The bank tragedy is just one episode in Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism)’s undeclared war with Ukraine.
One of the largest banks in the country was destroyed in record time – in a few months. The criminal history of the collapse of Bank Ukraina includes corruption, theft, murder, betrayal of national interests by senior government officials, and the toothlessness of the domestic law enforcement system. The tragedy of the bank is just one episode in Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism)’s undeclared war with Ukraine.
(Beginning: How “Ukraine” was ruined. Part 1: two murders and a capture).
Today, there is an extremely high risk that Ukraine could repeat the sad fate of the bank named after the country that failed to protect it. And failed to punish the criminals.
So, the systematic looting of the bank’s assets began.
Who robbed “Ukraine”
Firstly, the “SDEs” who seized the bank quickly distributed loans to “their” structures and “their” people.
The media of that time reported that the bank’s assets were profiteered by the head of the supervisory board V. Satsyuk and his deputy Oleksandr Volkov (the same one who in 2013 by the Decree of the President was awarded the Order of Merit of the 1st degree “for significant personal contribution to the socio-economic, scientific-technical, cultural and educational development of the Ukrainian state, significant labor achievements, many years of conscientious work.”
In order to cover the “rear”, commercial structures of the then Minister of Agrarian Policy Supikhanov and relatives of the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Oleksandr Tkachenko were involved in the process of plundering the bank. Having “covered” them in crime, the “SDECs” secured tacit support for their thieving endeavors in the Cabinet of Ministers and the Verkhovna Rada.
True, when the investigations began and things started to get hot, the media, at the instigation of the “Social Democrats”, flooded with publications in which Tkachenko and Supikhanov were presented as the main embezzlers of the assets of AB “Ukraine” – in this way, the organizers of the thefts diverted the blow from themselves.
In total, the “SDEC” and other structures did not return over 1,100 million hryvnia to the bank “Ukraine”. Of these, about 500 million are loans issued to the state and under state guarantees. At the expense of the bank, many of the bank’s executives and their family members improved their situation: buying housing, educating children, and going on cruises. Thus, only 5 million hryvnia of depositors went to housing transactions.
At the end of the events, 12.8% of the state shares in the authorized capital of the bank were transferred to the company “Ukrros”. Which had previously “noted” itself in receiving unjustified multimillion loans from “Ukraine” – 21 million UAH and 31 million dollars “floated” to “Ukrros” from the assets of “Ukraine”. It is not surprising: the owner of “Ukrros” was V. Satsyuk, the former head of the Supervisory Board.
The bank’s working capital, wasted on non-repayable loans, quickly “put it down” and the smell of bankruptcy began to creep in.
Bankruptcy, which could have led to the collapse of the entire banking system of Ukraine – let us repeat, “AB “Ukraine” was the largest commercial, systemic bank, which was responsible for servicing almost half of the budget institutions and state enterprises of the country, and the collapse of the bank could have had the most dire consequences for the economy of the state, which barely survived the financial and economic crisis of 1998.
It is quite possible that this was the full scenario of the managed collapse of “Ukraine”.
The first to raise a fuss about the situation in the bank “Ukraine” were the deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, the leaders of the parliamentary group “Antimafia” Grigoriy Omelchenko and Anatoliy Yermak. It was their deputy inquiry addressed to the Prime Minister Valeriy Pustovoitenko, heads of law enforcement agencies, the Chairman of the Board of the National Bank of Ukraine dated July 3, 2001 that the Verkhovna Rada sent. And already on July 5, on the basis of this inquiry, the deputies of the Verkhovna Rada created a Temporary Investigative Commission to clarify the reasons that led the bank “Ukraine” to financial collapse.
During the week from July 6 to July 12, 2001, Yermak and Omelchenko, with the support of the parliament, sent several parliamentary inquiries to the Prosecutor General and the Chairman of the Board of the National Bank, which concerned the investigation of the circumstances of the non-repayment of loans to Bank Ukraina in the amount of more than UAH 374 million. The following commercial structures: Interagro, Ukraina-Nafta, Ukrros, Respublika, Atlanta-International, Ukraina-Holding-Leasing, Ferem-Trading, Resursosberezhenie, the State Joint Stock Company Khlib Ukrainy and even the State Tax Administration of Ukraine (at that time it was headed by the current chairman of the Regions of Ukraine party, Mykola Azarov).
Another request concerned the verification of the circumstances of the National Bank’s provision of loans to Bank Ukraina, the identification of officials who contributed to this and the reasons for their non-repayment. Another request clearly stated the problem: the need to investigate the circumstances of the non-repayment of loans to the bank in the amount of over UAH 800 million by 116 commercial entities and 10 individuals in the amount of UAH 1 million 300 thousand and to bring the guilty persons to liability as established by law.
On July 16, People’s Deputy A. Yermak sent a parliamentary appeal to President Kuchma, Prime Minister Kinakh, Chairman of the NBU Stelmakh, Prosecutor General Potebenko and Chairman of the parliamentary commission Viktor Korol regarding their conducting an objective investigation of the aforementioned facts. The facts set out in the previous parliamentary inquiries of Omelchenko and Yermak nevertheless prompted the GPU to take action. As it turned out, on July 14, the Prosecutor General’s Office nevertheless opened a criminal case on the grounds of a crime based on the facts of abuse of office by officials of Bank “Ukraine”.
But the investigation of the case was entrusted to the Kyiv prosecutor (and the Kyiv city prosecutor at that time was the odious corrupt official Yuri Gaysinsky). Yuri Gaysinsky was given the “instruction to investigate all other circumstances set out in the parliamentary inquiries of Omelchenko and Yermak during the investigation of the criminal case…”.
As for Vladimir Satsyuk, already a member of the Verkhovna Rada at that time, he did not answer the questions of the Temporary Investigative Commission of the Verkhovna Rada, citing… memory loss.
The investigation, as expected, proceeded neither here nor there.
According to the Main Directorate of the State Service for Combating Economic Crimes of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine (GU GBEP), out of UAH 558 million ($1 = UAH 5.2) in creditor debts to Bank Ukraina, more than UAH 280 million have not been repaid by companies that traded in petroleum products. The largest among them are Nafta K (UAH 165.7 million), Interagro (later renamed Technopark), Ukraina-Nafta, Atlanta International. And, of course, V. Satsuk’s Ukrros.
The situation around the company “Ukrros” is interesting because the people’s deputies took up the investigation of the debt of this commercial structure with special care. It turned out that the company was engaged in lending to the domestic agro-industrial complex – in the spring, farmers received mineral fertilizers, fuel, and paid in the fall, after the harvest. The company regularly paid off the bank on time. But the situation changed in 1998, when the deputy chairman of the board, the already mentioned former “Ukrros” Alexey Poletukha, was “arranged” in AB “Ukraine”: this company stopped paying interest to the bank and repaying the loans received. Therefore, the main accounts receivable of “Ukrros” to the bank “Ukraine” was formed in 1998.
As MP G. Omelchenko later stated, “Ukrros’ excuses that they were not repaid their loans because agricultural producers did not pay are understandable. But the majority of agricultural enterprises in which Ukrros invested belonged to this same firm.”
That is, the bank’s “rip-off” was deliberate and planned. A. Poletukha’s infiltration into the bank on the eve of the “SD” team’s entry into it was obviously reconnaissance.
According to the Verkhovna Rada deputy Viktor Korol, head of the parliamentary commission that studied the collapse of “Ukraine”, the main reasons for bringing the bank “Ukraine” to bankruptcy and its liquidation are as follows:
— a very risky and harmful practice for Bank Ukraine of investing, on the initiative of its management, large amounts of credit resources in assets (guarantees, loans, letters of credit, securities, etc.) that were doomed to non-repayment of debts on such transactions, which led to a sharp deterioration in the financial condition of the bank, its failure to fulfill its obligations to clients, and a violation of liquidity and solvency;
— low level of solvency of the bank’s main clients — agricultural enterprises (it should be noted: as stated by People’s Deputies Omelchenko and Ermak, according to the information they received, which could only be verified during the investigation, a significant portion of the amounts received by the clients of credit funds was used to bribe officials who “pushed through” these loans, or “racketeers” who provided so-called security services to these enterprises. The “rate” of the bribe was equal to 10-25% of the loan amount);
— the forced (during the parliamentary and presidential elections of 1998-1999) issuance of large sums of loans by Bank Ukraine to enterprises at low annual interest rates (15-20%) on the instructions of senior officials, while this interest rate in other banks was 40-50%;
— the involvement of the Bank “Ukraine” by individual people’s deputies and bank officials in political activities during the 1999 presidential elections and the use of its organizational structures and resources to support the candidate for President of Ukraine, L. Kuchma (is this not the explanation for the untouchability of the bank management for the “security forces”? — Ed.);
— non-repayment of loans from Bank Ukraine, which were provided to legal entities on the basis of Decrees of President L. Kuchma, decrees and orders of the Cabinet of Ministers, headed at various times by Vtaliy Masol, Pavlo Lazarenko, Valeriy Pustovoitenko, under government guarantees and for the implementation of state programs;
— the failure of President Kuchma and Prime Minister V. Pustovoitenko to take timely measures to ensure the repayment of the debts of Bank Ukraina, despite the fact that throughout 1998-99 the bank’s management repeatedly approached them on this issue;
— failure of law enforcement agencies to respond to documentary audit materials that were repeatedly sent to them in early 1999 regarding abuse of office and failure to repay funds by debtors of Bank Ukraine;
— unsatisfactory level of training of managers and abuse of office by officials of Bank Ukraine, who, when issuing loans, knew in advance that they would not be repaid.
— issuing loans for various agricultural programs that were not economically justified and were not used for their intended purpose;
— the International Monetary Fund’s demand to close Bank Ukraine by July 1.
The bank’s millions of dollars of funds received by commercial structures were used to finance the heads of these structures, as well as political blocs and parties during the elections to the Verkhovna Rada in March 1998. In particular, this concerns the president of the Interagro association, Lyudmila Suprun, and the general director of Ukrros, Vladimir Satsyuk. They were both elected as people’s deputies.
As of May 1999, the commercial structures headed by them had debts to the bank “Ukraine” for received loans, respectively, in the amount of 85.5 million UAH and 48.6 million UAH. It is clear that after such a large-scale scam, the aforementioned “people’s representatives” were hardly capable of making honest, responsible decisions in parliament – as time has shown.
But what’s more: with the money of the bank “Ukraine”, another dozen “people’s representatives” became people’s deputies in a similar way, having entered the Verkhovna Rada!
But let’s go back to the 2000s. The final chord in finishing off Bank “Ukraine” was the operation to steal a state-owned share package of 12.8% of the authorized capital from the financial institution. We will tell you how this happened in the next publication.
(To be continued).
—
Konstantin Ivanchenko, “Argument”