Former Deputy Prime Minister for Reconstruction, Oleksandr Kubrakov, became a whistleblower in a high-profile case. However, interrogated his only 8 months after filing the application, and his testimony actually turned out to be unnecessary in the process.
At the end of November 2023, NABU and SAPO reported the exposure of two people's deputies and an entrepreneur in one day. According to the investigation, they tried to bribe the then Vice Prime Minister for Reconstruction Oleksandr Kubrakov and the head of the Reconstruction Agency Mustafa Nayem. For the first time, the whistleblower was not just a statesman, but one of the heads of the government. Before Vice Prime Minister Kubrakov, the highest-ranking whistleblower was the head of the State Property Fund Dmytro Sennychenko, who eventually became a suspect.
When documents about whistleblowers were examined at the court hearing, the defense stated that former Deputy Prime Minister Kubrakov, nominated by the prosecution for VIP whistleblower status, was not a whistleblower at all.
It was noteworthy that the NABU detective sent a message to the NACP not within 24 hours of entering the relevant information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, as required by law, but almost 4 months later.
In addition, in the message, he did not indicate the beginning of a pre-trial investigation with the participation of a whistleblower - as provided for by law, but rather a "pre-trial investigation with the participation of a whistleblower", which is not the same thing in legal terms.
The Law "On Prevention of Corruption" clearly defines the characteristics of a whistleblower. In addition, as noted in the NACP's explanations, a whistleblower's report must comply with the principle of personal information - the information reported by the whistleblower to a law enforcement agency must come from his personal knowledge and not be known to the law enforcement agency from other sources.
In the event that at least one condition is not met, all that such a person can claim is to be a complainant. To some, the difference may seem insignificant, but the complainant will not receive his tenth of the amount of the exposed amount, unlike the whistleblower.
The thing is, it is reported that Kubrakov, who was called a whistleblower, was not actually the primary source of information about the alleged proposal to provide him with illegal remuneration. No one made such a proposal to him personally - therefore, he did not have reliable information. Although this did not prevent him from “sharing” such information with the director of NABU.
Kubrakov recounted in general terms the story that his subordinate allegedly told him. It was about the director of the department of state property management and economic planning of the Ministry of Infrastructure, O. Dotsenko. In turn, Dotsenko had turned to the same NABU detective Dogoyda the day before with a statement about the proposal allegedly made by the "investors" of LLC "Citygasservice" to provide Vice Prime Minister Kubrakov with an illegal benefit.
And in his report to the NACP, NABU senior detective Dogoyda called Kubrakov a whistleblower. Later, this status of Kubrakov was confirmed by SAPO prosecutor Elena Drobotova in the indictment, which she, together with Dogoyda, signed, approved and filed with the court with a proposal to pay the "whistleblower" Kubrakov 8,5 million from the state budget.
It is noted that the information he provided has no procedural value, and secondly, such information was already known to NABU and on its basis an investigation was initiated and was already underway, including secret investigative actions. This process involved almost 100 NABU detectives and a group of SAPO prosecutors.
The court session presented the position of the judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court, Candidate of Laws Vira Mykhailenko, which she expressed in a scientific publication entitled “Whistleblower in Criminal Proceedings: Gaps in Procedural Status”. In it, Vira Mykhailenko clearly states that in order for a person to be recognized as a whistleblower, the information reported by him must “not be known to the law enforcement agency from other sources”.
Indicative of Kubrakov's recognition as a whistleblower is the legal ignoring of his statement by NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors, as well as the procedural uselessness of his testimony, which they stated.
The "applicant-whistleblower Kubrakov O. M." himself was interrogated by NABU detectives only 8 months after he filed the application and a week before the completion of the pre-trial investigation in this case - on April 5, 2024.
Minister Kubrakov's statement was printed on the official letterhead of the Ministry of Community Development, Territories and Infrastructure of Ukraine. However, it does not contain the original registration number of the specified ministry and the date of registration of this document in the ministry.
Having filed a statement to NABU Director Kryvonos about an alleged offer of illegal benefit made to him, Kubrakov, contrary to the law, did not receive from NABU a document confirming the acceptance and registration of his statement, an extract from the ERDR, and information on the status of the pre-trial investigation that was supposed to begin based on his statement. At the same time, Dotsenko, having filed a statement with an ordinary NABU detective, was notified on the same day about the entry of information into the ERDR and the qualification of the offense.
Thank you for being with us! Monobank for the support of the ElitExpert editorial office.
