Rinat Akhmetov
When the Law of Ukraine "On Access to Public Information" was passed, it seemed the press had a free hand. Initially, it was thought that all government agencies would now be open and, what's more, would always respond to press reports.
The illusions were dispelled after the first responses from government agencies arrived. And the familiar phrase began to come to mind: "To the residents from the head of the housing office."
But the most interesting correspondence is with the Prosecutor General's Office and the Kyiv Prosecutor's Office. The editorial board of "Conflicts and Laws," which has always been in staunch opposition to Yanukovych's rule, never received any absurd responses from these agencies even during his reign. And while the responses were mostly empty, it was still possible to extract the essence from them.
The activities of these agencies under the Democrats are a different matter. Now, the majority of responses from prosecutors' offices can be characterized by the proverbial "you tell us about Khoma, we tell you about Yeryoma."
When the editorial staff, following the electricity tariff hike and the persistent clamor from the authorities about KyivEnergo's unprofitability, discovered that KyivEnergo itself doesn't consider itself unprofitable, as it holds tenders, including for health insurance, they began to investigate: how could this be possible? How could a loss-making company receiving subsidies from the Kyiv budget afford to provide health insurance for its employees at the company's expense?
Logically, this is absurd. Especially since, in response to an editorial inquiry, the National Commission for State Regulation of Energy (NERC) stated that such costs are included in the tariff paid by Kyiv residents.
The result is an interesting scenario: Kyiv residents' electricity tariffs have been raised, and their consumption of cheap energy has been cut (making it lower than in third-world countries). At the same time, a loss-making company, dependent on subsidies from the Kyiv budget—that is, taxes paid by Kyiv residents—thinks it's perfectly normal to organize health insurance for its employees at Kyiv residents' expense.
The website immediately published several articles noting that KyivEnergo, despite constantly emphasizing its unprofitability (which is the rationale for tariff increases), was nonetheless announcing tenders for security services for its own structure, as well as for employee health insurance, using KyivEnergo funds. Moreover, tenders for enterprise security and accounting services were won by companies within the DTEK structure, meaning KyivEnergo's funds were siphoned off to other DTEK companies. Surely it's not scary that a Donetsk company received 62 million rubles from KyivEnergo for accounting services?
A journalistic investigation has demonstrated through materials that a DTEK structure, which includes KyivEnergo PJSC, may be using its employees' health insurance as a scheme to siphon funds from KyivEnergo PJSC to other DTEK structures, emphasizing its unprofitability and the need to increase electricity and heating tariffs.
It's worth noting that back in 2012, insurance experts claimed that after the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine not only extended the 3% tax break for insurance companies but also eliminated the 3% tax on domestic reinsurance, this allowed insurance company owners to misuse their assets. That is, to siphon off money.
Knowing Mr. Akhmetov and his constant desire to exploit shady schemes, the editorial staff contacted the Prosecutor General's Office and the Kyiv Prosecutor's Office, reporting that KyivEnergo PJSC had announced a tender for its employees' health insurance for the first time (just before the tariff increase for the population). We also requested information on how cases already opened against KyivEnergo are being investigated, as well as a prosecutorial investigation into the possible embezzlement of funds from KyivEnergo.
The responses, as mentioned above, were impressive. The Prosecutor General's Office's response wasn't even in Yanukovych's style. It stated that the inquiry was more like a citizen's request, and therefore it was inappropriate for the Prosecutor General's Office to respond to it.
The Kyiv Prosecutor's Office's response was more substantive. "Investigators from the Kyiv City Prosecutor's Office's Investigative Department are investigating criminal cases involving possible unlawful actions by KyivEnergo PJSC officials," the Kyiv Prosecutor's Office reported. However, they noted that there are no criminal proceedings regarding the tender. But there couldn't be any! The scam is only just beginning, and its implications are still difficult to understand.
Of course, the "Conflicts and Laws" editorial team also made a direct request to KyivEnergo, asking for information on who won the tender or advanced to the second round. After all, only by receiving the protocol and tender documentation, as well as identifying the lucky winner, will it be possible to gather further information and understand how the system works.
The editors will prove in future publications that KyivEnergo's tender offer is undervalued. Currently, they are collecting bids from insurance companies to compare the actual cost of insurance with what KyivEnergo's management is seeking. Once the data is collected, it will be easy to prove that any company that wins this tender will simply be undercutting the insurance policy. Why would an insurance company take a loss? To get paid today and now? Or will KyivEnergo itself insure all its employees, while only a select few will know about the actual insurance coverage?
When debits and credits don't balance, questions always arise. The editors asked the Kyiv Prosecutor's Office for one of its representatives to officially comment (possibly via interview) on this first attempt at providing health insurance to Kyivenergo employees, because any decent and honest prosecutor would always, upon putting two and two together, realize that something fishy is going on in such a deal. Add to this the fact that DTEK has been constantly talking about financial difficulties lately, and the Metinvest Group (Ukraine) has announced it is in default. The fact that a tender for employee health insurance, funded by a loss-making company receiving budget subsidies, is being held at the expense of any unprofitable company should raise red flags for any prosecutor.
But Ukrainian prosecutors are the most impenetrable. They have a rule: if a journalist is conducting an investigation, let them gather all the facts and present them to the prosecutor's office. Let the journalists do the investigators' work, what else? And then the prosecutor's office will consider whether it's even worth pursuing the matter at all. After all, the fact that an insurance company can be used to siphon off money doesn't bother them. And really: a million here, three there—is that really money?
The editorial team also submitted a request to KyivEnergo for the competitive bidding protocol and tender information. And, of course, having received and studied it, journalists will do the work of prosecutors and attempt to understand the scheme, because even the most ignorant person in the commercial world understands that an officially unprofitable company cannot afford to provide health insurance for its employees at the company's expense. Moreover, Kyiv residents are responsible for paying for this insurance: such expenses are included in the tariff.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, Facebook , Twitter , VK - Only new faces from the SKLEP section!