On May 19, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office officially confirmed that they had expanded the circle of suspects in large-scale corruption involving the former Chairman of the Supreme Court.
Points of attention
- The businessman involved in the case transferred millions of dollars to judges through intermediaries to influence the outcome of a crucial legal dispute.
- The ongoing probe aims to uncover any additional individuals involved in the corruption scheme and to ensure accountability for those responsible for compromising the integrity of the judiciary.
Corruption in the Supreme Court — what else has become known
As explained by NABU and SAPO, these are three current Supreme Court judges, as well as a retired Supreme Court judge.
According to the investigation, as judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, they received an undue benefit for making a decision in the interests of the owner of the Finance and Credit group.
What is important to understand is that the powers of the judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court include considering the most complex and exceptional legal disputes.
One such dispute was a dispute in which former shareholders challenged the purchase and sale agreement for 40.19% of the shares of the Poltava Mining and Processing Plant, purchased in 2002 by a businessman, the owner of the Finance and Credit group. The court of first instance refused to satisfy the claim, but in 2022 the appeals court overturned this decision and declared the agreement invalid.
NABU draws attention to the fact that due to the complexity of the legal dispute, its further consideration in the cassation instance was carried out by judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
In order to avoid losses in shares, the businessman transferred $2.7 million through an intermediary to a lawyer, a member of the so-called back office of the Supreme Court, during March–April 2023.
He transferred these funds to the former chairman and judges of the Supreme Court to make the "necessary" decision.
