The Yanukovych era was marked by a huge number of high-profile corruption schemes. But among them all, Tabachnyk's "golden" textbooks (Read more about it in the article Dmitry and Mikhail Tabachnik. Brother for brother), unsafe high-speed Hyundais, Bogatyreva's defective ambulances, the scandal with the skier investors in the LNG terminal—one can truly rightfully be considered a symbol of the former government's arrogance. "Boyko's rigs." A case involving hundreds of millions of dollars, orchestrated by Ukrainian officials.
It would seem that with the change of power provoked by the Maidan, the attitude of law enforcement agencies toward the crimes of their "predecessors" should have changed. However, neither during his tenure as Prosecutor General Oleg Makhnitsky, and now, when the department is headed by Vitaly Yarema, the case of the "Boyko towers" has not moved forward.
Case materials and its participants
Let's begin by briefly recapitulating the legendary scheme and its participants. The purchase of the "Boyko rigs" in 2011 became an illustration of how state affairs are conducted in Ukraine. Media reports revealed that the state-owned company Chornomornaftogaz purchased two jack-up drilling rigs for $400 million each. The shell companies that won the tender to supply the rigs inflated their prices by $150 million and $180 million, respectively.
The contract for the first tower was awarded to a completely unknown UK-registered company, Highway Investment Processing LLP. Interestingly, the New Zealand company Falcona Systems Limited also participated in the tender. Its proposal wasn't much different from its competitor's. However, according to information released in April 2012 by current Cabinet Minister Ostap Semerak, they share the same ultimate owner: Erik Vanagels. As it later turned out, he's a homeless person and an alcoholic. Highway director Stan Gorin, with whom Chornomornaftogaz allegedly signed agreements and whom TVi journalists tracked down, also turned out to have known nothing about his company or the existence of this Vanagels.
Later, it became known that these individuals were also involved in other transactions initiated by the previous Ukrainian government. Suspicion was also raised by the fact that the British company Highway and its sparring partner used the same bank – the Latvian Trasta Komercbanka (TKB), which is believed to be close to Yuriy Boyko and the RosUkrEnergo group, led by Dmitry Firtash, Ivan Fursin, and Serhiy Levochkin.
Despite the ensuing scandal, the department of Mr. Boyko, then Minister of Energy and Coal Industry, held a second tender in the fall of 2011 and acquired another platform. This time, the seller was a genuine Latvian company, Rigas Kugu Buvetava. But the price was essentially the same.
Besides Yuriy Boyko, three other names were most often mentioned as the main figures in this corruption scheme.
Serhiy, now a member of parliament, defected from the Party of Regions faction to the Sovereign European Ukraine group after the Maidan protests. In May 2010, he was appointed a member of the board of Naftogaz and a member of the supervisory board of Chornomornaftogaz.
Evgeniy Bakulin, who served as the head of Naftogaz until March 25, 2014. On the eve of his dismissal, he was detained by law enforcement as part of an investigation into corruption in the gas sector. The losses to the state are estimated at approximately $4 billion.
Valeriy Yasyuk, who served as Chairman of the Board of Chornomornaftogaz, part of Naftogaz, from October 2009 to May 2013, and later as Deputy Chairman of Naftogaz Ukrainy. He is considered a close associate of Mykola Martynenko and his longtime friend David Zhvania.
Quite predictably, corruption on such a scale failed to interest the Yanukovych-era prosecutor's office. And beyond the media hype, the story had no further impact.
The Prosecutor General's Office is in no hurry
However, it's also unlikely that the Prosecutor General's Office decided to make up for lost time after the revolution. Quite the contrary, during the period (from February 25 to June 18, 2014), when Svoboda member Oleg Makhnitsky was in charge of the office, it seemed as if law enforcement was trying to whitewash the participants in the scheme and let the case slide.
To illustrate this kind of "protection racket," it's worth recalling how, after Yanukovych's flight, despite his involvement in the scandalous purchase of drilling rigs, Valeriy Yasiuk, according to a shareholder meeting decision, became head of Ukrtransgaz. However, it wasn't for long. The appointment sparked a scandal. The Cabinet of Ministers asked Prosecutor General Oleh Makhnitsky about Yasiuk's involvement in the case. Yasiuk was temporarily suspended from his duties as head of the company's board, and a short time later, he resigned, stating that he did not want to give any grounds for discrediting the new government. An investigation into Makhnitsky's activities revealed that Yasiuk's signatures were not found on documents related to the corrupt deal.
Journalist Alexey Shalaysky, who researched the "Boyko rigs" topic, argued in a commentary to Glavkom that, despite the lack of a signature, anyone in their right mind could understand that Yasyuk was one of the organizers of the deal. Theoretically, of course, one could subvert logic and assume he knew nothing about the rigs' cost, but in practice, tender procedures for the first rig began almost immediately after his appointment as head of Chornomornaftogaz.
Current Minister of Energy and Coal Industry Yuriy Prodan confirmed in an interview with Glavkom this summer that Yasyuk's signature was not on the documents—he personally verified it. But he also noted that Yasyuk knew the price to be paid for the towers and insisted it was reasonable, "that this price took into account additional expenses, and it was not inflated."
Clearly, until the corruption of the scam itself is proven, there's no point in holding those involved accountable. But the authorities have essentially done nothing to bring this about.
For several months, "Glavcom" persistently bombarded the Prosecutor General's Office—under both Makhnitsky and Yarema—with inquiries. In response, the agency limited itself to formal replies with meaningless phrases.
From those crumbs, it was only possible to find out the following:
— The investigation into the scandalous purchase of oil and gas rigs was launched by the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine (attention!) on June 18, 2014. That is, the day Oleg Makhnitsky resigned and the day before Vitaliy Yarema's appointment.
— The investigation is being conducted on the grounds of a criminal offense under Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (appropriation of property by abuse of position, committed on an especially large scale or by an organized group).
— During the pre-trial investigation, officials from the Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry of Ukraine, Naftogaz, and Chornomornaftogaz (including Valeriy Yasyuk) are being investigated for involvement in Chornomornaftogaz's state procurement of drilling rigs at inflated prices in March and October 2011. This already casts doubt on the ministry's earlier report on Yasyuk, which denied his involvement in the deal.
— At the same time, the former Deputy Prime Minister and former head of the Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry of Ukraine, Yuriy Boyko, is involved in the scandalous case of oil and gas rig procurement… in the lowly capacity of a witness.
Investigators from the Prosecutor General's Office prepared a series of requests to other countries for international legal assistance. Several months earlier, Glavkom reported that the Prosecutor General's Office should work in cooperation with other countries in the Boyko Towers case: Singapore, Turkey, the UK, and the US.
That's all. Information about the specific countries contacted by the Prosecutor General's Office, the investigators and suspects, the rationale for Boyko's "witness" status, the full report on the agency's earlier investigation into Yasyuk's involvement in the rig procurement, and a number of other questions remain confidential.
"Disclosure of other information obtained during the pre-trial investigation may undermine the investigation of this criminal case. Therefore, in accordance with Article 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and Article 6 of the Law of Ukraine 'On Access to Public Information,' other requested information cannot be provided, as it is classified information," the Prosecutor General's Office explained in its official response to Glavkom's latest request for comment.
I would like to believe that in a case that serves as a litmus test for the new government's desire to combat corruption, "secrecy" will truly play a useful role, and not become a smokescreen covering inaction or collusion with dishonest representatives of the previous government.
Katerina Peshko, Glavcom
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!