Ukrainian legislation provides a well-defined sequence of
actions, it is spelled out, what the person elected as the president of Ukraine
has to do with their business assets.
On Oct. 14, 2014 the Law of Ukraine “On prevention
of corruption” was adopted.
The law was put into effect on Aug. 6, 2015. According to
paragraph 3 of article 36 of this Law, Poroshenko had to transfer management of
his corporate rights, etc. in one of only three defined ways.
This is provision of the law. Was it complied with? Definitely not!
Poroshenko ignored this law entirely.
The law “On prevention of corruption” provides
options.
Firstly, the property management contract with the business entity (except
for the contract management of securities and other financial instruments).
This is applied to, in fact, property. An entrepreneurship must be registered
in Ukraine (otherwise it is not the entity). Instead, the property was
transferred to some foreign entity.
Poroshenko also has corporate rights. He could have signed a
contract on the management, however, not with anyone, but only with a
securities broker who is licensed by the National Commission on Securities and
Stock Market on the exercise of securities management.
He didn’t do that.
The third option allowed by law is to conclude an agreement
on the establishment of a venture capital equity investment fund for management
of corporate rights transferred with the asset management company. But the
company must have a license from the National Commission on Securities and Stock
Market to conduct asset management activities.
The Panama offshore doesn’t have a license issued in Ukraine.
There is no other option. All of the talk on some
Rothshields and “blind trust” are designed for those who are not acquainted
with the Ukrainian legislation.
So, the president should be fined because he violated restrictions
on pluralism and combination with other activities. Such liability is provided
by paragraph 1 of article 172-4 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative
Offences.
The Security Service of Ukraine has to do this, according to
article 255 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences.
Which is what I wrote the corresponding request to the
Security Service. It has to fulfill this request in 10 days.
Once again, the president has immunity only to criminal
prosecution, detention and arrest. The
law provides for the imposition of administrative penalties for corruption on
the incumbent president.
In addition, there’s a strong evidence to suspect Poroshenko
in violating Ukrainain law on foreign investments. According to current
legislation, any investment coming from Ukraine, should be licensed by National
bank of Ukraine.
This permit issued by NBU, is the result of a complex
revision that includes involvement of SBU, Ukrainian security service.
So far, Poroshenko did not provide any information about his
possession of such a permit. Again, in case he did it without having the
license, this action would be subject to administrative prosecution.
As a member of parliament, I made an appeal to SBU to put a fine on
Poroshenko, as well as asked for the proper information from the NBU. The result
will show if the president has any willingness to fulfill the requirements of
anti-corruption legislation.
