Details of the Kryvonos Case: Witness Describes NABU Director’s Involvement in Voter Bribery and Financial Fraud

Sensational details of the criminal proceeding from 2008 emerged online, involving the current director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), Semen Kryvonos. Testimony from businessman Serhiy Kutsenko reveals details about organizing an electoral “network,” Kryvonos’s financial abuses, and his evasion of criminal liability.

This was reported by Fakty.

Organization of the electoral “network” and recruitment of students

According to witness Serhiy Kutsenko, the founder of an advertising agency, in spring 2008 he collaborated with Semen Kryvonos, who at that time acted as a client for the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYuT). The primary task was organizing a large-scale campaign network.

They planned to involve up to 8 thousand people from leading Kyiv universities (KPI, KNEU, NAU, NUBiP). Kutsenko recalls that coordination meetings were mostly held in parks near KPI and Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv to avoid possible eavesdropping.

Agitators and organizers were to be paid in three stages: after citizens submitted questionnaire data including full name, phone number, and address; immediately before the election; and a financial reward for confirmed proof of voting (showing up, checking in, voting). Money was handed over personally by Semen Kryvonos.

Serhiy Kutsenko said that on the eve of the campaign’s switch to direct voter bribery his agency stopped cooperating with Kryvonos’s team to avoid criminal risks.

Financial claims and accusations of deceiving partners

The witness claims that because his agency refused to participate in mass bribery, Kryvonos underpaid the agency an amount equivalent to 6 000 US dollars. Overall, according to Kutsenko, after the project was wound down Kryvonos’s team disappeared, and about 10 contractors in total did not receive earned payments or were left entirely unpaid.

Kutsenko recalls the sitting NABU director as a rather unpleasant person to deal with. “He treated everyone condescendingly. The meeting was scheduled for 13:00, and he would arrive at 15:30 or 16:00. Everyone waited for him, and he paid no attention, looking down on everyone,” says Serhiy Kutsenko.

Manipulations with paternity to avoid punishment

Testimony about attempts by Kryvonos to avoid criminal responsibility caused particular resonance. The witness asserts that at that time there was nothing to indicate that Kryvonos was the father of a minor child. He expressed outrage at Kryvonos’s actions, who, in order to avoid a prison term, registered paternity of the child—a paternity later renounced based on a DNA test.

Kutsenko called such actions unacceptable and expressed surprise at Kryvonos’s later appointment as head of the Anti-Corruption agency.

Reference

Holosiivskyi District Court of Kyiv found Semen Kryvonos guilty of an offense under part 3 of Article 157 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (voter bribery). However, in 2009 the official avoided real punishment by registering paternity and submitting to the court a document showing he had a minor child in his care. Eight days later the court applied amnesty to Kryvonos. Later, in 2018–2019, that same Holosiivskyi court, at Kryvonos’s suit and based on DNA expert results, officially cancelled the record of his paternity regarding that child.