"Talked Himself Into Two Articles." Who Set Up Kholodnytskyi

"Talked Himself Into Two Articles." Who Set Up Kholodnytskyi

On Tuesday, 27 March, the deadline that some media outlets had set for the resignation of the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, Nazar Kholodnytskyi, passed.

During that time, the "autonomous" deputy of Yuriy Lutsenko managed to return from an overseas trip, attend celebrations marking the anniversary of the founding of the Security Service of Ukraine, and resume work.

By his appearance alone he shows that he has no intention of leaving his post voluntarily. And he hints that a targeted campaign to discredit him is underway.

As a result, Nazar Ivanovych did not go on vacation, did not take sick leave, and certainly did not resign. But the mysterious story about the recording device found in his office is not fading away. On the contrary, it continues to accumulate various versions and conjectures.

Since the start of the "aquarium scandal" several interpretations have been put forward.

According to the first, on the recordings Kholodnytskyi may not have implicated himself in a criminal case but at most in a disciplinary matter, the investigation of which falls under the remit of the Prosecutor Qualification Commission. Allegedly, in his office the head of the SAP may have made anti-Semitic remarks about one of the suspects in the "amber case" — MP Boryslav Rozenblat.

Proponents of this version assure the public — the listening device found in Kholodnytskyi's office will have no effect. They say it contains only obscene language and no evidence of corruption.

On the other hand, interlocutors of Insider insist the corpus of crime on Kholodnytskyi's audio could still have been recorded. Allegedly the head of the SAP did not hold his tongue while discussing cases being investigated by his office.

Sources supporting this line say that in that case Kholodnytskyi "talked himself" into charges under two articles. They refer to disclosure of pretrial investigation data (art. 387 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and violation of the right to defense (art. 374 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

Which specific criminal cases (those under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office) were discussed is not disclosed publicly. There is only a mention that Kholodnytskyi was recorded during a rendezvous with a representative of a public organization, where the interlocutors decided whether to pursue a criminal case against one of the sitting ministers in the Cabinet. In particular, the visitor to Nazar Ivanovych's office urged the host not to touch the minister because he is "normal."

Kholodnytskyi does not reveal the details of his meetings, and he responds calmly to accusations about excessive use of profanity.

"If that's so, perhaps I'm doing everything right. I can comment on every word. I know what I say: where and to whom. Our work is indeed nerve-wracking. So maybe you can't do without a hot word now and then. If someone wants by such means to force me to take some actions, resignations or something else — they won't succeed. We didn't come here to leave at someone's first whim. I'm focused on the work, on the results of NABU and the SAP," the anti-corruption prosecutor said.

Be that as it may, the details of Kholodnytskyi's audio that have been made public so far do not answer the question of why he was put under surveillance.

Considering that the Appeals Court could have issued authorization to carry out covert investigative actions in the head of the SAP's office only if Nazar Ivanovych was being checked for involvement in a serious crime, this part of the scandal is most likely the most "damning."

This was indirectly confirmed the day before by Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. "According to the law, the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine, together with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, carried out investigative actions that concerned, in particular, the head of the SAP, Mr. Kholodnytskyi," he said.

The Kharkiv trace of General Denysiuk

Nevertheless, details of the criminal case in which Kholodnytskyi became a figure have still become known. Criminal reporter Volodymyr Boiko was the first to publish them on air.

From 38:00 the background of the scandal over the wiretapping of Nazar Kholodnytskyi is discussed, video source: youtube.com/112-Ukraine

According to available information, law enforcement launched covert measures regarding the anti-corruption prosecutor on the basis of investigations echoing another high-profile case. Namely, allegations of extorting $2 million from one of the suspects in the so-called "helicopter case" of tax generals from the Yanukovych era. This concerns former head of the Kharkiv regional tax administration Stanislav Denysiuk, who has been in custody for 10 months.

In September last year his lawyer Serhiy Vilkov said that after Denysiuk's arrest his client was extorted for money by employees of the military prosecutor's office. He named possible perpetrators by name — Chief Military Prosecutor Anatoliy Matios (whose subordinates investigated the "tax generals" case) and his deputy Dmytro Borziy.

"At the GPU on Reznitska Street they led Denysiuk from office to office, and from the very beginning 'certain people' approached him and demanded money from him and his family for his release. Initially the amount started at $1 million, then rose to $1,5, and finally the 'fee' for closing the case grew to $2 million," Vilkov said.

The lawyer provided journalists with a recording of a conversation between the arrested man's daughter Tetyana and an intermediary. In it she discusses the details of the 'ransom' for her father, naming three men on whom a positive decision depended — 'Tolya, Yura and Yarik.' Vilkov explained that this referred to Chief Military Prosecutor Anatoliy Matios, GPU head Yuriy Lutsenko and head of the Kyiv Appeals Court Yaroslav Holovachov.

Video source: youtube.com/Newsone

A friend of Sytnyk and Kholodnytskyi's godfather. What is known about the intermediary who passed the bribe

Six months ago Vilkov mentioned that based on Denysiuk's complaint the GPU Inspectorate opened a criminal proceeding and began an investigation (including covert investigative actions). Under it his subordinate Volodymyr Uvarov found that the military prosecutors had indeed tried to "collect" a bribe from the tax general.

"I cannot categorically state that the military prosecutors demanded money. Judging by the Inspectorate's materials — it is so, and it was the investigator of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office who led the suspect's relatives to the intermediary. Of course, doing this without Matios' knowledge is unlikely," journalist Boiko told Strana.

According to him, this "runner-intermediary" promised Denysiuk's family to arrange the formalities for releasing the arrested fiscal in courts of two instances, and in general to 'close the matter.'

After this a sensation occurred — the phone of the 'fixer,' which had been tapped, received a call from NABU director Artem Sytnyk. It later emerged that the intermediary also had contacts with the head of the SAP, Nazar Kholodnytskyi: external surveillance recorded his meeting with an assistant to the anti-corruption prosecutor.

Eventually investigators "unearthed" that the intermediary for the military prosecutors in the alleged transfer of the bribe (sometimes for Kholodnytskyi, sometimes for the trio 'Tolya, Yura and Yarik') from Denysiuk was Kholodnytskyi's cousin by marriage. Moreover, he allegedly managed to receive the first tranche of the illicit payment from the Kharkiv tax official's family — $200 thousand. Who received these funds and the name of the SAP head's relative involved in the corruption affair remain secret.

It is only known that after his appointment as anti-corruption prosecutor Kholodnytskyi noted that he had been godfather to three children.

"One godson 2010 year, Bohdan, I am the godfather of my classmate in Lviv. Also in 2010 year I became godfather for a colleague from Kyiv-Sviatoshynskyi, my godmothers... And the third godfather is my friend, with whom we baptized a child in 2015 year... This friend lives near Vyshneve, we've been friends since 2009 year, he is engaged in business," he said in an interview with Ukrainska Pravda.

Given that the intermediary-cousin turned out to be an acquaintance of NABU director Sytnyk, it is most likely that we are talking about Kholodnytskyi's relatives who have worked in the prosecution system of Kyiv region. As is known, both Artem Serhiyovych and Nazar Ivanovych once worked there.

In any case, it was precisely on the basis of the SAP chief's communication with his cousin that Kholodnytskyi came into the Inspectorate's field of view. After that the criminal proceeding about extorting a bribe from Denysiuk moved to the so-called 'Kononenko-Granovskyi Department,' and operational support for the case was entrusted to NABU. It is possible that the idea of the aquarium and the 'bug' was born there.

Whether the covert investigative actions carried out against the anti-corruption prosecutor confirmed his involvement in 'squeaking' the Kharkiv tax official is still unclear. Some interlocutors of Strana in law enforcement allow that Kholodnytskyi may have been 'attached' to this scandal to divert suspicion from the military prosecutors' leadership (which Denysiuk initially pointed to).

Most likely the riddle of the 'wiretapping in the aquarium' lies in the story of the fiscal general of the Yanukovych era. Judging by the unfolding events, the conclusion to this mystery may soon become public.

The fact is that at the end of last week the military prosecutor's office conducted a series of searches at Denysiuk's children — Tetyana and Denys.

"Today Matios wants to take this case (about extorting money from Denysiuk — Editor's note) to himself. But for that Denysiuk needs to change his testimony. He refuses," journalist Boiko tells Strana.

Whether the Chief Military Prosecutor is thus trying to remove himself, his subordinates, and the figures mentioned on Vilkov's 'tapes' — Lutsenko and Holovachov — from under suspicion, and who actually sent the intermediary to the tax general's family (Kholodnytskyi or the military prosecutors), is still unclear. Much depends on the position taken by Stanislav Denysiuk and his relatives. At the time this article was prepared, his son in a conversation with Strana paused, refusing any comments on the case.