Chaus. Trial Play in 2 Acts. Act 1: A Bribe Is Born

On June 14, the HACC convicted the ex-judge of the Dniprovskyi District Court of Kyiv Mykola Chaus. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, with confiscation of all property and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for 3 years. Chaus was taken into custody in the courtroom. 

Immediately after the verdict was announced, Chaus said that he considered it unfounded and that he would file an appeal. On July 18, an appeal was filed with the HACC Appeals Chamber. Consideration of the appeal in this case is scheduled for September 7.

Considering some statistics in this case, a total of 66 court hearings were held with a duration of about 189 hours. The court interrogated witnesses, examined material evidence, and listened to many hours of testimony by Chaus himself. The accused testified for 27 hours. Trial debates took 30 hours, and the final statement by Chaus took more than 14 hours. The defense filed 380 motions, and the total amount of evidence provided by lawyers in the proceedings is at least 30 volumes.

Therefore, this case is striking in terms of the number of dramatic turns and storylines; it seemed that such things could only happen in a movie or a play. But this is a real story, with an undercover agent, a chase, a bribe, and a real verdict. So, ladies and gentlemen, we invite you to one of the most high-profile and at the same time the funniest cases of the last decade — the case of ex-judge Chaus.

Act 1. The Chaus Case. Beginning

Characters: 

Mykola Chaus — ex-judge of the Dniprovskyi District Court of Kyiv, the accused

Diana Polishchuk — a petitioner (whistleblower)

Oleksandr Polishchuk — NABU secret agent, ex-husband of Diana Polishchuk

Svitlana Sasevych — mother of Diana Polishchuk, accused of trafficking in potent substances and precursors — diphenhydramine, pseudoephedrine

Taras Oksiuta — judge of the Solomianskyi Court of Kyiv 

On October 14, 2002, Mykola Chaus was appointed judge of the Dniprovskyi District Court of Kyiv. However, most of the time spent in office, the name of this judge remained in the shadows. Chaus was first talked about when he considered a motion to change an interim measure for Hennadii Korban in December 2015. 

In August 2016, NABU detectives caught Judge Chaus while receiving a bribe of USD 150,000 for a suspended sentence regarding Svitlana Sasevych for selling diphenhydramine. The money was found in two glass jars; one was dug up on the land plot of the judge, and the other was found in his car.  

By the time the Verkhovna Rada allowed to detain the judge, he had already fled to Moldova and asked for asylum there. In April 2021, it was reported that the ex-judge had been kidnapped in Chișinău. In May, a video appeared in which Chaus said that he was safe, but until July 2021, there was no public information about his whereabouts, until the ex-judge appeared in Mazurivka village, Vinnytsia region, wearing only his underwear. 

Then Chaus immediately appealed to the SSU and reported that he had been a victim of kidnapping, imprisonment, and other crimes. Subsequently, a guard was assigned to him, and the investigation of his statement began. There was a chase in Kyiv; the NABU demanded that the SSU hand Chaus over to the former.  

Finally, after the appearance of Chaus, the SAPO and the NABU quickly completed the official investigation, although the suspect refused to provide any testimony. 

Recalling that story, Chaus claimed to have been kidnapped both times. Throughout the trial, he argued that the High Anti-Corruption Court did not have jurisdiction over him because the extradition from Moldova had not taken place. 

The trial began in November 2021. The defense often tried to stall the case by not appearing at the hearing, filing various motions, delaying the interrogation of the accused. Chaus himself repeatedly changed defenders — there were 9 of them in total.

Events according to Chaus

Obviously, Chaus considers himself innocent. At the trial, he claimed the absence of a crime and the presence of a provocation; the evidence in the proceedings, in his opinion, was obtained in gross violation of the norms of the current legislation.

How did the ex-judge explain all this?

In 2015–2016, Chaus considered the case involving pensioner Svitlana Sasevych regarding the illegal acquisition, storage, and sale of poisonous potent substances or narcotic substances. At the end of February 2016, lawyer of Svitlana Sasevych came to the ex-judge’s office, trying to talk about the case. 

Chaus claimed that a few days after this visit, Taras Oksiuta, judge of the Solomianskyi Court of Kyiv, came to him, gave his phone number, and asked him to meet with his friend. This information, by the way, was not confirmed by anything, so the court eventually assessed it as false.

So Chaus came to this meeting in the courtyard of the Dniprovskyi court, and the friend turned out to be his old acquaintance Diana Polishchuk, who told him that she was the daughter of Svitlana Sasevych. Chaus claimed that at this meeting, they talked about the state of health of the defendant.

One thing you need to know is that in the early 2000s, Chaus worked with Diana Polishchuk, as well as with her ex-husband Oleksandr Polishchuk, in the prosecutor’s office of the Sviatoshynskyi district of Kyiv.

In total, before meeting in the courtroom on March 21, 2016, Chaus and Diana Polishchuk had met twice or three times. According to the ex-judge, he first advised to collect and additionally provide the prosecutor with documents confirming poor health of Diana’s mother. During the second meeting, Polishchuk asked to “resolve the issue” with the prosecutor, to which Chaus refused.

On March 21, 2016, Diana Polishchuk came without prior arrangement and again asked to have a conversation. They entered the courtroom, where Polishchuk reminded Chaus of the previous meeting with the words “remember, we talked,” which Chaus perceived as a continuation of the conversation about the possibility of resolving the issue with the prosecutor.

According to Chaus, after that, he had another meeting with Diana Polishchuk in the premises of the Dniprovskyi District Court, not recorded in the covert investigative (search) actions. Then Polishchuk said she brought the accused USD 50,000 to give to the prosecutor, and Chaus refused.

On March 25, 2016, at a meeting with Polishchuk, Chaus said that he could not help with anything, and after that, they never communicated again.

According to Chaus, he did not extort any money. He also noted that Polishchuk could not explain the court what such an extortion was all about. In his opinion, there is no information in the materials about the extortion of funds or voicing any amounts.

On March 28, 2016, Chaus had his first meeting with Oleksandr Polishchuk. Chaus argued that not all the conversation was recorded as part of the covert investigative (search) actions, in particular, the part with the discussion of a loan. According to Chaus, during the meetings, Polishchuk tried to link the loan with the resolution of the Sasevych case.

Chaus claimed that the funds received from Polishchuk were given precisely as a loan, but he immediately transferred it to his friend, from whom he had borrowed earlier because it was time to repay the debt. Chaus also claimed that Polishchuk had a personal interest and wanted to get a position with the NABU.

Chaus pointed out that after his detention and some time after his interrogation by the NABU, he was taken out of his own apartment and handed over in one of the underground parking lots of Kyiv to an unknown person who took him to an apartment in Irpin. Then Chaus was allegedly moved to another apartment in Bucha, and later taken to the Republic of Moldova. 

The transportation of Chaus to Moldova was not agreed upon with him, he was not aware of the fact — he was asleep, possibly under the influence of some kind of medication. Chaus also insisted that his further transfer to the territory of Ukraine occurred as a result of kidnapping from the territory of the Republic of Moldova with the participation of employees of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine. According to Chaus, the purpose of his abduction was the desire to obtain testimony from him on political figures of Ukraine.

In general, the court assessed Chaus’ testimony critically. In many ways, judges consider these data to be false and provided in order to avoid criminal liability for the crime committed.

Interestingly, Chaus did not remember the events or statements that could indicate his guilt, often could not explain them, or could but by the falsification of this evidence by the prosecution. 

However, the court did not assess the testimony of Chaus regarding the circumstances that went beyond the limits of the trial — in particular, the transfer of the ex-judge to Moldova, the circumstances of his stay there, as well as the conditions under which the subsequent return of Chaus to Ukraine took place.

Opinion of the HACC: Soliciting Unlawful Benefit, not Extortion 

The court believes that Chaus did not extort a bribe, but only solicited it because he did not voice threats and did not create conditions that would not leave Diana Polishchuk any other choice than to give money. This can be traced in the chronology of the case.

Thus, in March 2015, Chaus received an indictment against pensioner Svitlana Sasevych. She was accused of illegal acquisition, storage, and sale of poisonous or potent narcotic substances. 

A year later, in early March 2016, Chaus met with Diana Polishchuk, daughter of Svitlana Sasevych, near the building of the Dniprovskyi District Court. 

At that meeting, Polishchuk informed Chaus about her mother’s grave health condition and unfair accusations against her, to which Chaus pointed out the possibility of adopting a decision without imposing a real punishment. For these actions, Chaus asked for a bribe of USD 100,000. Chaus strongly denied this fact.

In the second half of March, Chaus met with Diana again. This time, he used methods of conspiracy, told he would rather not continue the conversation directly in the courtroom, where it might have been recorded by law enforcement agencies, but he kept communicating with Polishchuk.

Below in the infographic, we present a verbatim dialogue between Chaus and Diana Polishchuk.

Diana says about her mother and her case: “I’m afraid that she will be put in prison, she will break down, she is sick.”

Chaus replies, “Well, let’s say we can do anything, we will adopt a decision. Well. I will adopt it…“

Next, Chaus asks a direct question: “What can you do about the thing we discussed?”

To which Diana replies:  “Well… well, look, was that the final amount?” Thus, Polishchuk clarifies whether the bribe amount previously voiced by Chaus is final and unchanged.

Chaus: “Well, what can you do?” giving Diana a sheet of paper and a pen.

Diana: “What can I do? Should I write it?”

Chaus replies, “Yes, yes. Briefly, without talking so that I don’t hear it.”

Diana Polishchuk wrote 50,000, to which Chaus replied: “Well, okay. Let’s try. We’ll try…”

Chaus also suggested an algorithm for transferring the bribe.

Chaus: “I told you that you would take the case file to get acquainted, and I will adopt resolutions then…”

Diana Polishchuk: “That is, I come to you and say: I…”

Chaus: “No, your mother comes with that one, and takes the case file to get acquainted.”

Diana Polishchuk: “Oh, so it’s mom who should come, isn’t it?”

Chaus: “Yes, she takes the case file to get acquainted…”

Diana Polishchuk: “Yes.” 

Chaus: “No lawyer, nothing. Then you will get acquainted, I will come, take the case file and go — and that’s all.”

Diana Polishchuk: “Wait, should the whole amount be in the file?”

Chaus: “Yeah, but don’t talk about the amount.”

Within a few days, Chaus said that he could not help with anything because he was not given permission by the court leadership, and that he had certain problems in court.

In particular, Chaus said: “That is, I tried to communicate with the leadership, but no one is listening to me, I will not be able to help in any situation, that is, let your lawyer, she worked here, she knows them all…,” “Well, I understood that after all these events, they want to get rid of me because I am in their way,” “Well, I just, I can’t, I can’t do anything in this situation, let her communicate with this, with the leadership, maybe she…”

To which Diana Polishchuk asked: “Wait, what is she in for? Can you tell me openly?”

Chaus replied, “Well, let’s listen for now.” 

Despite the fact that Chaus seemed to have abandoned previous agreements, that did not affect the commission of a crime — namely, soliciting a bribe. Therefore, the crime is completed from the moment of the demand to provide an unlawful benefit. 

The court also concludes that the detailed algorithm of actions proposed by Chaus fully exposes his criminal intent to receive a bribe and excludes the possibility of any other interpretation of the statements and actions of the accused. 

Thus, the HACC found it proved that Chaus had asked to provide him with an unlawful benefit on an especially large scale for imposing a suspended sentence (committing an act in the interests of a third party using their official position, a crime under Art. 368, part 4 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). 

The court also noted that, given the circumstances of the crime, the correct qualification of Chaus’s actions is soliciting an unlawful benefit on an especially large scale, and not extortion.  

Read the second part of Chaus. Trial Play in 2 Acts. Act 2: Was There Provocation? soon.

This publication was prepared with the financial support of the European Union. Its content is the sole responsibility of Transparency International Ukraine and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.