In the second case the NABU detectives established, that Lohvynskyi's assistants are involved in seizing the assets of the "Bank Stolytsia" Private JSC, sold below the real value. According to the investigation, because of their actions the Deposit Guarantee Fund received UAH 18.5 million less than it was supposed to.
Under the third case, top officials of the Ministry of Justice embezzled UAH 54.2 million of
budget funds in an arrangement with Logvynskyi, by transferring the money to Zolotyi
Mandaryn Oil LLC.
Under the third case
, top officials of the Ministry of Justice embezzled UAH 54.2 million of budget funds in an arrangement with Logvynskyi, by transferring the money to Zolotyi Mandaryn Oil LLC
This is a fictitious company that was involved in the corruption scheme to embezzle budget funds and legalize them afterwards.
The "aquarium tapes" reveal that, after meeting Logvynskyi, Kholodnytskyi invited the senior prosecutor Serhii Kozachyna, who was in charge of the proceedings at that time. Kozachyna told him that he was going to prepare a suspicion of corruption-related crime against Logvynskyi.
Kholodnytskyi replied that this case had a political aspect and should be either postponed for an indefinite term or closed altogether.
Later it became known that prosecutor Kozachyna had not followed
the "aquarium instructions". On the contrary, he organized evidence gathering in order to file a suspicion against the involved persons, including Logvynskyi.
Kozachyna also managed to submit an application to the court for relieving the fictitious director and founder of Zolotyi Mandaryn Oil LLC Oleksandr Uspenskyi from liability.
Uspenskyi agreed to cooperate, as he was used by the schemers in their own interests. He provided an important testimony to the court, which would have helped prove the association of actual beneficiaries to the scheme.
Uspenskyi admitted being the fictitious manager of the company. After that, the court should have considered the SAPO's application for relieving him from liability for embezzlement. Uspenskyi would have been charged with fictitious entrepreneurship only.
That would have been recorded in the court ruling and would have helped prove the fictitiousness of the firm and establish guilt
of the organizers of the corruption scheme.
However, Kholodnytskyi intervened again. He was quick to take these three cases against Logvynskyi from Kozachyna
, as well as a dozen of other cases
, and hand them over to another, presumably a more obedient, prosecutor.
After that, Kholodnytskyi's deputy Volodymyr Kryvenko illegitimately revoked
the application filed by Kozachyna regarding Uspenskyi. By doing so, Kryvenko intentionally neglected important evidence
We will continue to monitor this case and activities of Kholodnytskyi, who is trying to save his friend member of parliament.
We will also watch Kryvenko and other prosecutors engaged in the cases related to the Member of Parliament Logvynskyi.