NABU Director Artem Sytnyk: Ukrainian authorities failed all anti-corruption perks of IMF memorandum and obstruct NABU’s work

Author: Yurii Butusov

Censor.NET spoke with Artem Sytnyk, National Anti-Corruption Bureau director, about the case of Deputy Chief of Staff Oleh Tatarov, Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova's interference in NABU's affairs, communication with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi, PrivatBank's case, anti-corruption and oligarchs.

Zelenskyi HAS NOT HELD MEETINGS IN THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE WITH HEADS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT BODIES FOR HIGH CASES FOR OVER A YEAR

- After the opening of the NABU case against the Minister of Health Stepanov, the government urgently approved the bill on your early release, they say that President Zelenskyi himself personally started blaming NABU. How do you assess such an unprecedented reaction, as it completely contradicts the NABU's independence declared by the President?

- NABU received two appeals: from the NABU Public Control Council and the second - from the head of the state enterprise "Medical Procurement". There were no grounds for refusing to register, so according to the information contained in these statements, detectives registered a criminal case. As part of the investigation, we will verify the facts and, depending on the outcome, make a procedural decision.

- What are the main accusations made by the state enterprise to the Ministry of Health?

- We have a state-owned enterprise that deals with procurement in the field of health care. This is a very sensitive issue that needs to be addressed very carefully, transparently, in order to make it clear that everything is happening legally. Therefore, we will comment as carefully as possible on the progress of the investigation in order not to harm the interests of the state.

- But the government's bill to limit the term of your powers is a blatant and defiant interference of "servants of the people" in the anti-corruption system, shouldn't it be given a public assessment? This contradicts all the promises of the president, both in his address to the parliament and in the negotiations with the G-7 ambassadors, he is not interfering in his powers.

- I can't comment on political decisions, because NABU should always stand aside from political processes.

- In the first year of work the president convened heads of law enforcement agencies and asked questions on high-profile cases. When was the last time you saw the president, did you take part in any meetings in the OP?

- Such meetings have not been held for over a year. And, perhaps, they do, but not with the participation of NABU. I have not participated in such meetings for more than a year.

- Zelenskyi convened an anti-corruption council. It held two meetings - one constituent, the other was before the election. Somehow this advisory body helps you in your work, do you see the results of its activities?

- This is an advisory body to the President, its creation was one of the recommendations of international partners. And at first it was a sufficiently effective platform for discussing topical issues of a general nature. Then this site for some reason stopped its work, after that the work resumed for some time. What I remember is that the issue of renewing the functioning of the NAPC and resolving issues related to NABU, which arose after a number of decisions of the CCU, was discussed. But I don't know when the next meeting will be.

- Probably, absence of meetings is connected with the fact that in OP one of your "clients" the deputy chairman of OP Oleh Tatarov is responsible for carrying out Anti-corruption council?

- I would not like to give such assessments, but I cannot rule it out.

IN THE TATAROV CASE THERE WAS A LOW OF BRUTAL INTERFERENCES IN THE WORK OF NABU BY THE GENERAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE AND THE AUTHORITY - THIS IS FIRST SUCH SITUATION

- What is the current state of Tatarov case? He goes to work, does not pay attention to the suspicion of NABU. How long will such a strange situation last?

- It is very difficult for us to predict what does not depend on our decisions or actions. When the jurisdiction in this case was determined for us, we had a plan for how the case would be investigated when the final decision was made. However, there were a number of interferences in the work of NABU detectives, contrary to the logic and requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prosecutors were first replaced at the stage of notification of suspicion. Later, when other prosecutors, having investigated the case, admitted the existence of grounds for notification of suspicion, they changed the body of pre-trial investigation. Subsequently, the qualification of the crimes incriminated by the suspects was changed in order to remove this case from the exclusive jurisdiction of NABU.

- And under the previous government there were such interventions in NABU activity? How many such interventions have taken place and on what issues?

- There have never been such brutal interferences in the work of NABU by the Prosecutor General's Office and the authorities. All these attempts were joined by the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv, which rules in this case, in the case of judges of the District Administrative Court and others. Decisions of the Pechersk District Court are completely illegal (these are decisions by which judges of the Pechersk District Court of the capital obliged the Prosecutor General to consider the issue of jurisdiction in cases investigated by NABU, entrusting investigation to other pre-trial investigation bodies.) The law does not allow any court intervene in the issue of jurisdiction. This is the exclusive competence of the prosecutor, depending on the case - whether it is the Prosecutor General or the regional prosecutor. But when the Pechersk District Court relinquished powers it did not have under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Office of the Prosecutor General, instead of responding appropriately to an appeal to the High Anti-Corruption Court, effectively gave up its discretion to agree with certain appellants. Pechersk District Court. In fact, if there was a fundamentally legal position of the Prosecutor General's Office, the decisions of the Pechersk District Court would not be implemented at all, because the implementation of these decisions is a violation of the law. One of the latest decisions made under this scheme is the decision in the case of VAB Bank. After one of the decisions of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court, the Pechersk District Court wrote not to instruct another body to investigate, but to study the dispute over the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor General. In resolving this dispute, the Prosecutor General always proceeds from the requirements of the law. And the law, Article 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code, explicitly prohibits the transfer of cases under investigation by NABU to other investigative units. And when the Office of the Prosecutor General tried to take away from NABU the proceedings concerning the issuance of a knowingly false expert opinion in the case of the National Guard apartments, they moved on to the article, which, again, is under investigation by NABU. Maybe a little underestimated.

- So Tatarov's case will still remain in NABU despite all these illegal decisions? And what to do next, when such a conflict is created?

- Yes, the case will remain with NABU. Everything must be done according to the law. There is a decision of the Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court to suspend the execution of the decision of the Pechersk District Court. There are three decisions of the NABU Director, agreed with the SAP Prosecutor, to demand the case from the Prosecutor General's Office. At first there were answers that we could not give it to you because we complied with the decision of the Pechersk court. We have not yet received an answer to the last demand, because it is probably more difficult to prepare, because the execution of the decision of the Pechersk District Court has been suspended by the Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court. In addition, there is another problem: the WACS Appeals Chamber cannot consider the appeal in full because they are not given the text of the complaint to the Pechersk Court about the Prosecutor General's obligation to determine jurisdiction, despite two rulings requiring these materials. Allegedly due to the fact that the original of this complaint was confiscated by the DBR, which also does not provide it to the AP WACS despite several decisions of the Appellate Chamber of the WACS to demand these materials from the DBR. This is a violation of the law.

- Did you have any communication with the Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova?

- There was no communication about it. We were not invited to any meetings. We know that there were some meetings with SAP prosecutors. But we were not allowed to this process.

WE ARE ATTACKED BECAUSE WE HAVE AFFECTED THE INTERESTS OF VERY INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE

- What is the main problem of the mess that the government is doing in the fight against corruption?

- In August 2020, the head of the SAP Kholodnytsky resigned and, starting from September 2020, the head of the SAP is actually the Prosecutor General. This is a huge problem. Because in the absence of a permanent head of the SAP, some key guarantees of the SAP's independence from prosecutors general do not work. Exclusively because the acting the head of the SAP does not have the scope of powers that the head of the SAP has. This concerns the formation of groups of prosecutors in NABU criminal proceedings. And I am sure that if there had been a head of the SAP, there would not have been such a night shift by the Prosecutor General of the group of prosecutors that took place in the Tatarov case. Therefore, this is a huge problem, which we constantly emphasize. The competition for the position of the head of the SAP began in June 2020 and, unfortunately, can last at least until June 2021. At least, the Minister of Justice, commenting on this competition, predicted the election of a new head of the SAP in May-June. However, it seems to me that such a long course of competition for the election of the head of the SAP is incorrect. Let me remind you that the competition based on the results of which Kholodnytsky was selected lasted for about 2 months (on October 7, 2015, the acceptance of documents began the new head of the SAP.

- Is the NABU project now intensifying or collapsing?

- We are being attacked because we have affected the interests of very influential people. Interference in the activities of NABU is a bold, sometimes criminally punishable action, which is aimed at stopping the processes that take place not only in NABU but also in the SAP. Therefore, if we talk about attempts to limit someone in something, these attempts are now aimed not only at NABU, but in general at the anti-corruption system. Because today we have NABU, which works under the procedural supervision of SAP, there is SAP, which proved that it works with NABU in one team. The cases that have become especially popular are the joint work of prosecutors and detectives. And most importantly, we have an Anti-Corruption Court, which has begun to make decisions that courts have not previously made in Ukraine. According to the decision of the WACS, more than 65 million hryvnias were seized from the suspects in the NABU cases due to their improper procedural behaviour. Therefore, our opponents are focusing their efforts not only on stopping NABU but also on removing themselves from the entire anti-corruption infrastructure. Here is an example from Tatarov's case: WACS had to choose a measure of restraint for the suspects, a meeting is scheduled for 10 am, and at night, the day before, the Prosecutor General changes the body of pre-trial investigation. What does this indicate? The fact that there is no possibility to agree with NABU, SAP or WACS. And such intransigence is an achievement for our country.

- The president produced a video in October - stop hesitating, call NABU and hand over corrupt officials. However, Tatarov is not fired, the president believes that the results of your work are biased, the head of the OP says that it was 4 years ago. In fact, the presidential power has now become your opponent. What can such a confrontation between the law enforcement agency and the presidential government lead to?

- The issue has a huge political connotation. And I always say that we are an apolitical body and we will not make political statements. We can only say that, in our opinion, we have gathered enough evidence to report a suspicion to a certain person. We now state illegal interference in the work of NABU.

- Can this have legal consequences for those who interfere in the work of NABU, sometime later?

- I do not rule out that these events will receive their legal assessment over time.

- But the president keeps the corrupt person next to him.

- It is impossible to speak about the person in the categorical form while there is no court decision. Here the question is more moral. We raised the issue of detention (deputy head of the OP) when the investigation in the case was determined for us.

- In the future, there may be a criminal case to obstruct the investigation of the Tatarov criminal case?

- This proceeding is, and not one. But their future fate is difficult to predict now. To date, there is no head of the SAP, the competition continues, and there is no understanding when it will end. Besides, everything that requires us to make the law in such cases, we do. We demand cases, file appeals, and so on. We constantly declare and fight for the law to dominate, but not all bodies are willing to read the law.

- To what extent is this situation with Tatarov indicative and critical for our allies in the West?

- International partners ask questions, however, they do not concern specific cases, but the situation as a whole. And this is probably the most important thing in communicating with partners. We have seen the statement of the President of the European Parliament, the assessment of what is happening in Ukraine, we have seen this report (on the implementation of the Association Agreement with Ukraine). It says that NABU is the most effective anti-corruption institution in the country. This assessment motivates us to move on. Despite all the difficulties, the system exists, it works, it frightens many people, because of this there is a lot of resistance.

CLEANSING OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM SHOULD COVER NOT ONLY DISTRICT COURTS OF THE TRANSCARPATHIAN OR LVIV REGIONS, BUT THE TOP OF THE SYSTEM

- When will the court decision on delivery of the chairman of UASK Vovk be executed and when he really will be under court?

- It is difficult to predict. There is maximum opposition from the defense and there are a number of bodies, such as the High Council of Justice, that make decisions that are clearly contrary to both the facts and the purpose of the criminal process. In order to conduct an investigation as effectively as possible, certain procedural documents need to be signed. However, in this case we are hostages of the situation with regard to the signatory of the procedural documents, as many participants in this case have a special status. Therefore, in our situation, documents concerning these persons can be signed only by the Prosecutor General.

-Is there a threat of further restriction of NABU's rights, as happened with the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the declaration? Is there a judicial mafia in Ukraine?

- When we take certain actions, for example, we report a suspicion under Article 375 on the judge's decision of a knowingly unjust decision, we immediately have a decision of the Constitutional Court to repeal this article. Only we are preparing a suspicion of illicit enrichment in the same case - there is a decision of the Constitutional Court to declare the relevant article unconstitutional. That is, we understand that there is a whole system of bodies, which is connected not by certain constitutional or legal duties, but by other interests, and we clearly heard these interests on the records in Vovk's office, which were partially made public. That is, we understand what a huge resistance machine is running. Therefore, we consider it our duty, despite this opposition, despite the court, which for 10 years has been adjusted by absolutely manual justice to any authority, to expose these crimes and bring them to justice. The cleansing of the judicial system should cover not only the district courts of Zakarpattia or Lviv oblasts, but also the top of the system. Because we see the systematic use of the powers of a whole group of important courts not to administer justice, but to have enormous power in the state and to control many processes that take place in Ukraine. That is why in 2016 we realized: there will be no anti-corruption prosecutor's office, there will be no suspicions, arrests, detentions. There will be no anti-corruption court - there will be no possibility to complete the investigation, there will be no punishment. We see that there are convictions with imprisonment. Such decisions appeared in the last year, which led to interference in our investigations at various stages: notification of suspicion, review of case materials and indictments. Many judges of the Constitutional Court, for example, could potentially be prosecuted under this article (entry of knowingly inaccurate information in the declaration, Article 366-1, - note). This is evidenced by the protocols handed to judges by the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption.

- Has the NAPC returned the right to check the declarations of officials at least from 2021?

- Control over the declaration by the NAPC has been restored, so they will check e-declarations for 2020. However, the relevant law was passed in a format that, unfortunately, narrowed the possibilities of the anti-corruption system. According to the recommendations of our foreign partners, the responsibility for false declarations should be strengthened.

- Is the Rotterdam+ case also blocked now?

- We have a situation when detectives and prosecutors have an understanding that the case should be sent to court, everything goes to the indictment and the end of the investigation, and here, again at night, we see the closure of this case. And both in relation to the suspect, and in fact. Although the closure of criminal proceedings in fact is the power of detectives, but for some reason the prosecutor closed everything. The decision was appealed several times, the WACS revoked the closure decision, the SAP complied with the pre-trial investigation and the status of the case, namely the facts, the suspects were returned to the register and the case was reopened. There have been repeated appeals by the Chief of Detectives to the Prosecutor General to change the senior group of prosecutors in order to exclude a prosecutor who is not interested in an effective investigation.

Acting Maksym Hryshchuk, the head of the SAP, considered our complaints about the closure and revoked the decision to close the case again. Again, we insist that there is an order from the Procesutor General, although, in my opinion, it does not apply in any way to the work of the SAP, which states that all-important decisions are made by the senior prosecutor, who closed the case, or the prosecutor of the group, but in agreement with the senior prosecutor. There is a prosecutor in the group who is ready to go to court with this case, but the head of the group denies it. And we appeal again: change the group, let the independent prosecutors understand the case and make a decision. Maybe they will close it as well. But we can clearly see now that there are prosecutors who are ready to go to court with this case. The head of detectives appealed to the Prosecutor General's Office: change the group. But there is no movement.

THE FIGHT AGAINST NABU IN GOVERNMENT IS LEADED BY SEVERAL PEOPLE, WHO HAVE BEEN CALLED OLIGARCHES FOR TENS FOR YEARS

- Maybe you should announce the holding of another anti-corruption council under the president. There are a lot of problems, and the president does not react. What does the president react to then?

- We understand that the struggle against NABU in power is directed by several people who have been called oligarchs for decades. When anti-corruption bodies in some way affect their interests, we see appropriate decisions about us by the authorities, including the parliament. This pressure is very difficult to resist. Unfortunately, in Ukraine, the Prosecutor General has far fewer guarantees of independence even than an anti-corruption prosecutor. Because it is impossible to change the anti-corruption prosecutor through a vote in parliament, and the general prosecutor is possible. 226 votes are gained in parliament and that's it. Remember how Ryaboshapka was fired in the parliament. The request for his dismissal was based mainly on NABU cases. When Ryaboshapka began to actively cooperate with us in the cases of Privatbank, VAB Bank, Rotterdam +, the relevant groups of deputies in parliament united, resulting in a vote of no confidence in the Prosecutor General, but in fact for the Prosecutor General began to work.

- Ryaboshapka was personally knocked down by the president.

- The decision to dismiss the Prosecutor General was made in parliament.

- What about the case of Privatbank now - after all, raising suspicions in this case could lead to an explosion in the current government, which is closely connected with Igor Kolomoisky?

- We do not stand still. And when we talk about Privatbank, in my opinion, this was one of the main reasons for Ryaboshapka's resignation, because he decided, as a prosecutor, to determine the jurisdiction in all these cases for NABU. This was important because NABU investigated and assessed the actions of National Bank officials. The funds were withdrawn from Privatbank at the stage when it was a commercial structure and the owners were not subjects under investigation by NABU. However, we assume that the former heads and beneficiaries of the bank could already have acted in collusion with the officials of the National Bank, so as part of the investigation we are examining the possibility of this conspiracy and its consequences for the state. Detectives have made considerable progress in the investigation, have reached the stage of drafting suspicions, but we remember that we do not have an anti-corruption prosecutor. That's why we directed our work to the UCP and, as we can see, there is already a result - three signed suspicions to former top officials of the bank.

In general, the case against Privatbank is the most difficult I have ever encountered. Our international partners are constantly talking about the case of Privatbank. We realize how huge this responsibility is. But we understood that only in NABU this case can be investigated objectively and a decision that will really meet the requirements of the law can be made. Now it will all depend on how much the prosecutors agree with what we have earned.

-Is the signing of the suspicion by Venediktova unexpected for you? How did the detention take place? What will happen to Privat's case and will the investigation be accelerated?

-Detectives prepared projects of suspicion in the fall of 2020. Since then, there have been discussions with prosecutors, which is normal practice. The suspicions were finalized and eventually agreed. That is, we have reached a logical stage in the investigation. The detention took place in accordance with the CCP, there was no resistance. We investigate further.

- You searched the state-owned company Energoatom and the home of Energoatom Vice President Hartmut Jakob, who is very close to Presidential Aide Serhiy Shefir. The case concerns an agreement to supply electricity to a company close to Kolomoisky United Energy. Is this also in the field of view of our Western partners?

- There have been many reports in the media that not everything is clear with the sale of electricity by Energoatom in favor of certain commercial structures. There were appropriate appeals. Detectives analyzed all this and came to the conclusion that it would be correct to check the validity of the conditions for the formation of lots for the sale of electricity. The lot was formed in such a way that allowed it to be redeemed by units of companies in the market, or perhaps even one. And here a discriminatory situation is created, when cheap electricity can be bought only by a large entity that can use this electricity for dumping in another market of services, goods or works. As part of the investigation, detectives check the validity of the formation of lots, whether they do not create preferential opportunities for individual market participants. Because smaller market participants cannot afford to buy electricity at lower prices. And, perhaps, if the lots were smaller, the state would receive more from the sale of electricity. Based on the results of the collected evidence, appropriate decisions will be made.

- Another high-profile case is the Medvedchuk pipeline. What is the significance of the examination, thanks to which Medvedchuk received the oil pipeline, and which can be canceled after your investigation?

- When the Soviet Union collapsed, there were a lot of objects that were in the all-Union property and there was a law on succession. The main pipelines are owned by the state in accordance with the law. A very long story. The asset, which was supposed to pass to the state of Ukraine, fell into private hands. In 2005, the prosecutor's office filed a lawsuit. For a long time, this lawsuit was heard in court, but still a decision was made to satisfy the prosecutor's lawsuit and to transfer the pipeline to state ownership. This decision passed all three instances of courts. Subsequently, in April 2015, during only one meeting on the basis of only one application and the two written-off acts issued in 2002 and three letters dated 1997 and 1998 (more than seventeen years before) date of the hearing), the judge of the Commercial Court of Rivne region overturned the decision of the Commercial Court of Rivne region - allegedly under newly discovered circumstances.

The prosecutor's appeal was denied and the decision was again passed by three courts. The NABU investigation began in 2017. For two years, detectives not only collected evidence of illegal seizure of the pipeline, but also studied in detail the possibility of returning it to the state. To this end, meetings were repeatedly held with representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, and the State Property Fund of Ukraine. There were also attempts to draw attention to this situation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as the chief administrator of state property, who was not a participant in this case.

Already in 2020, a joint investigation group with the SBU was set up on the basis of the case being investigated by detectives.

Currently, the Prosecutor General is also taking an active part in this investigation, as the Office of the Prosecutor General will take measures to return the pipeline to state ownership in a civil procedure if the expert is prosecuted in court for knowingly unjust conclusion.

- That is, in this case on Medvedchuk the power acts together and effectively together with NABU. Does Prosecutor General Venediktova help in this case?

- I will say more. Here the Office of the Prosecutor General took an active position in protecting the interests of the state. The collected evidence, collected data, documents were submitted for examination, which actually audited the examination. However, it was found that in fact that conclusion was knowingly untrue. Because the responsibility of the expert comes not just for the fact that he erroneously made a conclusion that is not true, but did it knowingly. And this is a criminal act. Therefore, a notice of suspicion was agreed and now we are actually moving towards bringing the case to court. The court must evaluate the actions of the experts. And in the future, depending on the court's decision in this case, I think the prosecutor will be determined by the need to take measures of a civil nature to protect the interests of the state.

WE STILL RECEIVE EAVESDROPPING INFORMATION NOT DIRECTLY FROM OPERATORS, BUT THROUGH THE SECURITY SERVICE OF UKRAINE

- The President stated in his message to the Verkhovna Rada that one of the achievements in his work for a year and a half was that the procedural independence of NABU and SAP was ensured, and NABU received the right to listen. Indeed, the bill was passed. Do you really have independent listening?

What other solutions are needed besides the law?

- There are technical points here. We have been corresponding with the Security Service of Ukraine for over a year. Of course, no one refuses to obey the law directly. I keep this issue under personal control and I hope that during my term we will finally resolve this issue.

- So let's appeal to the head of the SBU Ivan Bakanov via the Internet to stop substituting President Zelenskyi and disrupt the implementation of the memorandum with the IMF, because the president announced that NABU's wiretapping in an appeal to parliament, and in fact it is not true, the SBU does not fulfill the second year.

- We communicate with SBU on this question. And they offered a variant of cooperation, which prevents the leakage of information and at the same time saves state budget funds. If our correspondence finally comes to a standstill, and we are forced to do it completely autonomously, it will be a completely different, much larger amount of state budget funds.

- Now there is a case absolutely unprecedented for law enforcement agencies in general. One of the recent leaders of the SBU, Colonel Neskoromny, was accused of ordering the assassination of the head of the SBU's Main Department of Internal Security, Naumov. Both of them, as is known from the media, competed for control. The Neskoromny case is currently being investigated by the Security Service of Ukraine, although it is a direct conflict of interest. Because Naumov controls the investigative department. Don't you think that such a case should be brought to the attention of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau?

- Exactly the decision of this question which is raised, belongs to the competence of the prosecutor supervising this case. Perhaps, for the sake of objectivity, it would be right, not in NABU, perhaps, to transfer it to another investigative unit, so that it would be investigated more and more objectively. Because we once had a story when there was a Mr. Sousse who investigated the assassination attempt on him. This sounds a bit strange when an investigator investigates an assassination attempt on the same investigator. It seems to me that the prosecutor should answer these questions and possibly make a decision, perhaps the Pechersk court, which quite often interferes in the prosecutor's discretion in determining jurisdiction. History itself, of course, does not adorn the state. Due to our capabilities, we were asked for possible assistance in providing free samples of the voice of the defendants. We had the opportunity to help in this investigation, we helped for our part.

- I was interested in the situation in the energy sector, by the way. Many power engineers say that one of the main problems of the corruption schemes that exist there is the cover-up by law enforcement agencies - the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Security Service, the State Fiscal Service and their direct participation in commercial operations in the energy market. I think this is an important issue that needs to be raised.

- There have been many reports in the media that not everything is clear with the sale of electricity by Energoatom in favor of certain commercial structures. There were appropriate appeals. Detectives analyzed all this and came to the conclusion that it would be correct to check the validity of the conditions for the formation of lots for the sale of electricity. The sale of the amount of electricity put up for auction was carried out in such a way that allowed it to be redeemed by units of companies on the market, or perhaps even one. And here there can be a discriminatory situation when cheap electricity can be bought only by a large entity, which can use this electricity to resell it to other traders and end consumers at much higher prices. As part of the investigation, detectives check the validity of the formation of lots, whether they do not create preferential opportunities for individual market participants, where smaller market participants can not afford to buy electricity at prices lower than other market segments. And, perhaps, if the lots were smaller, the state would receive more from the sale of electricity. Based on the results of the collected evidence, appropriate decisions will be made.

- Many issues in the IMF program, which is currently disrupted, relate to ensuring the work of anti-corruption bodies. What important beacons for the fight against corruption in Ukraine must be fulfilled in order for the state to resume cooperation with the IMF?

- We mentioned one lighthouse - independent listening. Another beacon is the issue of independence of anti-corruption bodies. In my opinion, it is not fully implemented. Today we understand that the issue of appointment and dismissal of the NABU director is not settled. No anti-corruption prosecutor has been selected. The Constitutional Court may rule against the WACS at any time. Despite the return of certain powers to the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, this issue has not been fully resolved. The anti-corruption strategy has not yet been fully approved. This is the first group of lighthouses. The second block. Judicial reform. Unfortunately, the High Council of Justice has reached the level that the Venice Commission in its conclusions hints at the need to restart the GRP. It really should be a body that will ensure the objective formation of the judiciary and an objective assessment of the actions of the judiciary, and not, as in the case of the Kyiv District Administrative Court.

- Then let's summarize. We have been talking a lot for the last two years about the need to fight corruption. What do we see? There is no anti-corruption strategy. The memorandum, the clear program that the West requires of us, what steps towards transparency - in fact, not a single point has been fulfilled. Everything that the president said in his address to the Verkhovna Rada about independence, about wiretapping, has not been fulfilled. Please tell, whether there is an anti-corruption policy in our country at all?

- Each government has always declared the fight against corruption as its main postulate. But it is in terms of real steps - the problems. The question is formulated by you from the point of view of the pessimist. On the other hand, today there is an anti-corruption infrastructure that is apolitical, investigating cases that have never been in Ukraine in 30 years. After the Revolution of Dignity, the demand for the fight against corruption was probably the highest in the entire period of independent Ukraine's existence since 1991. And for the first time this request didn't just end on the Maidan. It has been transformed into an anti-corruption infrastructure that frightens many politicians. Yes, stopping this infrastructure now seems more brutal than before. But this is because she was not there then: it was impossible to reach an agreement with NABU - they went to the anti-corruption prosecutor's office, it does not work out there - they went to court. And after the launch of WACS you do not go to court to agree. And then there is the voluntary reimbursement of millions to the budget. There are deals that try to break in the future. It seems to me that the 21st year will be decisive for Ukraine as a whole. Will it choose the further implementation of anti-corruption reform, judicial reform, which will actually open the way to further taming and demonopolization in all areas occupied by the oligarchs, or will it lose progress and the gains already achieved? The second scenario is quite possible if the Constitutional Court decides to demolish the WACS.

Why are we constantly talking about anti-corruption strategy? Because without a definite plan, neither the state nor law enforcement agencies can develop. NABU has its own development strategy. Unfortunately, it cannot be implemented in part because the necessary legislative initiatives are either not adopted or are delayed.

Yurii Butusov, Censor.NET