HACC Sentences Onyshchenko to 15 Years in Prison

After four years of hearing the odious gas case of Onyshchenko, the HACC delivered a long-awaited verdict to the key person involved — ex-MP, fugitive, Oleksandr Onyshchenko. In addition to him, Olena Pavlenko, Onyshchenko’s financial director, was also sentenced. Onyshchenko was sentenced to 15 years in prison with confiscation of all property, and his accomplice — to 12 years in prison with the same confiscation. 

What’s so interesting about this case, why we consider this verdict to be the most high-profile in 2024, and what future awaits the convicted Onyshchenko — read in the material.

Who is Onyshchenko? 

Oleksandr Onyshchenko is a former MP who was elected to the Parliament twice: first, from the Party of Regions, and later, from the People’s Will party. During his tenure, Onyshchenko held the posts of Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Fuel and Energy Complex, Nuclear Policy and Nuclear Safety.  

Onyshchenko got famous through his ties to Yanukovych’s entourage; later, he was talked about after the exposure of a large-scale corruption scheme organized by him to purchase gas from the state at cost price. This story is better known to us as the “Onyshchenko gas case.” 

In addition, the U.S. government associates him with the Russian network that tried to influence the U.S. presidential election in 2020, which is why the ex-MP was sanctioned in 2021. 

Let’s not forget that Onyshchenko is known for his passion for horses and equestrian sports. In 2008, he even established a national equestrian team and personally participated in competitions at the Olympic Games in China in 2008 and at the Olympics in London in 2012. However, Onyshchenko failed to achieve success in sports, but his love for horses remained. 

The role of Onyshchenko and Pavlenko in the “gas case” 

Onyshchenko was a key person involved in the gas frauds carried out in 2014-2016. It was he who organized a corrupt criminal scheme and controlled the entire chain of gas procurement from the state at low prices.  

The ex-MP for this purpose created a criminal organization, which included both persons from state-owned companies, in particular Ukrgasvydobuvannya, and representatives of exchanges and controlled private companies Nadra Geocenter LLC, Khas LLC, and Karpatnadrainvest LLC. The latter traded gas at artificially reduced prices. Control over their financial transactions was carried out by the convicted financial director Olena Pavlenko. 

The purchase of gas at reduced prices (almost at cost price) from the state and its sale through controlled exchanges to pre-determined companies caused losses to the state of more than UAH 740 million. The state lost another UAH 2 billion due to the allegedly groundless decision of Roman Nasirov, the ex-chairman of the State Fiscal Service, to restructure the tax debt for the use of subsoil for these three companies controlled by Onyshchenko. The trial of Roman Nasirov is still ongoing, but in a separate case, which is also monitored by TI Ukraine experts.

Which offenses were Onyshchenko and Olena Pavlenko charged with? 

The scale of the scheme forced the prosecution to qualify Onyshchenko’s actions under eight articles.

• Creation, management of a criminal organization, and participation therein (Article 255, part 1 of the Criminal Code)
• Organization of taking possession of other people’s property on an especially large scale by abuse of office by officials, committed by a criminal organization (Article 27, part 3; Article 28, part 4; Article 191, part 5) 
• Organization of forgery of documents submitted for state registration of legal entities, committed by a criminal organization (Article 27, part 3; Article 28, part 4; Article 205-1, part 2 of the Criminal Code).
• Organization of abuse of power by an official of a legal entity of private law, where it caused grave consequences, committed by a criminal organization (Article 27, part 3; Article 28, part 4; Article 364-1, part 2 of the Criminal Code).
• Organization of forgery in office, committed by a criminal organization (Article 27, part 3; Article 28, part 4; Article 366, part 2 of the Criminal Code).
• Organization of legalization (laundering) of property proceeding from crime committed by an organized group or in respect of a particularly large amount (Article 27, part 3; Article 28, part 4; Article 209, part 3 of the Criminal Code);
• Storing firearms without a permit required by law (Article 263, part 1 of the Criminal Code);
• Alienation of pledged property (Article 388, part 1 of the Criminal Code). 

Olena Pavlenko played the role of a participant in a criminal organization (Article 255, part 1 of the Criminal Code); a principal offender of embezzlement of funds (Article 27, part 2; Article 28, part 4; Article 191, part 5), forgery of documents submitted for state registration of legal entities (Article 27, part 2; Article 28, part 4; Article 205-1, part 2), and legalization (laundering) of property proceeding from crime in respect of a particularly large amount (Article 27, part 2; Article 28, part 4; Article 209, part 3 of the Criminal Code).

Proceedings in court

The case is so large-scale that, overall, the NABU established the involvement of as many as 29 people in the corruption scheme. Of these, 18 defendants are tried in the HACC, and the other 11 have already been convicted, including on the basis of plea agreements. 

Among the persons involved in the scheme, three organizers played key roles: former MP Oleksandr Onyshchenko together with his mother Inesa Kadyrova (the case continues to be heard separately after the death of the accused) and the coordinator of these companies Valerii Postnyi. 

In addition, a significant role in the implementation of the plan was played by the ex-chairman of the SFS Roman Nasirov, who allegedly allowed the restructuring of the tax debt for the use of subsoil, as well as Olena Pavlenko, convicted today. 

In the winter of 2019, the NABU and the SAPO transferred the indictment against Onyshchenko and Pavlenko first to the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv, but the case could not be fully heard in the court and it was transferred almost immediately to the High Anti-Corruption Court in terms of the jurisdiction. 

While the HACC was hearing the case from October 17, 2019, to November 14, 2023, about 350 volumes of materials of criminal proceedings were studied, as well as 43 witnesses and 5 experts were interrogated.  

Ultimately, the prosecutor asked that Oleksandr Onyshchenko be sentenced to 15 years in prison with confiscation of all property—the most severe punishment for the crimes he was charged with. For Olena Pavlenko, the prosecution asked for a little less — 12 years with confiscation of property. 

In addition, the prosecution asked to grant the civil claim of PJSC Ukrgasvydobuvannya and collect UAH 740 million from the accused to compensate for the damage.

What did the HACC sentence Onyshchenko and Pavlenko to? 

On April 5, the HACC sentenced Onyshchenko and Pavlenko to a real term. The judges sentenced the ex-MP to 15 years in prison with a fine of UAH 15,300, confiscation of all property and deprivation of the right to hold positions and engage in entrepreneurial activities for 3 years. In addition, Onyshchenko’s land plots, car, corporate rights, funds on accounts (including in Russia), weapons, and jewelry were confiscated. 

Onyshchenko’s accomplice, financial manager Pavlenko, was sentenced to 12 years in prison with the deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for 3 years and confiscation of all property. 

The HACC also partially granted the civil claim of PJSC Ukrgasvydobuvannya, the victim of the offense, and obliged the accomplices to pay UAH 536 million to the company solidarily. 

The HACC imposed a special confiscation of the corporate rights of the companies involved, as well as funds. 

To enforce the sentence in terms of confiscation, the court seized part of the property of Onyshchenko and Pavlenko.

Will Onyshchenko’s sentence be enforced? 

Currently, Onyshchenko is not on the international wanted list. Back in 2017, Interpol refused to declare him wanted. Onyshchenko himself claimed a political motive for the persecution. Therefore, since 2016, he has been wanted only on the territory of Ukraine. Subsequently, the former MP was found hiding in Spain and Germany, where he acquired real estate. 

At the request of the NABU in May 2020, the Supreme Land Court of Oldenburg was to decide on his extradition. However, the German court refused to do so, as it believed that the minimum standards of international law regarding the conditions of detention in prisons would not be met. 

This did not prevent the progress of the case in the HACC because the court heard it in absentia. However, this approach will definitely complicate the enforcement of the sentence against Onyshchenko in terms of serving the sentence. The accused Pavlenko is in a similar situation. She has been wanted since June 5, 2017. 

To overcome such an obstacle, the Ukrainian authorities can go two ways: 

1. ask Germany to extradite the convict;
2. ask Germany to enforce the sentence on its territory (in case of refusal of extradition). 

Another problem that the authorities may face is the confiscation of the ex-MP’s property, both in Ukraine and abroad, since there are no guarantees that the executive service will be able to trace all the property of Onyshchenko in Ukraine, and foreign holding states, for their part, may refuse to return it under the sentence.  

The court has repeatedly seized Onyshchenko’s assets abroad, potentially legalized from these crimes. Here we can mention the seizure of the stables of Gut Einhaus Liegenschafts GmbH in Germany, which the ex-MP allegedly tried to hide from justice through intermediary companies. But this in no way guarantees their successful return to Ukraine. 

Similar concealment frauds were carried out with EUR 500,000, which in September 2019 was transferred from Onyshchenko’s account in the Russian VTB Bank to Estonia for the purchase and sale of an Oak Groves Laith horse. However, neither the purpose of the funds nor their origin was known. Therefore, the Estonian financial intelligence froze them and handed over the data to Ukrainian law enforcement officers, who initiated the seizure. Later, we found out that the company was not aware of the possible criminal origin of the funds at all, so the seizure imposed for the purpose of confiscation was groundless. 

Despite this, it should be borne in mind that the sentence has not yet entered into force, and the potential appeal proceedings may take a lot of time. Therefore, we will closely monitor all hearings of the HACC Appeals Chamber.