“Pasta Case” Involving Vysotskyi and Hryban: Details of Expensive Food Procurement

The Ministry of Agrarian Policy has again captured the attention of anti-corruption bodies. Recently, the Rada dismissed its head Mykola Solskyi, who had been served with a suspicion notice of seizing state land. While the ministry is not headed by anyone, the acting head is the first deputy Taras Vysotskyi. Ironically, Vysotskyi himself is involved in an unexpected corruption case. 

According to the NABU-SAPO, Vysotskyi, assisted by the Deputy Minister of Economy Oleksandr Hryban, in the midst of the Russian invasion, allegedly purchased pasta for people living near the frontline at prices three times higher than the market ones.  

This story then caused an obvious outrage: “the country is at war, while we buy pasta worth UAH 65 for humanitarian aid.” The Ministry of Agrarian Policy and agrarians explained: there was no other way out with such order volumes and short delivery terms. 

Read on to find out what happened in the so-called “pasta case,” what the current head of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy Vysotskyi is suspected of, what the money was spent on, and what the investigation course will be like.

What is Vysotskyi suspected of? 

The NABU launched an investigation into the possible illegal actions of Vysotskyi in the spring of 2022. The investigation found that at the very beginning of the full-scale invasion, in March–April 2022, Vysotskyi, as Deputy Minister of Agrarian Policy, allegedly promoted two Ukrainian companies to supply pasta to a number of military administrations. These companies are Olimp LLC and Vinsaid Light LLC.  

At that time, administrations could purchase food for the population only from the list of suppliers determined by the Ministry of Agrarian Policy, having agreed upon this with Vysotskyi as the first deputy minister.  

According to the investigation, in March 2022, the official contacted the Olimp company so that it would fulfill this state order. The order included the purchase of pasta for the population in the frontline areas providing for 1 pack per 1 person.  

According to Vysotskyi, 10 million citizens were on these territories, and procurement was conducted for almost UAH 63 per kilogram. According to case materials, the price for such products varied within UAH 20. Ukrzaliznytsia paid for food on the part of the state.  

The NABU found that Anatolii Vlasenko, the owner of the Olimp company, purchased pasta at an inflated price from a Polish company headed by his son Oleksii Vlasenko. The foreign company itself purchased it from the manufacturer at a market price of 30 UAH/kg.  

According to the investigation, the Vinsaid Light company was recommended to Vysotskyi by another defendant in the case—Oleksandr Hryban, ex-deputy Minister of Economy, suspected of aiding and abetting. He provided the company’s contacts through a messenger application, after which Vysotskyi got in touch with its representative personally. As a result of the conversation, the parties agreed on a contract for the supply of pasta at a price of 55 UAH/kg. The examination established a market price for this product in the range of UAH 30-33. 

The scheme presented by the NABU is almost identical. Ukrainian company Vinsaid Light purchased pasta at an already inflated price from a Romanian intermediary, and it had bought it at a market price from the manufacturer. According to the investigation, the price Ukrzaliznytsia paid was threefold, and the total losses incurred by the state as a result of two procurement transactions amounted to UAH 63 million.  

The investigation indicates that Vysotskyi did not assess the ability of national producers to deliver pasta to people at a much lower price and therefore lobbied the interests of the above companies. The key witnesses in this case are now the very representatives of national manufacturers and suppliers of pasta. They mostly assured that under certain conditions they could have fulfilled such a state order—to produce the necessary products. 

The actions of Taras Vysotskyi were qualified by the NABU-SAPO as abuse of office, which caused grave consequences, that is, under Art. 364, part 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Oleksandr Hryban was charged with aiding and abetting. 

By the way, Vysotskyi also appears as a witness in similar cases. In particular, he explained a similar procedure in criminal proceedings for the purchase of canned food in Odesa Oblast at an inflated price of UAH 7 million.

Why purchase pasta at this price: the defense explains 

The defense considers these suspicion notices unfounded. Allegedly, at a critical moment when the full-scale invasion broke out, the largest Ukrainian suppliers could not fulfill the state order for the purchase of thousands of tons of products.  

Vysotskyi claimed that 60% of Ukrainian pasta production was blocked due to its temporary being under occupation or located in the zone of hostilities. The rest would not be able to supply such volumes of products, in particular, due to the inability to work at full capacity in conditions of hostilities and the risk of an attack on enterprises. 

In addition, since March 2022, Vysotskyi has allegedly repeatedly turned to the largest food chains Fozzy, Auchan, ATB, Novus, and Metro, which had completely different price variations from UAH 30 to 124 per kilogram, but none could deliver products in two days. Moreover, some networks demanded a full prepayment. 

The defense also argued that the defendants did not have any self-serving motive, since the NABU-SAPO, when proving the reasonableness of the suspicion notices, did not provide evidence that Vysotskyi and Hryban had received at least some benefit. 

What about interim and security measures? 

The HACC did impose interim measures on both Taras Vysotskyi and Oleksandr Hryban in late August 2023. The investigating judge decided that the suspicion notices were reasonable, and the risks of concealment, destruction, or distortion of evidence and influence on witnesses or other suspects or experts did persist.  

However, the court refused to take both deputy ministers into custody. The investigating judge ordered bail of UAH 805,000 and UAH 939,000 to Vysotskyi and Hryban, respectively, prohibiting them from communicating with each other on the case for 2 months, among other things. The SAPO prosecutor asked for bail in the amount of UAH 5 and UAH 9 mln. 

Subsequently, in October 2023, the HACC Appeals Chamber nevertheless increased Hryban’s bail to UAH 2.7 million and that of Vysotsky to UAH 5 million, and, among other duties, obliged the latter to wear a bracelet. For more than 2 months, Vysotskyi was without the bracelet due to a lack of devices in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Therefore, in December, because of this and his due procedural behavior, the investigating judge revoked this duty. 

Interestingly, unlike Hryban, who voluntarily resigned in late June 2023, Vysotskyi continued to perform his duties as Deputy Minister of Agrarian Policy all this time.  

The NABU-SAPO asked to suspend him in September. They believed that Vysotskyi could influence witnesses who were employees of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy or other public authorities and were under his influence, as well as agricultural producers. However, the HACC investigating judge refused to suspend Vysotskyi due to the unjustified and excessive use of such a security measure. The SAPO did not appeal this decision.

Abuse of office or arithmetic error of the investigation? 

The Ministry of Agrarian Policy and a number of agrarian associations sided with Taras Vysotskyi. 

On August 25, immediately after Vysotskyi was served with a suspicion notice, the Ministry published a statement in which it tried to refute the position of the investigation. Allegedly, the body conducted an internal check and did not find any illegal behavior by Vysotskyi. In addition, the investigation allegedly made an arithmetic error when calculating the cost of pasta for the period of March–May 2022, so all the proceedings are groundless. 

In turn, the prosecutor, when considering the motion to suspend Vysotskyi, stressed that the statement contained distorted information and inaccurate figures. Law enforcement officers also questioned the check conducted in the Ministry of Agrarian Policy because it was carried out by employees who could have been under the influence of Vysotskyi. 

29 agrarian associations also paid attention to the case, calling the actions of the NABU-SAPO erroneous, since thanks to Vysotskyi, it was possible to avoid disruptions in the supply of products and ensure the food security of Ukraine. They asked the NABU to take their position into account when conducting the investigation.

What will happen next?  

The “pasta case” of Vysotskyi and Hryban caused a great public outcry, in particular, given its circumstances—the full-scale invasion of Russia and the urgent need of the population for humanitarian assistance. 

Since the case is still at the pre-trial investigation stage, the collection of evidence continues. As of October 2023, the prosecution reported on:

• 28 interrogations, 18 searches, 60 inspections, and 12 temporary access to things and documents;
• obtaining the results of 3 examinations;
• opening of 20 protocols with materials of covert investigative (search) actions;
• obtaining information within the framework of international legal assistance from other states. 

The pre-trial investigation in the case has been going on for almost two years, and Vysotskyi and Hryban have been under investigation for more than 8 months. 

It is unknown when it will be completed. After all, although the investigation had time to investigate only until February 24 of this year, due to the need to obtain information from abroad, the investigation was suspended on January 12, 2024. By the way, earlier, the prosecution reported that the rapid completion of the case was hampered by the Ministry of Agrarian Policy, which did not provide all the necessary materials in time. 

The so-called “pasta case” is unique in its own way because it is one of the first cases open to the public about how specialized ministries allegedly abused humanitarian aid at the beginning of the full-scale war. 

Now we see that there is a hugher number of such cases. On February 13, the NABU reported the abuse of Kharkiv Regional Military Administration officials, reaching UAH 15 million under, a similar scheme. On February 26, the HACC imposed an interim measure on the suspected chief of staff in the form of a bail amounting to UAH 3.6 million.  

Transparency International Ukraine continues to monitor the course of events in the case and will share any developments.