oleksiy Mykolayovych Azarov – son of the former Prime Minister of Ukraine Mykola Azarov;
Raisa Vasylivna Bohatyrieva – former Minister of Health of Ukraine;
Andriy Petrovych Klyuyev – former Head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine;
Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko – former Minister of Revenues and Duties of Ukraine;
Serhiy Petrovych Klyuyev – former people’s deputy of Ukraine from the Party of Regions;
Serhiy Vitaliyovych Kurchenko – owner of the SEPEK group of companies;
Olena Leonidivna Lukash – former Minister of Justice of Ukraine;
Andriy Volodymyrovych Portnov – former people’s deputy of Ukraine from the Party of Regions, head of the Main Directorate on Judicial System Issues of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine;
Artem Viktorovych Pshonka – former people’s deputy of Ukraine from the Party of Regions;
Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka – former Prosecutor General of Ukraine;
Eduard Anatoliyovych Stavytsky (Rosenberg) – former Minister of Energy and Coal Industry of Ukraine;
Dmytro Volodymyrovych Tabachnyk – former Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine;
Oleh Anatoliyovych Tsaryov – former people’s deputy of Ukraine from the Party of Regions;
Oleksandr Hryhorovych Yakymenko – former Head of the Security Service of Ukraine;
Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych – son of the removed President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych;
Vitaliy Yuriyovych Zakharchenko – former Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine;
Hennadiy Adolfovych Kernes – mayor of the city of Kharkiv;
Mykola Volodymyrovych Prysyazhnyuk – former Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine;
Oleksandr Serhiyovych Yefremov – former people’s deputy of Ukraine from the Party of Regions.
Moreover, a number of questions were raised about the very list of officials of the previous government whose property and assets would be subject to confiscation. For example, participants of the so-called “Firtash group” did not end up on it.
The author of the draft — Tetyana Chornovol — admits that the surnames in the document are a matter of speculation. She promises that on Monday she will submit a revised draft in which among the 22 persons only three will remain: Viktor Yanukovych, Mykola Azarov and Serhiy Arbuzov.
However, she does not agree with other arguments of her opponents regarding special confiscation, calling most of those objections amateurish.
“Why are some people not on the list? So as not to provoke the chamber”
Tetyana, by what criteria was the list of persons compiled whose money, valuables and other property should be subject to the special regime of special confiscation?
Actually, the list is not important. The list is the “bow” of this draft law. The most important item there, I repeat, is 2 — which concerns persons who are under sanctions.
To be clear, I am the initiator of this draft law, but in general this is the brainchild of the government and the Presidential Administration. In fact, it is the political will of the current Ukrainian authorities.
Then which members of the government and the PA can be considered parents of this brainchild?
The authors of the project are me and Oleh Barna (people’s deputy of the Petro Poroshenko Bloc, - Glavcom). But the “brainchild” is the political will of the current Ukrainian authorities.
As for the surnames, the situation is this. More important — I repeat — are the persons under EU sanctions, under US sanctions. But, you see, there are many surnames that are not on the list...
They accuse you, for example, that the list does not include the ex-head of the Presidential Administration Serhiy Lyovochkin, oligarch Dmytro Firtash, ex-minister of fuel and energy Yuriy Boyko. In fact — none of the participants of the “Firtash group” who are now sitting in parliament.
Why are some people who clearly fall under this list not included? So as not to provoke the chamber. There are many deputies in the chamber who will never admit they are connected to that surname (Firtash, - Glavcom), but I know that they are connected. The bill did not pass immediately last week only because certain surnames appeared. Some surnames irritated a number of people present in the chamber. And all that noise rose. Although, in fact, those surnames did not need to be included. Simply didn’t need to be included, because it’s clear: if someone is under sanctions — they are under sanctions, it passes.
I am now working on amendments to this bill. My personal position is that there should be three surnames. That’s it.
Which ones?
The surnames of the persons who held the top positions in the state: Yanukovych, Azarov, Arbuzov.
I am now working on this draft. It will be submitted as a replacement on Monday. And I will make sure there are no speculations.
Do you think that if only three surnames remain in the draft, but the other conditions stay the same, it will more easily “pass” the chamber and not irritate any MPs?
They will all understand that the matter is not in the surnames. On the other hand, it would also be hard to vote against a bill that includes the surnames Azarov, Yanukovych and Arbuzov. It’s hard not to vote for it if you stand on the front line of the fight against them. There’s that kind of pull, really.
Since the draft appeared on the eve of local elections, one can assume that some deputies will vote not on the merits but to look good in the eyes of voters.
So why did such a fuss start? To prevent the draft from reaching the Verkhovna Rada for a vote. Because when it is put to a vote, many who do not want to vote for it will be forced to vote for it. Simply because they cannot refuse to vote against Yanukovych.
If we return to the surnames that were not included in the submitted version of the document — some of them do not fall under sanctions.
Note an interesting detail. We adopted a lustration law. And it was adopted only because it was written so that one person would not fall under lustration — Lyovochkin. Lyovochkin, who effectively played the second role in the state, because being head of the Presidential Administration often substituted for the president. That is, he was the second person in Yanukovych’s criminal power. But he did not fall under lustration. And that’s why the law was voted. Otherwise it would not have been passed. Unfortunately, there are such pulls on which the Ukrainian state rests.
Does Lyovochkin now have so much influence that he can dictate to other parliamentarians from other factions how to vote?
He has enormous influence.
For example, Maidan was not a two-front fight. Maidan was a war on three fronts. The third front was Lyovochkin. He constantly created situations to first undermine Maidan — and it was a war inside Maidan. Only recently did he take a position against Yanukovych. Otherwise he was a third force that initially played for Yanukovych, using cynical manipulations and destroying Maidan from within. We defeated Yanukovych at Maidan, but we did not defeat that third enemy. And we still have to fight him.
Who is Lyovochkin? Unfortunately, I must say that now he represents a large part of the people. Because he manipulates a wide front of NGOs, media, political organizations, certain politicians. Some of them do not admit they are close to or financed by Lyovochkin. Maybe some of them are not financed by him. But they stand on his ideology, so they are his army. That is the problem.
So, in your opinion, if the list is not shortened to three surnames, and instead Lyovochkin and his associates were added, the project would definitely not be passed?
Yes, definitely.
Quantify Lyovochkin’s “army” in the Verkhovna Rada.
Do you understand what is most important? He shapes public opinion in this country. I will not be afraid to say it: he forms public opinion. What is public opinion? It’s the people. So the situation is that many politicians actually orient themselves to the messages he sends. He really finances a portion of politicians. He has tied another portion to him by other methods — he has worked on this field for a long time. For example, now he is negotiating seriously in the West and even building a line that he should be prime minister of Ukraine. He was on Maidan. Today that is said.
Who exactly did he “tie to himself with money” or by other means?
I did not keep close watch. But people who stand on his ideology, I consider them Lyovochkin’s people.
I know, for instance, that this New Year Nalivaychenko flew to Rome on Lyovochkin’s plane in the company of Mykola Prysyazhnyuk, the agriculture minister of Azarov’s government. Also on Lyovochkin’s plane flew “Pups” (Ihor Kryvetskyi, - Glavcom). But that the plane is owned by Lyovochkin are indirect proofs. His company is very complicated.
Again. Do you know anything about Lyovochkin’s assets in Ukraine? I worked on this for a long time, but I don’t know anything for sure. So if we include him on the list, what would we seize? A very important and practical application. We don’t adopt this to simply show off. Lyovochkin is a very sly person. I understand that, like other members of the Family, he did not run business but simply received large sums through various schemes. Once they told me that the Prague restaurant is his. Then I was told that the Guest Yard “1812” on the road to Koncha-Zaspa — in white and blue tones, with a little church inside, in an imperial style, with various “portraits of Russian autocrats” and so on — is also his. But I only heard that. I don’t know whether it’s his or not. He’s really hard to catch in that respect. From the beginning of his activity, when others didn’t care, he worked very carefully.
If we return to the list currently written in the draft, among others it includes the surname Hennadiy Kernes. He himself repeatedly said that the current Interior Minister Arsen Avakov is taking revenge on him. How did the Kharkiv mayor get on the list while mayors and governors from other eastern regions, who did a lot of harm during Yanukovych’s rule, did not?
I’m 100% sure Avakov had nothing to do with the appearance of this surname before it appeared.
Personally, I would leave Kernes’ surname in the list. If it were only up to me to decide on passing this bill. But I know that for this bill to be adopted and effective, Kernes’ name should not be in it. It should have three surnames, and then persons who are under sanctions.
“In Latvia it’s still much tougher”
Let’s talk about the mechanism of special confiscation proposed by this bill. It is actually written so as to avoid the court...
No. The prosecutor’s office appeals to the court, and the court makes a decision.
Yes. But on the prosecutor general’s petition the court decides on the special confiscation of specific assets and property, as you yourself wrote, in certain cases stipulated by the draft. And proving a person’s guilt or involvement in corrupt actions is not required. This violates 6 article of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees everyone the right to a fair trial...
We are talking about property acquired by criminal means. And if that person goes to court and proves that these assets were acquired legally — they have a whole year to do so — then those assets are returned to the person. But we understand we are talking about things that have nothing to do with reality. We know that Mezhyhirya is Yanukovych’s asset. We really know that. If we sue him for it, I am absolutely sure the court will reach no conclusion other than confiscation of Mezhyhirya in the state’s interest. And can you imagine Yanukovych going to court and proving he acquired it honestly?
Yanukovych may not go to court over Mezhyhirya. But there are other persons and lesser-known objects.
Fine. Let them go to court — it’s written into the law. But they must prove that the asset was acquired honestly, not with money earned from criminal schemes.
By the way, Western legislation is much tougher on this matter. I already quoted on my blog the Latvian Code (“I want to quote Article 626 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the Republic of Latvia: ‘For timely decision-making to save investigative time, for objective reasons the investigator, in agreement with the prosecutor, has the right to separate materials concerning property obtained by criminal means and begin the process of reclaiming it if the following conditions are met: the evidence gives the right to believe that the property seized or arrested was obtained by criminal means or is the subject of a crime or is related to criminal activity; for objective reasons the submission of the criminal case to court in the near future is impossible or “may entail undue expenses”, - Glavcom). That draft I initiated repeats this in some ways. But the Latvian law is still much stricter. For example, their judicial review in such matters is held in closed session — supposedly to avoid disclosing investigative secrets. We don’t have that. In fact, our option is not as strict as in other Western countries. In the West, in anti-corruption terms, in terms of returning assets to the state acquired by criminal means, such legislation is adopted. Although they did not have Maidan, the Heavenly Hundred, or war. So I don’t understand why our very moderate steps are met with such criticism.”
Even if this law is adopted and comes into effect, it will not concern the entire list of stolen assets. Thanks to this law, we can actually return some portion.
You say the person whose property is confiscated can go to court and prove it was acquired lawfully. But who and how should prove for special confiscation that violations occurred? Explain the mechanism.
If we are talking about sanctioned persons, then they have already been recognized in the West as criminals, corrupt people, sanctions have been imposed, their rights limited. For one and a half years their funds have not moved because they are arrested, their assets are frozen. This is effectively recognition that these are people from a corrupt, dictatorial regime who acquired incomes by criminal means. Again, the Prosecutor General’s submission to the court necessarily contains these facts. Moreover, if we look, for example, at Swiss law, to recognize that incomes were acquired by criminal means, they only need the origin of the politician being from a dictatorial country and that his legal income is much lower than that property and standard of living. That’s it. If this can be done in Switzerland, why can’t we work the same way here? Don’t we know all these persons?
The Parliamentary Expert Group on Eurointegration, after analyzing the draft, concluded that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which says confiscation of property can be applied exclusively by a court decision in cases, scope and procedure established by law.
We ratified the UN Convention against Corruption. That means it is consistent with our Constitution. Otherwise we wouldn’t have ratified it. So those objections are somewhat amateurish.
What about the argument that those whose property will be seized will use their right and go to international courts to get it all back? Won’t Ukraine then have to compensate those people for their losses?
This is written in the law. Either the property is returned or its monetary value is returned.
But let’s think about this practically, not just theoretically. Our economy is in a difficult situation. Suppose, for example, we now confiscate into the budget 100 million dollars stolen by Yanukovych that are currently frozen in accounts. Yanukovych goes to the Strasbourg court and somehow proves this... Although can you imagine him proving it? I can’t. How could he prove that this is his legitimate money? Will he provide a salary certificate or what? This is theoretical. But those who criticize the draft clearly understand that practically this cannot be done. Why do they put theory way ahead of practice? Fine, suppose he proves it. You know how Ukraine pays out funds when the state loses some international cases — in installments, very slowly. Is that in the interest of the state of Ukraine now? The funds taken by Yanukovych, even if he somehow manipulates and proves they are his honest funds, we will be paying them out over the next 100 years. I want to ask those who criticize the draft: should Viktor Yanukovych’s rights be placed above the rights of all citizens who were robbed?
Yanukovych is not a very good example...
Take the sanction list — who do we talk about there? Do we think Ivanyushchenko is holy? Who else is under sanctions?... Mainly, this law is aimed at those criminals who robbed the country, simply putting everything into their pockets.
If we look at Ukraine’s history, there have been many systemic phenomena of state robbery. Previously some factory was privatized for pennies. It was effectively stolen from the state. At least that factory kept working, there were jobs. Many of our oligarchs got rich that way — by getting business for pennies, effectively removing state business. But what did Yanukovych and his team do? It was something incredible. Their business didn't even matter. What business did Sasha Yanukovych have? What business did Yanukovych have? What business did Azarov have? What business did Arbuzov have? We saw they only siphoned off funds. That’s the worst thing possible. This draft primarily concerns those who simply pulled money out of Ukraine, not business.
So notice. Even if you look at the list of surnames, you won’t even see Akhmetov there. Why don’t people ask me about Akhmetov?
From what I say, it may seem the approach is selective. Selectivity is certainly wrong. But I’ll tell you where the system is. The state always has levers so that any business operating on its territory, whoever owns it, brings profit to the state.
“Almost all corruption schemes pass through Stavytskyy’s enterprises”
Serhiy Kurchenko is also business. But you included him on the list.
Failure to pay customs, failure to pay VAT — excuse me, that is not business. Those were dumb schemes.
For example, the list includes Eduard Stavytsky (former Minister of Energy and Coal Industry of Ukraine, - Glavcom). He has already fled, living in Israel. But when it comes to tax evasion, most schemes are carried out through Stavytsky’s enterprises. It’s not really business, it’s laundering firms. Unfortunately, real business participants in Ukraine are present in these chains.
But again, regarding business like Akhmetov’s, the state has the full ability to recover its due using various instruments. The state has a huge toolkit. A simple example: I am now dealing with payment of rent, rent payments in gas production because there are abuses there. That topic always concerns me. State wells got into joint operations with private companies. Thus a state well, with state investment, suddenly becomes privately owned gas. Moreover, the private owner gets to sell it not to the population at preferential prices but to industrial consumers. A scheme that always outraged me. And now the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on 70% rent. The state simply begins to get its share. Because 70% rent is a very large tax.
Where there is business, justice can be restored by various mechanisms the state has in large number. The main thing is political will, professionalism of those in the power system, and that they are guided by state interests. As for Arbuzov, Yanukovych, Sasha Yanukovych — that’s not business. They simply siphoned off funds. And unfortunately now we have only such an instrument (special confiscation, - Glavcom) to return something of what was taken from the state. And unfortunately we will return only a part.
Specific case — the Odesa oil refinery of Kurchenko. It is subject to confiscation — because under the draft property owned not directly but through a number of related persons or organizations is confiscated. But energy facilities have additional international protection. Their confiscation is unacceptable. Experts believe Ukraine faces a quick loss at the UN judicial body, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Why raise the issue of such objects if it may turn against Ukraine?
Those who criticize write that there is some theory. But there is practice...
Practice — Russia is now spending a lot of effort to lift arrests from its property abroad that was seized by the shareholders of Yukos.
What stands on our side? In the practice they write about, there are real businessmen who built their business from scratch. If we speak of the Odesa oil refinery, who are we talking about? Kurchenko. Who is Kurchenko? Can you imagine how he is perceived in the West? A young man who suddenly became a super-oligarch. And suddenly in one year, when we realized we had such a new oligarch, he bought the Odesa refinery. Why did he buy it? All these facts are easily proven in court. He bought it to engage in smuggling. Why would he need the Odesa refinery? Because it has access to the sea. When oil was expensive, the technical capabilities of the Odesa refinery did not allow profitable refining. So the refinery was bought only to run smuggling and present it as own production. All that is easily proven.
But the situation is different now. When the price of oil falls, any processing capacity becomes extremely interesting. Even the Odesa refinery with its outdated equipment is highly profitable. At the current oil price the Odesa refinery could indeed start production.
Confiscation goes to the benefit of the state. As a result, we now have the opportunity to create a state player in the fuel and energy market. Look at what we have in the fuel and energy market now. We have a person like Kolomoisky, who now owns the only plant in Ukraine that refines oil. He effectively controls oil refining in this state. He is a monopolist. Now an interesting situation: world oil prices fall but pump prices do not respond. Why? Again, monopoly. Because one monopolist-producer. A very limited circle of sellers. It is extremely beneficial for the state to create a state player now. It couldn’t be more beneficial.
“Do you understand what Yanukovych’s house meant to him?”
Are there calculations — what and how much Ukraine could receive as a result of special confiscation?
What is clearly known in Ukraine? 100 million dollars are frozen. That’s not a small sum now. 1 billion 800 million dollars — in securities were frozen in bank accounts. That is also significant.
A difficult issue — estates. It’s really hard right now to confiscate them into state ownership and sell them. Someone may not buy them for what they’re really worth. But why do I think it still needs to be done? Right now those estates are the property of those persons. They attract them. It’s a magnet pulling them to Ukraine. To me — better that after Maidan they were all burned. Of course I cannot say that as a member of the Verkhovna Rada. But I feel how this works against us. What funds are now invested so that they could realize their dream and return to Ukraine, because houses await them here.
I’ll tell you even from my own example. I have a little house in Crimea near Sudak, in the mountains. Very tiny, 20 square meters. Here in Kyiv I live in my parents’ house. That used to be my little house. I can’t forget it. I really want to go there.
Has the so-called government already taken that little house?
It is simply abandoned. I try not to look into it. But it’s a magnet. It really pains me. It pulls me there. Do you understand what Yanukovych’s house was to him? They were all a little mentally obsessed with those houses. They finance everything that moves here, everything that works against this state, to destabilize it, just to return. They want to come home.
How can you count everything that is registered to front people?
It is a wonder for us in Ukraine when a court confiscates or arrests a house registered to front people. For the Western world these are elementary things. No one speaks of human rights violations. In court they simply freeze some house or property when a person is accused of money laundering but it is registered to third parties. In the West this is considered an absolutely legal procedure that does not violate people's rights, because they clearly understand: if that house was built with legally obtained funds, the owner will simply come to court and prove it. If not, it is confiscated or frozen, no one comes. Thus it is very easy to resolve whether it is a front person or not.
What are your forecasts: will your draft get support in the Rada?
I think so. Although there is disagreement, of course.
Recently some media spread information about your desire to expand the scope of this draft to include all former regionals — citing “your Twitter,” which you actually do not run. Have you identified who was behind that escalation?
I’ll say right away: I had no thoughts about expansion. It was a pure provocation. And the way it was done shows Lyovochkin’s handwriting, which is interesting. Although Lyovochkin is not on this bill. But why is he, by the way, against it? For one simple reason. He understands that if the state does this, it will then take on confiscation of business. Just differently.
And if there is no first stage, there will be no second, no third. The problem is that after that there might be no state, but Lyovochkin doesn’t care. He has always been a Russian imperialist.
Kateryna Peshko
glavcom.ua
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Тетяна Чорновол: В списку на конфіскацію майна повинні залишитись три прізвища". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: ANTIKOR.
