Martynenko + HACC = 4 Unforgettable Years Together

At the end of October 2019, the HACC consolidated two cases against the odious ex-MP Mykola Martynenko and his accomplices. The very proceedings were transferred to the Anti-Corruption Court in early autumn 2019.  

From then until 2022, the HACC considered Martynenko’s alleged crimes in one proceeding. Until it separated them due to systematic and allegedly concerted abuse of rights and stalling on the part of defense representatives.

This led to a delay in consideration by the HACC for up to 4 years, and before that, it had also been heard in the Shevchenkivskyi District Court for almost a year. 

Find out in the material why Martynenko is tried, how the behavior of the defense has changed since the beginning of the HACC proceedings, and why the court is not yet close to the verdict.

What did Martynenko do wrong?

For the first time, the alleged crimes of Martynenko in Ukraine were actively discussed in 2015. The Kyiv Post then published an exclusive story: lawmakers claim that the Ukrainian authorities are protecting the influential Martynenko, who was then deputy chairman of the People’s Front faction, from Swiss law enforcement officers. 

The Swiss prosecutor’s office suspected Martynenko of receiving a bribe of USD 30 mln, in particular from representatives of Skoda JS, for concluding a contract to maintain nuclear reactors in Ukraine in 2013. This is a Czech nuclear engineering company that is part of the Kremlin-controlled Russian engineering group OMZ. Martynenko himself then headed the Fuel and Energy Committee of the Rada. 

Swiss law enforcement officers had conducted the investigation since 2013, when they turned to Ukraine for help. However, the then Prosecutor General Shokin said that no requests were received. Martynenko, of course, rejected all the allegations. 

The Ukrainian investigation into the actions of Martynenko and other accomplices began in December 2015. This was one of the first really high-profile cases of the NABU since its inception. 

During the investigation, the detectives collected a huge array of evidence, including hundreds of volumes on the case. The evidence relates to a criminal scheme allegedly organized by Martynenko in two episodes: the seizure of funds of SE NNEGC Energoatom and SE SkhidGZK. 

In the first episode, Martynenko allegedly might have seized EUR 6.4 mln in 2009–2012, increasing the prices of tender bids for the purchase of equipment for Ukrainian nuclear power plants from Skoda JS. As a result, Energoatom overpaid this company EUR 6.4 mln, which was then transferred to the accounts of the Panamanian company Bradcrest Investment S.A., controlled by Martynenko and laundered under the guise of payment for services. 

The investigation also believes that in 2013–2016, SE SkhidGZK purchased uranium oxide concentrate in Kazakhstan through the Austrian company Steuermann, controlled by Mykola Martynenko and Ruslan Zhurylo (at that time Deputy Director of SE SkhidGZK). Thus, more than USD 17 mln was embezzled. The procurement transaction was carried out although the state-owned enterprise should have ensured the extraction of this raw material in Ukraine. 

According to the results of the investigation in this case, in addition to Martynenko himself, there were 7 other persons involved: Oleksandr Sorokin, Director of SkhidGZK, and his deputies Ruslan Zhurylo and Volodymyr Bohdanets; Valerii Vasylkov, Director of Energoatom; Volodymyr Sviatnenko, director of a separated subdivision; Serhii Pereloma, Deputy Head of Naftogaz; Pavlo Skalenko, representative of a fictitious company. 

History of the HACC hearing

The pre-trial investigation lasted three years, and the indictment against Martynenko got to the Shevchenkivskyi court only on May 22, 2018. This high-profile case was heard for more than a year, and it happened rapidly.  

In the first half of the year, judges considered half of more than 200 volumes, and SAPO prosecutors would bring the materials to the meetings in boxes. The court would appoint meetings almost every week, including the volumes one by one, and the defense, in turn, commented on them surprisingly quickly. However, such quick work could hardly indicate the desire of both parties to reach a fair verdict sooner. 

According to one version, the “turbo mode” was on because the beginning of the operation of the High Anti-Corruption Court, created in February 2019, was looming on the horizon. There were high hopes for the quality of its justice; it was its jurisdiction that was supposed to cover Martynenko’s case.  

However, despite the frantic pace, the case did manage to get to the HACC on October 2, 2019. The next day, the case materials were transferred and the composition of the judges was determined, and on October 24, they were consolidated with materials on the accused Skalenko and Sviatnenko. At the time of detention, both were wanted. 

According to the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code, the transfer of the case to another court undoubtedly means that it will be heard from the beginning, so all the “progress” achieved in more than a year by the Shevchenkivskyi court was lost. 

It is not surprising that after the beginning of the proceedings in the HACC, the defense radically changed its behavior and tried to stall the process in every possible way. It got to the point that judges Fedorak, Strohyi, and Maslov, who are considering the case of seizure of funds of SE NNEGC Energoatom and SE SkhidGZK, were forced to submit a notice of interference by defenders in the activities of judges to the Office of the Prosecutor General and the High Council of Justice twice, in 2020 and 2021. 

In particular, the last report referred to the systematic absenteeism of defense lawyers without valid reasons, violation of order in the courtroom, unreasonable recusals, submission of reports on the commission of crimes by judges, and even a threat to file a lawsuit against judges for the protection of honor and dignity. 

By the way, in this case, the HACC appointed free lawyers to the defendants 13 (!) times; often, this was due to the constant and probably coordinated actions of refusing previous lawyers. 

Interestingly, one of the defendants — Ruslan Zhurylo, Deputy Director of SkhidGZK, got mobilized into the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in March this year. Because of this, the court separated and suspended the proceedings against him. By the way, the same was done in a separate case of abuse at JSC UMCC, where Zhurylo, together with his deputy Yurii Pertsev, is accused of causing UAH 300 mln in losses to the state-owned enterprise by selling titanium-containing ores at low prices through intermediaries. 

The actions of the defense caused an irreparable delay with the final decision for as long as 4 years, and the study of more than 300 volumes of the consolidated case and the interrogation of numerous witnesses, which is still ongoing, raises the question of when the case will finally come to an end. 

Now the HACC is trying to accelerate the process of consideration to comply with the reasonable terms of the trial. To this end, two episodes were separated in the case last year: the embezzlement at SE Energoatom and SE SkhidGZK. 

But regardless of what pace the panel of judges tries to set, the cases against Martynenko and his accomplices are still at the stage of examining the evidence. There is still a long way to go to the verdict because it is preceded by the debate of the parties and the last word of the accused; the law expressly prohibits interrupting or hurrying the participants in the process at these stages. 

We at Transparency International Ukraine expect constructive consideration of the case and good behavior from its parties. We hope that the case will not mark its fifth anniversary. 

Following the process and evaluating it further will be possible at the next hearing in November, after the panel of judges decides on the verdict to ex-MP Oleksandr Onyshchenko and Olena Pavlenko, his “financial director,” in the high-profile “gas case.”