This week's events surrounding the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice, in light of the corporate raid on the Kharkiv company Agrosvit, have revealed the true meaning of popular slogans like openness, transparency, and working for the people, which are being successfully exploited by the current Minister of Justice's team.
It's worth noting that at the end of January 2016, the owner of the Ukrainian company Agrosvit, the Cypriot company Agrosvit Limited, announced the liquidation of the company in accordance with the legal procedure. This action effectively blocked the ability of the raiders—Sergey Polumysny, Andrey Levin, and Vladimir Parkulab—to manage the company's assets and withdraw funds. (For more information on the history of the corporate raid, see the following articles: "The Raid on Agrosvit: Polumysny's Lies Are Refuted by the Shareholders' Agreement" and "Get Out, I'm Your New Owner!").
To restore their positions, the raiders filed a complaint with the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice against the actions of the state registrar, which recorded the liquidation of Agrosvit.
Such complaints are currently reviewed by the Ministry of Justice by a committee, with the complainants themselves, interested parties (in our case, APA Agrosvit LLC acts in this capacity), and justice officials whose actions the complainants are dissatisfied with being summoned to the committee meeting.
And here begins a series of interesting actions by the Ministry of Justice, in which a clear connection can be traced to "working for" raiders.
Elena Trofimchuk, an employee of the Ministry of Justice's Department of State Registration, sent a letter inviting Agrosvit LLC to a commission meeting scheduled for March 02, 2016, and dated the letter February 29, 2016. However, the postmark on the envelope indicates that the letter was actually sent on March 02, 2016, the day of the commission meeting. Naturally, the company received this letter only on March 09, 2016, and Agrosvit representatives were unable to participate in the review of the raiders' complaint.
Furthermore, Ministry of Justice employee (just a second!) Elena Trofimchuk violated paragraph 10 of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1128 of December 25, 2015, which clearly states that invitations to such commission meetings must be sent by: 1) fax; 2) telegram; 3) telephone message; 4) email. Elena Alekseevna Trofimchuk used none of the legally required channels for notifying interested parties. After all, she could have sent a scanned letter by email! And these are the actions of an employee of the CENTRAL STATE AUTHORITY, which ensures the implementation of state legal policy!
Is this pure negligence or corruption on the part of the Ministry of Justice employees? It's most likely both, and complete incompetence to boot. The invitation letter itself, as we can see, contains errors in the name of the company "Agrosvit" and an incorrectly stated position for the state registrar.
Regarding the work of the aforementioned commission (chaired personally by Deputy Minister of Justice of Ukraine Natalia Sevostyanova), its members, in their decision to cancel the liquidation proceedings, ignored three court injunctions prohibiting any registration actions related to the company "Agrosvit." Furthermore, the commission's decision subjected the state registrar, which has long been out of the system, to disciplinary action. Even a non-lawyer will readily recognize that the Ministry of Justice is violating current legislation. This begs the question: what do concepts such as "law," "rule of law," and "rule of law" mean when a central government agency presumes to make such decisions?
In addition to this legal chaos, Agrosvit representatives also encountered the Ministry of Justice's blatantly false claims of transparency and openness. After receiving the letter, Agrosvit representatives called Elena Trofimchuk, the person who issued the invitation letter, asking for clarification on the results of the complaint review, as they were unable to attend the commission meeting due to circumstances beyond their control. This was met with a categorical refusal, unsupported by the law, as the results of such commissions are not classified as proprietary or restricted information. Subsequent numerous calls to the reception of the Director of the State Registration Department and the relevant Deputy Minister at the end of the working day resulted in Department Head Pavel Vyacheslavovich Kuzik promising to issue the corresponding order following the commission meeting the following day upon his arrival at the Ministry. Imagine the Agrosvit representative's surprise when, upon arriving at the Ministry of Justice with the relevant power of attorney from the company, he was again denied the document. And the complaint he filed against such actions by Ministry of Justice officials elicited no response. Such is the "openness," "transparency," and "service to the people" of the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice.
It will be obvious to any sensible person that such bureaucratic "tricks" involving backdated letters and outright ignoring citizen appeals are actively used by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, including on request. Such seemingly trivial matters can, in fact, lead to complex legal consequences, one of which, in the case of Agrosvit, is the reassertion of control over the enterprise by the corporate raider.
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!