On August 5, 2020, Oleg Tatarov was appointed to the position of deputy head of the Office of the President by the President of Ukraine.
According to the official statement of the Office of the President: "The competence of Oleg Tatarov will include the development of state policy in the field of law enforcement, expert and analytical support of work of the Office of the President of Ukraine, ensuring national security guarantees in law enforcement, anti-corruption and protection of human rights spheres".
His appointment caused public outrage, as during the Revolution of Dignity Tatarov had publicly justified acts of violence by law enforcment officers against journalists and activists.
At that time (from 2011 until escape of the President Yanukovych from Ukraine) he worked as deputy head of the Main Investigation Department of the Ministry of the Internal Affairs (MIA), key law enforcement agency that brutally and illegally persecuted protesters. Tatarov publicly commented on events of the Revolution of Dignity, justified apparently illegal actions of the law enforcemebt officers, and informed the public about inaccurate facts about fights between security officers and protesters.
After his dismissal from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Oleg Tatarov worked in the private sector as a lawyer and attorney. Public data indicates active use of his contacts, gained during years of work in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, with dishonest intentions and for the purpose of committing acts of corruption.
After appointment of Oleg Tatarov to the Office of the President of Volodymyr Zelenskyi, the investigation was launched: in 2020, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) charged him with complicity in the committing of a corruption offence. However, he took advantage of his influence in the OP and managed to block the investigation.
Despite these facts, President Zelenskyi did not dismiss Tatarov. The official of Yanukovych-era continued to work in the Office of the President and remained responsible for managing the so-called "law enforcement" unit. In particular, according to journalists and activists, it was Tatarov acting on behaf of the Office of the President, who became the "curator" of the Selection Commission for selection of the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office. Despite the fact that this department was investigating the case against him. During the competition, part of the commission controlled by Tatarov tried to promote people close to the Office of the President to the position of the head of SAPO. When it failed, this part of the commission artificially disrupted and delayed the competition process.
Tatarov is also known for his close connections with Andriy Portnov, former Member of Parliament during presidency of Viktor Yanukovych. The US government imposed sanctions on Portnov for establishing extensive control over the judiciary and law enforcement agencies of Ukraine through bribery.
According to the official statement of the Office of the President: "The competence of Oleg Tatarov will include the development of state policy in the field of law enforcement, expert and analytical support of work of the Office of the President of Ukraine, ensuring national security guarantees in law enforcement, anti-corruption and protection of human rights spheres".
His appointment caused public outrage, as during the Revolution of Dignity Tatarov had publicly justified acts of violence by law enforcment officers against journalists and activists.
At that time (from 2011 until escape of the President Yanukovych from Ukraine) he worked as deputy head of the Main Investigation Department of the Ministry of the Internal Affairs (MIA), key law enforcement agency that brutally and illegally persecuted protesters. Tatarov publicly commented on events of the Revolution of Dignity, justified apparently illegal actions of the law enforcemebt officers, and informed the public about inaccurate facts about fights between security officers and protesters.
After his dismissal from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Oleg Tatarov worked in the private sector as a lawyer and attorney. Public data indicates active use of his contacts, gained during years of work in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, with dishonest intentions and for the purpose of committing acts of corruption.
After appointment of Oleg Tatarov to the Office of the President of Volodymyr Zelenskyi, the investigation was launched: in 2020, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) charged him with complicity in the committing of a corruption offence. However, he took advantage of his influence in the OP and managed to block the investigation.
Despite these facts, President Zelenskyi did not dismiss Tatarov. The official of Yanukovych-era continued to work in the Office of the President and remained responsible for managing the so-called "law enforcement" unit. In particular, according to journalists and activists, it was Tatarov acting on behaf of the Office of the President, who became the "curator" of the Selection Commission for selection of the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office. Despite the fact that this department was investigating the case against him. During the competition, part of the commission controlled by Tatarov tried to promote people close to the Office of the President to the position of the head of SAPO. When it failed, this part of the commission artificially disrupted and delayed the competition process.
Tatarov is also known for his close connections with Andriy Portnov, former Member of Parliament during presidency of Viktor Yanukovych. The US government imposed sanctions on Portnov for establishing extensive control over the judiciary and law enforcement agencies of Ukraine through bribery.
The career during Yanukovych's presidency and the role of Tatarov during events of the Revolution of Dignity
Oleg Tatarov served in the law enforcement agencies from 1999 until 2014. In 2011, he was appointed to the position of deputy head of the Main Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In fact, he was responsible for investigating crimes committed by the law enforcement officers.
However, during the Revolution of Dignity Tatarov repeatedly publicly commented on events on the Maydan, often manipulated facts, hid them, and defended the illegal behaviour of law enforcemebt officers.
However, during the Revolution of Dignity Tatarov repeatedly publicly commented on events on the Maydan, often manipulated facts, hid them, and defended the illegal behaviour of law enforcemebt officers.
For instance, Tatarov stated that:
the attempt to disperse the Maydan on the night of December 11, 2013
"In order not to disrupt the normal way of life, not to interfere with traffic, the police conducted operation to execute the court decision at night… without the use of force and special means ...".
In fact, more than 5,000 people from riot police and "Berkut" unit were sent to disperse protesters on that night. The storming of the Maydan lasted several hours, and several dozen of protesters were injured. Law enforcement officers used smoke grenades, tear gas. In the morning after the assault they poured people the water jet at the temperature of -10 C.
In fact, more than 5,000 people from riot police and "Berkut" unit were sent to disperse protesters on that night. The storming of the Maydan lasted several hours, and several dozen of protesters were injured. Law enforcement officers used smoke grenades, tear gas. In the morning after the assault they poured people the water jet at the temperature of -10 C.
killings of protesters on Hrushevskogo street on January 22, 2014
"Ammunition that inflicted bodily harm on all three citizens is not used by law enforcement agencies and is not in use… there is no such ammunition".
Back in December 2014, Nashi Groshi wrote that bullets used to kill protesters Zhyznevskyi and Senik were in use by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Moreover, it was impossible to buy them freely, and they were used exclusively by law enforcemebt officers. These was special ammunition for stopping cars by ripping the engine block. Similarly, in 2018, investigators of the Special Investigation Department of the PGO revoked Tatarov's arguments.
Back in December 2014, Nashi Groshi wrote that bullets used to kill protesters Zhyznevskyi and Senik were in use by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Moreover, it was impossible to buy them freely, and they were used exclusively by law enforcemebt officers. These was special ammunition for stopping cars by ripping the engine block. Similarly, in 2018, investigators of the Special Investigation Department of the PGO revoked Tatarov's arguments.
protesters themselves were shot in the back of the head
"About 300 firearms were stolen… the police officers do not use firearms… some of the dead persons were wounded in the back of the head, which makes it possible to state that shots were fired by people who were among protesters".
In fact, then the security officers used Fort-500 rifles, which can be designated as firearms without any additional modifications. Only ammunition is needed. Also, you can shoot bullets from this gun to stop the vehicle as described above. During investigation of the PGO two years later, Sergiy Horbatyuk commented that in addition to Fort 500 the security officers later used Kalashnikov assault rifles and sniper rifles. The falsity of Oleg Tatarov's comments is confirmed by evidence collected in the course of criminal proceedings and evidence gathered during the further investigation of events of the Revolution of Dignity.
In fact, then the security officers used Fort-500 rifles, which can be designated as firearms without any additional modifications. Only ammunition is needed. Also, you can shoot bullets from this gun to stop the vehicle as described above. During investigation of the PGO two years later, Sergiy Horbatyuk commented that in addition to Fort 500 the security officers later used Kalashnikov assault rifles and sniper rifles. The falsity of Oleg Tatarov's comments is confirmed by evidence collected in the course of criminal proceedings and evidence gathered during the further investigation of events of the Revolution of Dignity.
dictatorship laws as of January 16
"Provisions on the introduction of issues regarding absentee proceeding in the wording of the "laws as of January 16" contained many positive aspects that are not taken into account in current legislation".
This package of laws was adopted by the Parliament in the midst of the Revolution of Dignity on January 16, 2014 in gross violation of the rules of procedure. They were adopted by show of hands without the use of the digital voting system "Rada" and without discussion, and their texts became available only after Members of Parliament voted for them. According to most experts, these laws restricted rights of citizens, gave public authorities freedom of action to punish protesters, and aimed to criminalize the opposition and civil society.
This package of laws was adopted by the Parliament in the midst of the Revolution of Dignity on January 16, 2014 in gross violation of the rules of procedure. They were adopted by show of hands without the use of the digital voting system "Rada" and without discussion, and their texts became available only after Members of Parliament voted for them. According to most experts, these laws restricted rights of citizens, gave public authorities freedom of action to punish protesters, and aimed to criminalize the opposition and civil society.
During events on the Maydan Tatarov tried to protect apparently illegal actions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. His statements were immediately refuted by activists and journalists, and later by the official investigation of the PGO. More Tatarov's false statements about events of the Revolution of Dignity were made public by the Advocacy Advisory Group (community of lawyers who defend wounded or killed protesters and their relatives in trials).
After the escape of Yanukovych, Tatarov was dismissed from the Ministry of Internal Affairs allegedly on his own will. However, in fall 2015, he submitted the lawsuit to scandalous Kyiv District Administrative Court (KDAC) with the demand of cancellation of his dismissal order and stated that he had not filed the respective report. Finally, in December 2016, the KDAC satisfied Tatarov's lawsuit.
At the same time, the tape-recordings of conversations of the head of the KDAC Pavlo Vovk, published by journalists, indicate the existence of close connections and coordination of certain decisions of the KDAC with Andriy Portnov, who has close relations with Oleg Tatarov.
After the escape of Yanukovych, Tatarov was dismissed from the Ministry of Internal Affairs allegedly on his own will. However, in fall 2015, he submitted the lawsuit to scandalous Kyiv District Administrative Court (KDAC) with the demand of cancellation of his dismissal order and stated that he had not filed the respective report. Finally, in December 2016, the KDAC satisfied Tatarov's lawsuit.
At the same time, the tape-recordings of conversations of the head of the KDAC Pavlo Vovk, published by journalists, indicate the existence of close connections and coordination of certain decisions of the KDAC with Andriy Portnov, who has close relations with Oleg Tatarov.
Connections with Portnov and legal activities
While he worked in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Tatarov began to closely work with Andriy Portnov ( then deputy head of Yanukovych's Presidential Administration). Tatarov was member of several working groups in the Ministry of Internal Affairs that brought together experts from various state agencies and external experts, including:
- interdepartmental working group on analysis of the state of observance of the legislation on freedom of speech and protection of rights of journalists. At meetings of working groups, Tatarov persuaded participants regarding the effectiveness of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in investigating cases related to attacks on journalists, while ignoring a significant number of statements about obstructing the work of journalists.
- development of the draft of the Criminal Procedure Code (the group was created by former head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Anatoliy Mogylyov). According to then head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vasyl Farynnyk, Tatarov was "the main working horse".
Tatarov has been practicing law since 2015. He worked at the Legal Corporation Credence LLC and Law Firm Credence and was managing partner of these law firms. The founder of the law firm is Vasyl Farynnyk. He is also former high-ranking official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (head of the Main Investigation Department, deputy Minister). The firm itself was informally called "Portnov's lawyers". Management of the law firm and its lawyers are mostly former employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Andriy Portnov has been one of the key clients of the law community, including the period when Oleg Tatarov worked there.
- interdepartmental working group on analysis of the state of observance of the legislation on freedom of speech and protection of rights of journalists. At meetings of working groups, Tatarov persuaded participants regarding the effectiveness of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in investigating cases related to attacks on journalists, while ignoring a significant number of statements about obstructing the work of journalists.
- development of the draft of the Criminal Procedure Code (the group was created by former head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Anatoliy Mogylyov). According to then head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vasyl Farynnyk, Tatarov was "the main working horse".
Tatarov has been practicing law since 2015. He worked at the Legal Corporation Credence LLC and Law Firm Credence and was managing partner of these law firms. The founder of the law firm is Vasyl Farynnyk. He is also former high-ranking official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (head of the Main Investigation Department, deputy Minister). The firm itself was informally called "Portnov's lawyers". Management of the law firm and its lawyers are mostly former employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Andriy Portnov has been one of the key clients of the law community, including the period when Oleg Tatarov worked there.
During his work as the attorney, Oleg Tatarov represented interests of:
many suspects in the falsification of criminal proceedings against participants of the Revolution of Dignity - investigators and prosecutors.
Andriy Portnov n criminal proceedings related to seizure of power by Viktor Yanukovych, treason in connection with assistance of the Russian Federation in annexation of Crimea and the number of others. At the same time, the prosecutor Oleksandr Bozhko, who was investigating one of proceedings regarding Andriy Portnov, repeatedly complained about threats from Portnov and Tatarov. It is important that later the prosecutor Bozhko was candidate for the position of head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office. During the competition he did not pass the stage of interview for integrity because he was not supported by the required number of representatives of the parliamentary quota of the Selection Commission, who did not provide reasonable explanations for rejecting his candidacy. According to investigative journalists and activists, Oleg Tatarov was the informal curator of the competition.
oligarch and Member of Parliament Vadym Novynskyi in the case regarding the revolution in Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Ivan Kuznetsov's wife in the case of activist Sergiy Sternenko. Kuznetsov died from stab wounds in the fight with activist during a contractual attack the former commited. He demanded criminal charges for Sternenko and life imprisonment. At the same time, Andriy Portnov has repeatedly publicly stressed the need to sentence Serhiy Sternenko to life imprisonment. Demands to severely punish Sternenko were also voiced by the number of openly pro-Russian politicians, including Oleksandr Dubinskyi, Maksym Buzhanskyi, and Ilya Kyva.
former chairman of the Crimean Court of Appeal Valeriy Chornobuk, who was considered a Portnov's man. The investigators suspected him of treason. In 2014, he called on Crimean judges to accept Russian citizenship and serve justice under Russian legislation. In 2019, Tatarov managed to release Chornobuk from custody, and he returned to work in court. (For example, there are videos on the Internet according to which Chornobuk is present during official appoitment of Natalia Poklonskaya as the General Prosecutor of the occupied Crimea, she later became a member of the Russian State Duma represnting the pro-government party).
oligarch Rinat Akhmetov. Journalists managed to record how Oleg Tatarov accompanied the oligarch during interrogation at the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. Attorneys of Tatarov's law firm, which he led before working for the law firm, are also defending Rinat Akhmetov's DTEK managers in a criminal case over the so-called Rotterdam+ formula, which allegedly caused demages of approximately 40 billion UAH. After Tatarov's appointment to the Office of President, the SAPO prosecutors made several attempts to close the case. In 3 out of 4 attempts, such closures were found to be illegal and unjustified by the court and the higher prosecutor.
Journalist of Babel wrote more about Tatarov's other clients and legal practice.
Obviously, a lawyer or an attorney cannot be identified with his clients. However, in the case of Oleg Tatarov, it is noteworthy that in many cases he represented the interests of pro-Russian forces and agents as a lawyer. He also has systematically used personal connections in the Ministry of Internal Affairs during his works as a private lawyer and apparently uses his position in the Office of President to informally influence decisions of the law enforcement agencies. This is also confirmed by the facts of Tatarov's influence on the criminal proceedings in which he was charged by the NABU and the SAPO.
Obviously, a lawyer or an attorney cannot be identified with his clients. However, in the case of Oleg Tatarov, it is noteworthy that in many cases he represented the interests of pro-Russian forces and agents as a lawyer. He also has systematically used personal connections in the Ministry of Internal Affairs during his works as a private lawyer and apparently uses his position in the Office of President to informally influence decisions of the law enforcement agencies. This is also confirmed by the facts of Tatarov's influence on the criminal proceedings in which he was charged by the NABU and the SAPO.
Tatarov's corruption case: how he obstructed it using his position in the Office of President
In 2014-2017, Tatarov also worked in the legal department of the state construction company UkrBud. According to journalists, Oleg Tatarov is in fact a person who helped the company to solve problems and settle issues with the Ministry of Internal Affairs using corruption means, as a result of which UkrBud began to actively cooperate with Ministry after his appointment. In just two years, the Ministry of Internal Affairs became the largest customer of UkrBud, whose president from 2010 to 2016 was Maksym Mykytas.
“
Tatarov was then influential among the investigators of the Ministry of Internal Affairs because of his proximity to the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The connection remained after his dismissal. But he got a different status. For example, through a godfather, colleague and countryman Maksym Tsutskiridze, who remained in senior positions in the National Police, and a year ago became head of the Main Investigation Department of the National Police of Ukraine, which controls all investigators in the country. I think it was through him that Tatarov solved the most difficult issues, because within the system he was his closest person.
In this interview, Maksym Mykytas, who is also accused in the NABU criminal proceedings, has repeatedly confirmed the role of Oleg Tatarov as the company's mediator in resolving issues related to the company's activities through corruption.
The criminal proceedings
At the end of 2017, journalists from Bihus.Info published an investigation into the extremely unfavorable exchange between the National Guard and Ukrbud.
The fact is that in the 2000s, the National Guard transferred almost a hectare of land to the Pechersk construction company "Pagoda" for the construction of a residential complex. In exchange, it had to allocate 20% of apartments and parking spaces to the department. But until 2013, construction work on the site of the National Guard did not begin.
After that, the right to contruct was passed to Ukrbud Development, the beneficial owner of which was MP Maksym Mykytas.
Under the agreement with the new developer, the servicemen were to receive 50 apartments and 30 parking spaces in the elite Aristocrat residential complex in the city centre. But in 2016, the commander of the National Guard Yuri Allerov abandoned them in favor of 65 apartments on the outskirts of Kyiv near the metro station "Chervonyi Khutir" (Residential complex "Oberig" in Darnytskyi district of the capital). Both houses were built by Ukrbud Development. The value of real estate on the outskirts of Kiev was lower by 81 million UAH .
On May 14, 2019, NABU charged commander of the National Guard Yuri Allerov, UkrBud Director-General Oleg Maiboroda, private appraiser Alisa Hrynchuk (who later concluded plea bargain agreement and pleaded guilty), and Maksym Mykytas. Tatarov at the time was a defense attorney for the construction company's management in court. Another suspect from UkrBud, Yakusevych, was released from custody.
In 2020, Mykytas' trials continued: from June 2020, he was held in a pre-trial detention center, and Tatarov became deputy head of the Office of President in August. At the end of 2020, Mykytas concluded plea bargain agreement with the investigation and testified against Oleg Tatarov. After that, the NABU and the SAPO charged Tatarov. According to the investigation, the role of Oleg Tatarov was to facilitate a bribe to an expert of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for falsifying the forensic report in the case. With the help of a fake forensic report, the damages of 81 million UAH suddenly decreased by more than 10 times to 7 million UAH .
In a public interview, Maksym Mykytas, who exposed Tatarov, said the following in response to a journalist's question:
Journalist: According to the investigation, you facilitated a bribe for an expert from the Ministry of Internal Affairs through Tatarov. Why was he chosen as a mediator? Who coordinated the arrangements? Did Tatarov follow your instructions or participate in their organization?
Mykytas: There was a situation that needed to be resolved in the legal field. Tatarov himself chose the methods of solving it, and then reported what was needed for this.
The NABU also published part of the correspondence between the accomplices of the crime, including Oleg Tatarov and others, which confirms the version of the investigation.
However, in the criminal proceedings against Tatarov, the group of prosecutors in the case was twice illegally changed and eventually prosecutors were appointed from the Office of the Prosecutor General instead of the SAPO. As a result, the terms of the criminal proceedings expired, and prosecutors did not make any decisions. The expiration of deadlines means the impossibility of further investigation and prosecution.
The criminal proceedings
At the end of 2017, journalists from Bihus.Info published an investigation into the extremely unfavorable exchange between the National Guard and Ukrbud.
The fact is that in the 2000s, the National Guard transferred almost a hectare of land to the Pechersk construction company "Pagoda" for the construction of a residential complex. In exchange, it had to allocate 20% of apartments and parking spaces to the department. But until 2013, construction work on the site of the National Guard did not begin.
After that, the right to contruct was passed to Ukrbud Development, the beneficial owner of which was MP Maksym Mykytas.
Under the agreement with the new developer, the servicemen were to receive 50 apartments and 30 parking spaces in the elite Aristocrat residential complex in the city centre. But in 2016, the commander of the National Guard Yuri Allerov abandoned them in favor of 65 apartments on the outskirts of Kyiv near the metro station "Chervonyi Khutir" (Residential complex "Oberig" in Darnytskyi district of the capital). Both houses were built by Ukrbud Development. The value of real estate on the outskirts of Kiev was lower by 81 million UAH .
On May 14, 2019, NABU charged commander of the National Guard Yuri Allerov, UkrBud Director-General Oleg Maiboroda, private appraiser Alisa Hrynchuk (who later concluded plea bargain agreement and pleaded guilty), and Maksym Mykytas. Tatarov at the time was a defense attorney for the construction company's management in court. Another suspect from UkrBud, Yakusevych, was released from custody.
In 2020, Mykytas' trials continued: from June 2020, he was held in a pre-trial detention center, and Tatarov became deputy head of the Office of President in August. At the end of 2020, Mykytas concluded plea bargain agreement with the investigation and testified against Oleg Tatarov. After that, the NABU and the SAPO charged Tatarov. According to the investigation, the role of Oleg Tatarov was to facilitate a bribe to an expert of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for falsifying the forensic report in the case. With the help of a fake forensic report, the damages of 81 million UAH suddenly decreased by more than 10 times to 7 million UAH .
In a public interview, Maksym Mykytas, who exposed Tatarov, said the following in response to a journalist's question:
Journalist: According to the investigation, you facilitated a bribe for an expert from the Ministry of Internal Affairs through Tatarov. Why was he chosen as a mediator? Who coordinated the arrangements? Did Tatarov follow your instructions or participate in their organization?
Mykytas: There was a situation that needed to be resolved in the legal field. Tatarov himself chose the methods of solving it, and then reported what was needed for this.
The NABU also published part of the correspondence between the accomplices of the crime, including Oleg Tatarov and others, which confirms the version of the investigation.
However, in the criminal proceedings against Tatarov, the group of prosecutors in the case was twice illegally changed and eventually prosecutors were appointed from the Office of the Prosecutor General instead of the SAPO. As a result, the terms of the criminal proceedings expired, and prosecutors did not make any decisions. The expiration of deadlines means the impossibility of further investigation and prosecution.
After Maksym Mykytas testified against Tatarov, the police charged Mykytas with kidnapping, and the court detained him. According to Mykytas' lawyers, this proceeding was a revange for incriminating testimony against Oleg Tatarov. The NABU also stated about the pressure following incriminating evidence in these criminal proceedings.
In turn, Oleg Tatarov launched a campaign against the NABU accusations: "Sytnyk is convicted of corruption and state criminal who settles his personal accounts"; "Behind the falsification of the case is Artem Sytnyk, whom I have repeatedly publicly called a corrupt person and a criminal." "This case is the personal revenge of an official who has neither the moral nor the legal right to head the NABU." Such statements are a deliberate manipulation by Tatarov, the AntAC has repeatedly explained why this is a lie.
Meanwhile, Andriy Portnov publicly defended Tatarov.
After these events, a petition on the need to dismiss Oleg Tatarov was registered on the official website of the President. It gathered more than 25,000 signatures needed for official reaction. However, the President decided not to dismiss Tatarov. There were provocations during the collection of signatures for the petition, for example, one of the signatories was a person named "Joe Biden", which meant provocation and an attempt to discredit the process. After all, electronic petitions on the President's website can be signed only with the help of an authorized electronic signature. It is clear that there are no citizens with this name in Ukraine, so this was the basis for initiating criminal proceedings for forgery of electronic signatures.
In turn, Oleg Tatarov launched a campaign against the NABU accusations: "Sytnyk is convicted of corruption and state criminal who settles his personal accounts"; "Behind the falsification of the case is Artem Sytnyk, whom I have repeatedly publicly called a corrupt person and a criminal." "This case is the personal revenge of an official who has neither the moral nor the legal right to head the NABU." Such statements are a deliberate manipulation by Tatarov, the AntAC has repeatedly explained why this is a lie.
Meanwhile, Andriy Portnov publicly defended Tatarov.
After these events, a petition on the need to dismiss Oleg Tatarov was registered on the official website of the President. It gathered more than 25,000 signatures needed for official reaction. However, the President decided not to dismiss Tatarov. There were provocations during the collection of signatures for the petition, for example, one of the signatories was a person named "Joe Biden", which meant provocation and an attempt to discredit the process. After all, electronic petitions on the President's website can be signed only with the help of an authorized electronic signature. It is clear that there are no citizens with this name in Ukraine, so this was the basis for initiating criminal proceedings for forgery of electronic signatures.
Draft law to weaken anti-corruption bodies
The AntAC received from its own sources in the Prosecutor General's Office a draft law prepared on the instructions of Oleg Tatarov, which aimed at weakening of the NABU and helping Tatarov avoid responsibility.
The most harmful provision of this draft law concerned the NABU's jurisdiction. In fact, it intended to destroy the exclusive jurisdiction of the NABU, eroding it and adding petty corruption. In practice, this would mean that NABU would engage in petty corruption, i.e. petty bribes, such as of patrol police or village council officials. Moreover, the draft law provided for the legalization of the scheme of obstruction of investigation of corruption cases, as happened in the Tatarov case. It was giving the Prosecutor General an exclusive power to take cases from the NABU and transfer them to other investigative agencies, which is now explicitly prohibited by law.
In his telegram channel, Tatarov disowned the draft law. However, the AntAC published the text of the draft law, which confirmed the formal procedure for approving the text within the Office of the Prosecutor General. The publicity contributed to the fact that the draft law was not transferred to the Parliament.
The most harmful provision of this draft law concerned the NABU's jurisdiction. In fact, it intended to destroy the exclusive jurisdiction of the NABU, eroding it and adding petty corruption. In practice, this would mean that NABU would engage in petty corruption, i.e. petty bribes, such as of patrol police or village council officials. Moreover, the draft law provided for the legalization of the scheme of obstruction of investigation of corruption cases, as happened in the Tatarov case. It was giving the Prosecutor General an exclusive power to take cases from the NABU and transfer them to other investigative agencies, which is now explicitly prohibited by law.
In his telegram channel, Tatarov disowned the draft law. However, the AntAC published the text of the draft law, which confirmed the formal procedure for approving the text within the Office of the Prosecutor General. The publicity contributed to the fact that the draft law was not transferred to the Parliament.
Anti-Western rhetoric and attacks on the NABU
Shortly before Tatarov became a suspect in Mykytas' case, the deputy head of the Office of President spoke negatively about the NABU in the media, which is associated with Medvedchuk and Portnov):
"The NABU is not a Ukrainian story, which unfortunately is outside our country. It is possible to come up with various legislative initiatives, but the root of the problems in the anti-corruption policy of the state is Artem Sytnyk. "; "... the struggle waged from external sources of influence to preserve Sytnyk in the office discredits the law enforcement system."
The President himself had to apologize for such a statement by Tatarov. After all, maintaining the independence of the anti-corruption infrastructure, including the NABU, is part of Ukraine's commitment to the Western partners.
After NABU's first attempt to charge Tatarov, he wrote on his Facebook page: "... while I work in government, I will ... promote a policy of reducing the influence of structures and organizations trying to organize external governance in our country… My position is unchanged - only Ukrainian interests and the development of exclusively national and independent law enforcement policy, without anyone's advice and external guidance."
In December 2020, Tatarov promised to file a lawsuit against Sytnyk to protect dignity and business reputation. The court left the application without action due to poor evidence.
"The NABU is not a Ukrainian story, which unfortunately is outside our country. It is possible to come up with various legislative initiatives, but the root of the problems in the anti-corruption policy of the state is Artem Sytnyk. "; "... the struggle waged from external sources of influence to preserve Sytnyk in the office discredits the law enforcement system."
The President himself had to apologize for such a statement by Tatarov. After all, maintaining the independence of the anti-corruption infrastructure, including the NABU, is part of Ukraine's commitment to the Western partners.
After NABU's first attempt to charge Tatarov, he wrote on his Facebook page: "... while I work in government, I will ... promote a policy of reducing the influence of structures and organizations trying to organize external governance in our country… My position is unchanged - only Ukrainian interests and the development of exclusively national and independent law enforcement policy, without anyone's advice and external guidance."
In December 2020, Tatarov promised to file a lawsuit against Sytnyk to protect dignity and business reputation. The court left the application without action due to poor evidence.
Disrupting the process of competitive selection of the head of the SAPO
In 2020, the term of office of the head of the SAPO Nazar Kholodnytskyi expired and the process of forming a Selection Commission for competetive selection of a new head began. According to the law, the Selection Commission consists of 11 persons: 4 are appointed by the Council of Prosecutors and another 7 are appointed by the Ukrainian Parliament following the proposals of factions. In June 2020, the Council of Prosecutors appointed 4 independent experts to the commission: recognized international experts (Drago Kos, Nona Tsotsoriya, Thomas Firestone) and Ukrainian expert Roman Kuybida.
Parliament was able to appoint its quota only on the 3rd attempt. Most of those appointed by Parliament have drawn criticism for failing to meet statutory criteria. According to the information provided to the Anti-Corruption Center, the selection of commission members from the Parliament was carried out by Tatarov, and later these persons were nominated by the Parliament on the proposal of various factions and groups. Later, journalists found numerous connections between most of the people appointed by the Parliament and Tatarov.
During the selection process, most members of the Commission under the parliamentary quota delayed the process in various ways, tried to establish procedures that did not involve integrity testing, unreasonably blocked independent candidates in the competition (for example, without any justification from the parliamentary quota, Roman Simkiv was blocked. He together with Bozhko was a member of the team, which investigated the case of Andriy Portnov. The same happened with a number of other independent candidates). Similarly, part of the Commission tried to artificially promote and give the green light to candidates who were suggested by the Office of the President (i.e., MP Andriy Kostin, friend of the hed of the Office of President Andriy Yermak).
Part of the Commission under the Parliament's quota artificially delayed the process, ignoring the commission meetings and breaking the quorum, especially when 2 candidates reached the finals, one of whom was NABU detective Oleksandr Klymenko (who was involved in the Tatarov's case). Some members of the Commission artificially sabotaged the process and made proposals to restart the competition in order to prevent Klymenko from winning, although he won by the number of points he received. As of December 2, 2021, the selection process continues for more than 14 months due to unjustified delays and sabotage.
Parliament was able to appoint its quota only on the 3rd attempt. Most of those appointed by Parliament have drawn criticism for failing to meet statutory criteria. According to the information provided to the Anti-Corruption Center, the selection of commission members from the Parliament was carried out by Tatarov, and later these persons were nominated by the Parliament on the proposal of various factions and groups. Later, journalists found numerous connections between most of the people appointed by the Parliament and Tatarov.
During the selection process, most members of the Commission under the parliamentary quota delayed the process in various ways, tried to establish procedures that did not involve integrity testing, unreasonably blocked independent candidates in the competition (for example, without any justification from the parliamentary quota, Roman Simkiv was blocked. He together with Bozhko was a member of the team, which investigated the case of Andriy Portnov. The same happened with a number of other independent candidates). Similarly, part of the Commission tried to artificially promote and give the green light to candidates who were suggested by the Office of the President (i.e., MP Andriy Kostin, friend of the hed of the Office of President Andriy Yermak).
Part of the Commission under the Parliament's quota artificially delayed the process, ignoring the commission meetings and breaking the quorum, especially when 2 candidates reached the finals, one of whom was NABU detective Oleksandr Klymenko (who was involved in the Tatarov's case). Some members of the Commission artificially sabotaged the process and made proposals to restart the competition in order to prevent Klymenko from winning, although he won by the number of points he received. As of December 2, 2021, the selection process continues for more than 14 months due to unjustified delays and sabotage.
Questionable origin of declared assets
When Tatarov resigned from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, his assets according to the declaration were as follows:
apartment in Kyiv of 100m2
land plot in the village Lisnyky (in Kyiv region) 100 m2
Tatarov's annual declaration as director of the Ukrbud Legal Department for 2016:
new land plot in Sokolivka (Kyiv region) with an area of 1840 m2
the land plot in Lisnyky is no longer 100 m2, but 954 m2
apartment in Kyiv 101.6 m2, purchased in 2016, but without indication of price
the new car Mercedes-Benz GL 350 of 2013 bought for 149,000 UAH (obviously understated cost, because even today it costs about 1 million UAH).
contribution to construction of 4 apartments of UkrBud for the total amount of UAH 9 million through FC Zhytlo-Capital. This is a fund to finance the construction of UkrBud, through which money is collected from depositors to complete the construction. Later, when the Mykytas case begins, construction has been stopped, the state corporation has gone bankrupt, 180 million UAH has been withdrawn from the fund, and depositors have started hundreds of lawsuits against the fund. However, Tatarov was able to return more than 3 million UAH of his investments
Declaration prior to dismissal in 2017:
indicated his wife's plot of land in the Kyiv region with an area of 2000 m2. It is noted that the plot was acquired in 2007, but previously it was not mentioned in the declarations. The later declaration after the dismissal (for 2017) no longer incuded this plot, but there was no income from its alleged sale
car Mercedes-Benz GL 350, 2013 bought for 149,000 UAH changed to Mercedes-Benz GL 350, 2017 bought for 980,000 UAH. Transactions and income/expenses from the purchase/sale of both cars were not specified
Declarations of the candidate for the position of the deputy head of the OP in 2019:
apartment of 175 m2 purchased in December 2019 in Kyiv at an unknown price
apartment 128.2 m2 bought for UAH 2,632,200 and four parking spaces
sale of an apartment for 2,196,300 to Tatarova Olena
four unfinished apartments under construction
Declaration of significant changes filed on January 13, 2021:
Tatarov paid 269,000 UAH ($ 9,569) for his studies at Washington American University. He later explained that he would study there himself, not his children. In total, the program consists of 36 credits, each costs $ 1,812. The total cost of training will be at least $ 65,000, and Tatarov's contribution is a fee for 5 credits.
Summing up: after his dismissal from the police in 2014, Tatarov owned only one apartment. In 2016, he made four contributions to construction of apartments through the UkrBud fund. In 2017, two of construction contracts were voided, but he doesn't declare any new income or apartments, and makes two new contributions. In 2019, Tatarov owned two ready-made apartments, four more apartments under construction, three more terminated contracts with the Construction Financing Fund, and another terminated contract, thus in total he should own 8-10 apartments.
In January 2021, journalists revealed another apartment of Tatarov in Irpin. In June 2020, Tetiana Tatarova, ex-wife, bought an apartment for 360,500 UAH in a house that has not been commissioned and does not have an assigned address,.
Immediately after Tatarov's appointment to the OP, his father-in-law's company received land plot from the Kyiv City Council for construction. Daring Capital was founded in October 2019 with a charter capital of 200 UAH . The co-owner of the company, Oleksandr Pavlushyn, is the father of Tatarov's wife. Having no construction experience, in July 2020 the company received 1.5 hectares of land in Kyiv for lease. At the same time, the documents for the construction were prepared incredibly quickly, in less than two months.
Tatarov paid 269,000 UAH ($ 9,569) for his studies at Washington American University. He later explained that he would study there himself, not his children. In total, the program consists of 36 credits, each costs $ 1,812. The total cost of training will be at least $ 65,000, and Tatarov's contribution is a fee for 5 credits.
Summing up: after his dismissal from the police in 2014, Tatarov owned only one apartment. In 2016, he made four contributions to construction of apartments through the UkrBud fund. In 2017, two of construction contracts were voided, but he doesn't declare any new income or apartments, and makes two new contributions. In 2019, Tatarov owned two ready-made apartments, four more apartments under construction, three more terminated contracts with the Construction Financing Fund, and another terminated contract, thus in total he should own 8-10 apartments.
In January 2021, journalists revealed another apartment of Tatarov in Irpin. In June 2020, Tetiana Tatarova, ex-wife, bought an apartment for 360,500 UAH in a house that has not been commissioned and does not have an assigned address,.
Immediately after Tatarov's appointment to the OP, his father-in-law's company received land plot from the Kyiv City Council for construction. Daring Capital was founded in October 2019 with a charter capital of 200 UAH . The co-owner of the company, Oleksandr Pavlushyn, is the father of Tatarov's wife. Having no construction experience, in July 2020 the company received 1.5 hectares of land in Kyiv for lease. At the same time, the documents for the construction were prepared incredibly quickly, in less than two months.
