You're reading: Korniychuk: ‘I fear unlawful actions by prosecutors the most’

Q&A with former deputy Justice Minister Yevhen Korniychuk and son-in-law of the Supreme Court chairman who was recently released from prison after a 55-day incarceration.

Law enforcement officials on Feb. 17 released former deputy Justice Minister Yevhen Korniychuk from pretrial confinement, where he spent 55 days following his arrest in Kyiv before Christmas holidays.

Korniychuk has denied charges he rigged a government tender in 2009 for his old law firm to represent Naftogaz, Ukraine’s state oil and gas monopoly. If convicted of the charge, the 47-year old lawyer could face a 7-year prison sentence. Korniychuk is the son-in-law of Supreme Court chairman Vasyl Onopenko.

The later met with President Viktor Yanukovych the day before prosecutors released Korniychuk and just as prosecutors dropped a criminal case against his younger daughter.

In a recent Kyiv Post interview, Onopenko said it was becoming increasingly difficult for him to not conclude that the investigations targeting his relatives were not part of an attempt to pressure him into resigning. Along with Korniychuk, Onopenko is a former political ally of opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko.

He is also the last Ukrainian in a high position of power not politically aligned with Yanukovych. In the below Kyiv Post interview, Korniychuk denied wrongdoing, but said it was unclear to him what could be motivating what he described as unruly investigations and charges against him from the side of prosecutors.

Kyiv Post: What was it like to be arrested the day your wife gave birth to a baby girl and to be put behind bars for more than a month and a half? You seem to have lost a lot of weight.

Yevhen Korniychuk: (Laughs) The latter was the only positive thing that happened during my ordeal. I was completely surprised by my arrest. I went to the state prosecutor’s office immediately after being summoned by telephone by the prosecutor directly from the hospital where my wife had just delivered our baby.

I thought when I arrived that prosecutors wanted me to explain the charges they were looking into. The allegations involving me had already been twice reviewed by a court and dismissed. There are no new details or facts in the criminal case opened against me. It was a real shock to be thrown behind bars.

Ukraine’s Criminal Code gives three reasons for arrest. Not one of them fit my case. I was not hiding. I was not perpetuating the illegal act I allegedly committed.

Law-enforcement officials simply decided to arrest me. Prosecutors feared I could influence the course of their investigation against me because I am a lawyer with lots of contacts among lawyers and judges. It’s the first time in my life that I, a well known lawyer and professor of law who represented Ukraine, felt I must be ashamed of my credentials.

KP: What was it like in pretrial confinement?


YK:
The conditions at Lukyanivka pretrial detention facility are the same for everyone. While deputy justice minister [December 2007- February 2010], I provided legal oversight for Ukraine’s entire penitentiary system. New legislation must be enacted to completely overhaul the system and measures be taken to finance it adequately.

I can’t say that I was treated better or worse than anyone else in pretrial detention. I was held in the maximum-security prison block along with former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko.

KP: You are one of several former government officials under former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko accused of committing criminal offenses in cases that triggered the European Union and the U.S. to their concern about selective justice in Ukraine, which implies political persecution. Do you think you are the victim of political persecution?

YK: I do not think that my case is political in nature. It is unfortunate and regrettable that I have to spend all this time proving my innocence. I think this is a regrettable mistake against me.

KP: A mistake for the third time?

YK: I don’t rule out the same mistake being made for the fourth or fifth time.

I stand accused of – in my capacity as deputy justice minister – exceeding my authority by preventing Naftogaz from procuring the legal services of a legal firm other than Magisters. But this is not true. I did not influence the purchase of legal services, but merely explained [by providing legal interpretation of] legislation governing government tenders.

But Naftogaz asked me specifically about Magisters and not about law firms in general. Investigators are trying to prove that it was collusion and that I lobbied Magisters as its former founder and I had material interest in this. Former Economy Minister Bohdan Danylyshyn is accused of authorizing the illegal purchase of legal services, something I was unable to do.

When I worked as deputy justice minister, the ministry conducted dozens of tenders for providing legal services to represent state interests in cases adjudicated overseas. I am proud that during the two years and two months I worked at the ministry, Ukraine did not lose one of these cases and won cases where Ukraine was the plaintiff. And Magisters did not win any of these tenders.

The way state prosecutors have handled the case is curious. Investigators turned to a little-known law firm and asked how much they would have charged for the legal services awarded to Magisters to defend Naftogaz. The law firm said it would have charged Hr. 400,000, a lot less than the Hr. 2 million Magisters asked for.

That’s the basis for charging me with incurring losses of Hr. 1.6 million. The difference in price is determined by the professional expertise of services rendered. That’s why I believe that the case against me is absurd.

KP Did you think Ukraine had a chance of winning the Stockholm arbitration case involving customs clearance of natural gas belonging to RosUkrEnergo? Why did Ukraine lose the case?

YK:
The government changed and I do not know what instructions new government officials gave to their lawyers representing Naftogaz at those hearings.

KP: About a dozen former officials who served under Tymoshenko have been put in jail and more are being investigated. It seems that a large share of them ware being investigated in connection with the RosUkrEnergo case, where large private vested interests are allegedly at stake at the cost of national interests. Can you explain why so many people who defended Ukraine’s “interests” in the RosUkrEnergo case are the ones targeted?

YK: I can’t comment on this. These are assumptions, and I am against assumptions.

KP: How did investigators explain your release from pretrial detention?

YK:
It made sense for them procedurally to release me. Prosecutors on Jan. 31 said they had completed their investigation into the alleged criminal activities of most former officials. The next step is for those accused to familiarize themselves with the formal charges. The investigator in charge of the case is then required to review petitions to release the accused from pretrial confinement.

They received my appeal. If the investigator rejected it, then it would be reviewed by the court.

The argument that Korniychuk could influence the course of the investigation was no longer valid after investigators wound up their probe.

KP: You were released one day after your father-in-law, Supreme Court Chairman Vasyl Onopenko, met for talks with President Viktor Yanukovych in Kyiv. Do you see any connection between that meeting and your release or you think this is a coincidence?

YK: I completed familiarizing myself with details of the charges against me the day after that meeting. So I can’t say if there is any connection. You should ask my father-in-law this question.

KP: Onopenko told us that there is no connection.

YK: My father-in-law said after my arrest that his son-in-law is an adult and is capable of fending for himself.

KP: Let’s return to RosUkrEnergo. As a professional lawyer and former deputy Justice Minister can you say if Ukraine had a chance to win the dispute with RosUkrEnergo in the Stockholm arbitration court, where billions of dollars worth of natural gas were at stake?

YK: I can’t comment on this because I have not been following the activities of RosUkrEnergo for the last nine months. I’m just not aware of what transpired.

KP: Documents have been circulated in some media showing, as some reports conclude, that Ukraine completely gave up on the case and admitted the gas belonged to RosUkrEnergo. They reportedly show that Ukraine simply declined to defend itself in the case.

YK: You have answered your own question. If Ukraine had admitted its guilt, the acknowledgment might have been a first step for reaching a settlement on the issue. But this is a question for the lawyers representing Naftogaz and the Energy Ministry.

KP: As someone who was close to the situation, do you see any conflict of interests in the Naftogaz versus RosUkrEnergo case? Energy Minister Yuriy Boyko was a member of RosUkrEnergo’s advisory board, but says he forgets when he resigned from the post. The head of the Presidential Administration, Serhiy Lyovochkin, is also a friend of Ivan Fursin and billionaire businessman Dmytro Firtash, both co-owners of RosUkrEnergo.

YK: You have to conduct your own journalist investigation on this issue. I can’t help you with anything.

KP: What are you afraid of now more than anything else?

YK: What I fear most are unjustified actions taken by state prosecutors, against which I cannot defend myself or receive a fair trial in court.

KP: Are you afraid of being arrested again?

YK: I rule nothing out. I see there is an impression that everything is fine with me. I do not share that impression. Some actions by the prosecutors are continuing.

KP: Do you think the recent raid by prosecutors of the Magisters office in downtown Kyiv is connected with the case against you?

YK: I don’t know.

KP: In the West and inside Ukraine there is more and more talk about the absence of jurisprudence in Ukraine. Some have said the president has completely subjugated the court system and other branches of government. How do you hope to prove your innocence in such a situation where the fairness of courts is being openly challenged?


YK:
I succeeded proving my innocence in 2009 and 2010. I believe that the court will not be prejudiced against me and will objectively study the evidence I present in my defense at trial.

KP: You appealed your arrest and pretrial detention in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. What is the status of your petition?

YK: I hope that the petition will be considered quickly and the court will evaluate the actions of the state prosecutor’s office against me. I trust they will consider the case fairly.

KP: The mere fact that you petitioned the Strasbourg court shows you had reservations about receiving a fair trial in Ukraine…

YK: I am not denying it. Many lesser-known cases are handled in a one-sided manner. That is why I do not have 100 percent certainty that the court will fairly hear my case.

KP: In a recent Kyiv Post interview, Onopenko said: “I am so often asked whether a criminal investigation (against my relatives) is motivated to pressure me, that I have fewer and fewer arguments to reply “no” to this.” Do you agree with this?

YK: I am satisfied that they changed the preventive measures taken against me. This is the first step that gives me hope the case will be considered fairly. We’ll see what happens. I am a lawyer and am preparing diligently for the trial. I will question the jurisdiction of the court and request not the Kyiv’s Pechersky court but a different one to hear the case.

KP: What’s wrong with Kyiv’s Pechersky court?

YK: This court did not allow me to protest my pretrial detention in court. You know that they prolonged my pretrial detention without bringing me to that court, just like with Lutsenko.

KP: Maybe this is tactic used to ‘break’ those in pretrial detention, a way to pressure them into giving the “right testimony.” Were you close to the breaking point? Were attempts made to break your will and compel you to give testimony that they wanted?

YK:
Prosecutors insisted that I confess to my guilt. This is usually the tactic of the prosecutor’s office. We inherited criminal legislation left from the Stalinism in 1937.

KP: Do you have any thoughts about the need to reform Ukraine’s penitentiary system, which is notorious for its human rights abuses, following your incarceration?

YK:
We started making changes to the penal system when I worked at the Justice Ministry. After spending time in pretrial detention, I concluded that we did too little then to change the system. The entire system of justice needs to be overhauled. Only cosmetic changes have been made over the last 20 years.

Another problem is that penal system is under-financed. I want to believe that the court reform initiated by the president and the reform of criminal justice will prevent future illegal arrests.

KP: Who did you share a prison cell with?


YK:
With a former policeman and a former state prosecutor. Lutsenko’s cell was across the aisle and I saw him occasionally in the corridor.

KP: What were they in prison for?


YK:
There is a rule among those who share prison cells not to talk about what crimes they are accused of.

Kyiv Post staff writer Yuriy Onyshkiv can be reached at [email protected]