No criminal evidence found against anti-corruption prosecutor, Lutsenko says

No criminal evidence was found on the wiretap recordings
conducted of Nazar Kholodnytskiy, the specialized anti-corruption prosecutor of
Ukraine, Prosecutor General of Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko announced at an Apr. 16
press briefing. In particular, no evidence was found of bribes being exchanged.
At the same time, the recordings provide evidence of rules violations that
require disciplinary action, he said. The Kholodnytskiy investigation is being
handled by the Prosecutors Disciplinary Commission, said Lutsenko, who added he
examined the recordings alongside Artem Sytnyk, the head of the National
Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. Kholodnytskiy is currently on leave, with
Lutsenko fulfilling his responsibilities.

Recall, Sytnyk revealed in late March
criminal charges were filed against Kholodnytskiy for allegedly pressuring
officials and leaking information to those targeted by various criminal
investigations. Both the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, led by Sytnyk, and
the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, led by Kholodnytskiy, were
created in 2015 to meet IMF demands for independent law enforcement bodies to
pursue corruption investigations. They had been in fierce conflict with the
Prosecutor General’s Office since their creation.

Zenon Zawada: Lutsenko
could have milked this scandal and dragged Kholodnytskiy’s name through the mud
even further. And he could have pursued a criminal prosecution. Instead, we
believe Kholodnytskiy reached a behind-the-scenes agreement and capitulated to
the political demands of Lutsenko, who has emerged victorious in his conflict
with independent anti-corruption authorities that dragged on for several years.
He succeeded in manipulating a divide between Sytnyk and Kholodnytskiy by
aligning with the former to discredit the latter. We expect Kholodnytskiy to
remain in his post because he is useful to both Lutsenko and Sytnyk in his
neutered, discredited condition.

Unfortunately, the outcome is that the credibility of
both of these anti-corruption bodies has been damaged to some extent. And we
believe the Poroshenko administration will use this damaged credibility to
downplay the importance of the creation of an independent anti-corruption court
(also demanded by the IMF) with the Ukrainian public. Although that might work
to some extent, we don’t expect the IMF to buckle to the Poroshenko
administration’s attempt to water down the legislation creating the court,
regardless of this scandal.