![](https://ti-ukraine.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/aaron-burden-o-ubWHV29Uk-unsplash.jpg)
![](https://ti-ukraine.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/aaron-burden-o-ubWHV29Uk-unsplash.jpg)
9 candidates for the post of the SAPO head sent Transparency International Ukraine, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, the DEJURE Foundation, and Automaidan additional explanations on questions which raised reasonable doubts about their integrity. In particular, we are talking about Oleksii Heiko, Viktor Kutsyi, Andrii Syniuk, Volodymyr Hulkevych, Maksym Hryshchuk, Andrii Kasian, Oleh Borysenko, Oleksandr Formahei, and Oleksii Semeniuk.
Experts of civic organizations have analyzed the information provided by candidates. The publication provides explanations of what candidates sent to our official email addresses and the conclusions of analysts regarding them. Five candidates gave full consent to the publication of their explanations.
You can find the analysis of the explanations of the candidates Oleh Borysenko, Oleksandr Formahei, and Oleksii Semeniuk below.
Oleh Borysenko, senior detective and deputy head of the NABU detective department
You can get acquainted with the candidate’s explanations here.
- Possible abuse of official position
The candidate is involved in abuse during defense procurement. In particular, in 2017, he agreed and signed the NABU’s response to the Ukroboronprom State Concern with false information that one of the suppliers of TOV Optimumspetsdetal allegedly did not appear in the list of companies with signs of fictitiousness. In this regard, the Disciplinary Commission found a violation in Borysenko’s actions, but he was not subject to disciplinary action due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate referred to the results of passing the polygraph. According to him, the polygraph expert found that Borysenko gave truthful testimony about his non-involvement in the situation around the Ukroboronprom State Concern.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate did not provide the polygraph examiner’s report for review. In addition, polygraph is not a reliable scientific method for determining the truthfulness of testimony — it can only record the level of anxiety of the person answering the question. The coverage of the fact of the candidate’s appearance was based on NABU’s official report on the results of the internal investigation, including in relation to the candidate. According to publicly available information, such an investigation established the facts of violations, but due to the statute of limitations, the candidate was not held responsible.
- Possible inconsistency between income and lifestyle
The sources of the candidate’s cash savings — USD 300,000, declared in 2015, are unclear. After all, in 2007-2013, he worked as an investigator in the prosecutor’s office, then as a lawyer in a private company, then stopped for half a year to work as the first deputy director general in the Spetsservice State Enterprise of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in 2014. In 2015, for almost a year of working as a lawyer, the candidate declared a salary of UAH 13,000.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate provided documents confirming that in 2007 he sold a 3-room apartment in the Pechersk District of Kyiv, which in 2000 he received as a gift from his father.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate’s explanations are sufficient.
- Possible improper declaration
- Since 2016, the property rights to a residential building and apartment that he indicated in the declaration for the previous year have disappeared from the candidate’s declarations. And in 2015, his paper declaration did not include ownership of half of the apartment in Shpola, Cherkasy oblast, which appeared in the electronic declaration of the same year. In the paper declaration for 2015, the candidate declared that he owned two apartments with an area of 104.9 and 58.2 sq. m. In the electronic declaration for the same year, the candidate indicates that he owns apartments with an area of 104.9 and 74 sq. m.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate claims that he indicated all the information in the electronic declaration for 2016 and the paper declaration for 2015. The candidate informs that he did not declare the house with an area of 93 sq.m. in Shpola, Cherkasy oblast, in the electronic declarations because it belongs to his father and his father’s wife. As far as the information about apartments with an area of 58.2 sq. m and 74 sq. m is concerned, the candidate claims that this is the same apartment, in the second case with an attached vestibule.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate did not have an obligation to declare the house in Shpola in the paper declaration for 2015, since the obligation to declare applies only to the property of family members, and not to the property of any relatives or third parties. Regarding the inconsistency in the area of apartments: since both the property and paper declaration were submitted by the candidate after the end of 2015, the area of the same apartment could not be different at the end of the same 2015.
- In 2016, the candidate indicated that his wife owned a 2016 Audi Q5 car, the cost of which is unknown to him. And in another section of the same declaration, he indicated the purchase of a vehicle for almost UAH 1.3 mln. In further declarations, the candidate continues failing to indicate the cost of his wife’s car.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate denies this fact. He claims that the cost of the Audi Q5 car is reflected in clause 14 “Expenses and transactions of the declaration entity” of the declaration for 2016.
Analyst’s comment: the cost of the car is indeed indicated in clause 14 of the declaration for 2016. However, the candidate did not indicate the cost in clause 6 of the same declaration, stating that he did not know how much it cost. In addition, the candidate did not indicate the cost of the car in the following years. Thus, the candidate did not refute the information provided.
- In 2016, the candidate notes that his wife received income from the alienation of movable property (other than securities or corporate rights) in the amount of UAH 1.2 mln, without specifying the sources of this income. At the same time, compared to the declaration for 2015, the number of cars in the candidate’s family increased from two to four.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate points out that in 2016 he got married, and therefore the number of cars in the family increased at the expense of his wife’s two cars, and the source of origin of funds concerns the wife.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate really got married, so, increasing the number of cars is logical and corresponds to the declaration data. As for the failure to indicate the source of income from the sale of movable property, this information has not been refuted.
- A residential building and two land plots in the village of Matusiv, Shpolyanskyi district of Cherkasy region, disappeared from the declaration for 2018. In the same year, the income from the alienation of movable and immovable property of the candidate and his wife was improperly declared.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate denies improper declaration in 2018.
Analyst’s comment: alienation of immovable and movable property was declared, but the source of income was incorrectly indicated — the buyer should have been indicated, not the candidate’s wife.
Oleksandr Formahei, head of the compliance service of PrAT Ukrhydroenerho
You can get acquainted with the candidate’s explanations here.
- Possible improper declaration
- In 2019-2020, the candidate did not declare any rights of ownership or use of real estate in Pavlohrad where, according to the Ukrainian National Bar Association, he carries out legal activity. In addition, his membership in the UNBA disappeared from the declarations for 2018-2019.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate claims that in 2018 he stopped his legal activity and in 2018-2020 did not practice law. In 2020, he submitted an application to the state tax service to terminate his legal activity (a photo attached) with a request to cancel registration at this address. According to the candidate, the state tax service violates the law, since it has not yet removed him from the register.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate’s explanations are sufficient.
- Until 2019, he did not declare the cost of his wife’s car.
Candidate’s explanation: when declaring in 2017-2018, he couldn’t find the primary documents for the car. In 2019, he declared the cost calculated at the dollar exchange rate at the time of purchase.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate’s explanations do not refute the information provided. However, given the following publication of the car cost, we can agree with the lack of intent to hide the price.
- In the declaration for 2020, the candidate indicated that his wife acquired ownership of a land plot of 447 sq. m. near Kyiv for collective gardening, without indicating its cost.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate provided documentary evidence that his wife inherited this land plot. Its price was not reflected in the documents.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate’s explanations are sufficient.
- In 2020, the candidate declared UAH 380,000, a gift from his father for the purchase of an apartment. Whether parents’ incomes allow them to make such gifts is unknown.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate provided copies of receipts confirming the father’s purchase of dollars in different years.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate’s explanations are sufficient.
- In 2020, the wife’s father gave his wife an apartment worth UAH 1.2 mln. Whether father’s incomes allow him to make such gifts is unknown.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate explained that the wife’s father, being seriously ill, gave the apartment to the candidate’s wife a few weeks before his death. The apartment itself was acquired by the father of the candidate’s wife in 1991.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate’s explanations are sufficient.
- In 2018-2019, the candidate was a member of the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission, and in 2018 he voted for the resolution that actually re-approved the Rotterdam+ formula for 2019. This is one of the decisions of the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission, which are the subject of the NABU investigation in the so-called Rotterdam+ case. According to the NABU, this formula caused at least UAH 39 bln losses.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate explained that it was the composition of the NEURC in which he worked that suspended the formula that caused a public outcry.
Analyst’s comment: questions regarding the approval of the so-called Rotterdam+ formula remain relevant, since the candidate did re-approve the indicated formula for 2019, despite the existence of the NABU investigation and other facts that called into question its expediency. Indeed, the candidate voted for the abolition of the formula in the future, but such cancellation was a forced step of the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission due to the fact that on July 1, 2019, a new electricity market was launched in Ukraine in accordance with the law “On Electricity Market.”
Oleksii Semeniuk, prosecutor of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor’s office
You can get acquainted with the candidate’s explanations here.
- Possible improper declaration
- In 2018, the candidate declared USD 7,500 lent to unspecified third parties. At the same time, there is such a record both for the candidate and for his wife, so, it is not clear whether we are talking about USD 7,500 or 15,000 of loan. In the declaration for 2019 there is nothing about the loan, that is, it could have been repaid, but this is not reflected in the Income section.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate claims that the third person was his father-in-law, and this amount belonged equally to the candidate and his wife. The candidate notes that he did not lend money to his father-in-law, but kept it with him for security reasons.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate’s explanations are sufficient.
- The declaration for 2019-2020 does not include data on the right to use real estate that the candidate’s wife uses for legal activity (data from the Unified Register of Advocates). Her income from professional activities is also doubtfully low: UAH 2,000 in 2019 and UAH 11,500 in 2020.
Candidate’s explanation: the wife did not use any premises while practicing law, and the address indicated in the profile of the candidate’s wife in the Unified Register of Advocates of Ukraine until November 2019 is the address of the Bar Council of Zaporizhzhia oblast, where the candidate’s wife received a certificate of the right to practice law in August 2019. Since the wife has received a certificate of the right to practice law recently, she devoted more time to professional development which affected the level of income.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate’s explanations about the premises absolve the question. As for the wife’s income, this explanation is acceptable, although it is impossible to verify.
- Possible inconsistency between income and lifestyle
- The candidate uses a 2008 Toyota Land Cruiser Prado which the candidate’s wife bought from her father in 2020. The candidate decided not to indicate the cost of the car. According to the website of the Ministry of Economy, now its average market value is UAH 320,250. There are questions about whether the father had the opportunity to buy this car.
Candidate’s explanation: the candidate’s wife inherited the car, but the property was not evaluated. The candidate notes that the car was purchased by the father-in-law at the expense of wages, bonuses, pension payments and savings, recourse payments and bonuses received during his work in the Pavlohradcoal Association (the city of Pavlohrad, Dnipropetrovsk region) in various positions, starting from 1979, as well as money received from the sale of other property belonging to him.
Analyst’s comment: the candidate’s explanations are convincing, although he did not provide documentary evidence of the origin of his father-in-law’s funds which requires additional verification during the interview.