The current government's actions increasingly contradict its promises and declarations. Numerous facts demonstrate that the fight against corruption and lustration are mere words intended to reassure the public. In reality, virtually all corruption schemes remain, and even members of parliament are denied public disclosure and access to information. One such example is the appeal by Vladimir Polochaninov, a member of parliament of the seventh convocation, back in April to the National Bank requesting full information regarding the refinancing of commercial banks.
As Polochaninov himself writes on his Facebook page, the reason for this was media reports that the NBU (under the leadership of Stepan Kubiv) had provided generous and unjustified refinancing to specific Ukrainian commercial banks. As a reminder, journalists wrote that, in particular, Mykola Lahuna's Delta Bank, Oleh Bakhmatyuk's VAB and Financial Initiative, and PrivatBank, owned by the well-known oligarch and Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Governor Ihor Kolomoisky, received significant refinancing as part of a program to support the domestic banking sector. PrivatBank received the largest amount, with a total refinancing amount of $1,1 billion. According to media reports, the bankers invested the money in the foreign exchange market, which led to a collapse of the national currency. Kubiv, according to the media, was in on the deal for a billion-hryvnia kickback.
However, the NBU simply ignored the parliamentarian's request. The reason given for the refusal was that the information requested by the deputy was classified as a banking secret. However, as Vladimir Polochaninov notes, refinancing, as a public law institution, does not mediate the civil law relationships of lending and current account servicing that exist between the bank and its clients. The list of the National Bank's clients is defined by law, and commercial banks are not included. Therefore, refinancing is not a banking service, and commercial banks receiving refinancing from the National Bank are not its clients. Therefore, refinancing does not fall within the scope of information subject to banking secrecy.
In this regard, the MP filed a lawsuit against the National Bank's illegal actions with the Kyiv District Administrative Court. On July 23, the court, having reviewed the parties' arguments and the extensive legal framework on the matter, partially granted the claim, finding the National Bank's actions in denying the MP's application unlawful and ordering the regulator to re-examine the MP's appeal. Naturally, the reasoning behind the court's decision must be taken into account by the National Bank when re-examining the MP's appeal.
However, the NBU, which at that time was already headed by Valeria Gontareva, refused to comply with the court's decision and filed an appeal against the first-instance court's decision.
The hearing of the case by the panel of judges of the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal, chaired by A.G. Stepanyuk, on September 30, 2014, revealed the judges' objective approach to analyzing the provisions of current legislation and assessing the circumstances of the case. However, under the pretext of the "particular interest" of the case and the need to thoroughly review all the materials, a recess was unexpectedly announced until October 28.
According to Polochaninov, during this period, the National Bank provided additional clarifications to the appeal, stating that the MP should not, in principle, submit a parliamentary appeal to the National Bank, since, in the defendant's view, the NBU regularly provides parliamentarians with information on refinancing. However, the MP emphasizes, the National Bank overlooked the fact that the reporting information it provides is not regulated and is rather generalized and vague in content. This information makes it impossible to draw specific conclusions about which commercial banks in Ukraine received refinancing as a lifeline from the regulator.
The situation then unfolded as in the "good old days," when those in power needed a specific, favorable court decision, regardless of the law. The composition of the panel of judges was changed, and, as the MP noted, NBU representatives greeted all the judges warmly, and the judges spent about five minutes reaching their decision. Thus, Vladimir Polochaninov recounts, the panel during the hearing limited itself to clarifying whether the parties supported their arguments presented in the case materials. Unlike the previous panel, it showed no interest in objectively examining all the circumstances of the case and dismissed the proceedings with a formalistic approach.
The judges' deliberations lasted no more than five minutes, after which a ruling was issued upholding the National Bank's appeal, overturning the first-instance court's decision, and dismissing the MP's claim entirely.
"Thus, the court, despite a number of mandatory legal provisions, decided that who should borrow, how much, and when within the refinancing limits is information that belongs solely to the National Bank. A member of parliament, representing the interests of all Ukrainians in parliament, should not be interested in such matters. For the successful shadowing of bank refinancing in Ukraine, this court position is a necessary and reliable cover. Unfortunately, this once again confirms the declarative nature and emptiness of the popular slogans of modern Ukrainian politics," Polochaninov concludes.
Additionally, it should be noted that the work of Valeria Gontareva and the NBU as a whole has drawn sharp criticism from experts and journalists. Economic analysts have repeatedly pointed out that Gontareva's actions in regulating the foreign exchange market are unprofessional, even amateurish. After the NBU spent over a billion dollars supporting the hryvnia, the national currency was once again allowed to float freely, and the devaluation has already reached 75%. At the same time, experts have consistently noted that the hryvnia cannot be allowed to float freely until the domestic economy is de-dollarized.
Regarding refinancing, information about which the NBU is so carefully concealing, Vladimir Polochaninov's suspicions are not unfounded. Journalists have published information regarding how refinancing funds were used by Ihor Kolomoisky's PrivatBank. The country's largest bank, having received refinancing from the NBU, spent over 11 billion hryvnias on loans for failed transactions. An investigation by Glavkom revealed that the funds ended up in the accounts of foreign companies, and the bank's loan issuance scheme appears to make it unlikely that they will return to Ukraine. It is quite possible that these are schemes for siphoning money abroad.
Where is the evidence that other banks haven't also resorted to similar schemes to funnel money abroad? (Since the beginning of the year, the NBU has issued 142 billion hryvnias in refinancing loans.) Apparently, the NBU is aware of how funds allegedly allocated for refinancing are being siphoned off from the State Budget. That's why they're doing everything they can to ensure this information isn't made public. Clearly, many people are involved in these schemes, and if everything is exposed, Ukrainians who sacrificed themselves to bring the current leaders to power will be in for a shock. It's astonishing that while Ukrainian soldiers are dying and lacking even the most basic necessities, billions are being funneled out of the country under the auspices of those in power.
The country's elite
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!