Ukraine is facing a major international scandal involving prominent Kazakh opposition politician Mukhar Ablyazov. Recently published correspondence between Ukrainian lawyers reveals corrupt ties between Poroshenko administration officials and Kazakhs. Let's briefly recap the gist of the matter. For several years now, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev has been on a veritable hunt for the former head of BTA Bank, Mukhtar Ablyazov. Ablyazov had the courage (and audacity, in the opinion of the longtime president of Kazakhstan) to lead the fight against his personal power. Ablyazov paid dearly for his insolence. The state effectively confiscated his bank, and several criminal cases were fabricated against him. The politician was granted asylum in Europe, but he was arrested there last summer. Based on an arrest warrant from... Ukraine! Some time later, Russia also submitted its own extradition request. Our country joined the hunt for Ablyazov following a direct order from former President Viktor Yanukovych, who was personally asked for this "small favor" by Nazarbayev. (The payment for this assistance was to be preferential treatment from Kazakhstan for the businesses of Family members.) At Yanukovych's direction, a criminal case was opened in Ukraine, and the only victim of Ablyazov's actions was a Kazakh legal entity, BTA Bank. It would seem that after Yanukovych's flight, the trumped-up "Ukraine v. Ablyazov" case should have faded into oblivion. However, the opposite has happened: the new government is feigning ignorance, while some law enforcement officials are eagerly continuing the case. As Obozrevatel previously reported, the main perpetrator of the hit against Ablyazov is Ukrainian Interior Ministry investigator Maksym Melnyk. During the pre-trial investigation, he violated numerous criminal procedural provisions of Ukrainian law. The private law firm Ilyashev & Partners is overseeing the entire process, effectively directing the investigation. Its senior partner, Roman Marchenko, is believed to be personally in contact with the Kazakh prosecutor's office. It has emerged that Ilyashev & Partners drafted the procedural documents for investigator Melnik, which he then had to sign. What a mutually beneficial collaboration! Why does Melnyk get away with everything? Perhaps because he has reliable protection from the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine. According to our source, while the criminal case was previously directly overseen by President Yanukovych's administration, now the main person pulling the strings at Astana's request is Viktor Shokin, a 62-year-old relative of Poroshenko and soon-to-be "honorary pensioner." Shokin is responsible for "overseeing the proper conduct of the criminal investigation" into the Ablyazov case. However, we dare to believe that his early retirement after the service he rendered Nazarbayev will not entail any costs for him. The impact on Poroshenko's own reputation is another matter. To give legitimacy to the extradition process, the Prosecutor General's Office is using Vitaly Kasko (Read more about it in the articleVitaly Kasko – a swindler, a corrupt official, a "shot-down pilot"), the new young Deputy Prosecutor General, an expert in criminal law and human rights protection, and a former Council of Europe expert. It appears that his reputation will be instrumental in establishing the legitimacy of the decisions taken by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office against the Kazakh opposition leader, back in the Yanukovych era. In addition, to assist Ukrainian forces in France, the Kazakh regime has found a contractor – the law firm Winston & Strawn – which will represent Ukraine in the Lyon extradition court. Her fee (320 euros!) for representing Ukraine in court in France is being paid by the Kazakh side through the firm Ilyashev & Partners. In Astana, the case is being overseen by Kazakhstan's Deputy Prosecutor General, Andrei Kravchenko. Correspondence between the Ukrainian and Kazakh authorities was recently published. These letters provide further evidence that the "Ablyazov case" is a fabricated affair, with those responsible constantly breaking the law to keep it going. So, in the letter, let's call it No. 1, Marchenko asks the clients from the Kazakh prosecutor's office (the main addressee is Kazakh prosecutor Kravchenko): will their bank pay for the services of French lawyers (those same 320 thousand euros). Meanwhile, a representative of Ilyashev & Partners complains that the issuance of the mandate to the French is difficult due to the illegality of the process. Plus, the Ukrainian prosecutor's office is waiting for confirmation of payment (this wait for "foreign" money has only one explanation—you can guess what it is). Just think about the essence of this scheme: a private law firm receives money from Kazakhstan to transfer to its French colleagues representing the interests of the Ukrainian state! However, any scheme loses its "crazyness" when large sums of money are involved. The second letter, No. 2, addresses the same addressees. This time, the topic is the speed of pushing through decisions. Marchenko asks the Kazakh prosecutor's office to facilitate the signing of the necessary documents by the Ukrainian prosecutor's office. The illegality of such requests is beyond doubt, but what won't one do to bring a historic trial to a speedy conclusion? That this trial could become historic for Ukraine is already clear to many. In Europe, the "Ablyazov case" is viewed as politically motivated and orchestrated. It is with this emphasis that lawyers and politicians assess the actions of all those involved in the trial. And Ukraine's strange position—supporting those who ordered the murder of an opposition politician in court while simultaneously declaring its commitment to democratic values from high-level platforms—is perplexing to Europeans. So now it's up to the Ukrainian authorities: will they be able to close this contract-finding case against Ablyazov, or will they once again turn a blind eye to the arbitrary actions of their law enforcement agencies? As they did during the Yanukovych era... The Ablyazov case is a typical example of the "work" of the entire Ukrainian law enforcement system. It's unlikely that this fabricated case will be closed tomorrow – it's too obvious that genuine changes in the system of power have not yet occurred. The current inaction of law enforcement agencies only confirms the fact that only the faces of power have changed, not the methods. And what's most disappointing is the feeling that the principles of our system remain unchanged: arbitrariness, corruption, and lawlessness.
