The case of Volodymyr Prodyvus: legal racket "In the Name of Ukraine"

The case of Volodymyr Prodyvus: legal racket "In the Name of Ukraine"

A well-known Ukrainian lawyer in the article “The Knyazev Factor: Why the Judicial Branch of Power Repels Investors in Ukrainian Business” analyzed the corruption risks associated with the work of Ukrainian courts and how they affect the investment climate using a specific case from the practice of the Supreme Court.

In particular, the lawyer noted the apparent overreach of the Supreme Court beyond its granted powers, as well as the disregard for a number of established positions by the SC regarding the impossibility of recognizing an executed transaction as nonexistent, and the application of the statute of limitations, according to which the period for filing a lawsuit is three years from the date of the offense, and the omission of which is an independent basis for refusal in satisfying the claim.

Journalists from our edition conducted their own investigation, where they explored what went wrong in case No. 902/1076/21, where the plaintiff is the former regional representative Volodymyr Prodyvus, and what “arguments” convinced the judges of the Supreme Court to rule in his favor.

Let’s start with Volodymyr Prodyvus himself. A rather ambiguous figure, his reputation speaks for itself: a former deputy from the "Party of Regions," whom journalists have repeatedly called a switch-pusher and a racketeer. In addition, according to widely available information on the internet, he is implicated in amber scandals in the Rivne region and also in the embezzlement of funds from the state "Cherkasyoblenergo," a supporter of the "Russian world," and the owner of Russian citizenship.

In October 2021, Volodymyr Stepanovych Prodyvus filed a lawsuit with the Commercial Court of Vinnytsia Region to claim the controlling stake of one of Vinnytsia’s enterprises, which had been sold back in 2014 under a contract that Volodymyr Prodyvus allegedly did not sign, and on the day of the contract’s conclusion on 04.08.2014, he was not in Vinnytsia but working as a member of parliament in Kyiv.

This is where it gets interesting, as we all know how deputies perform their duties. And this isn’t even about switch-pushing, as according to publicly available data from the Verkhovna Rada, there were neither plenary sessions of the Verkhovna Rada nor meetings of the Urban Planning Committee, of which Prodyvus V.S. was a member, on 04.08.2014.

In court, Volodymyr claimed he knew nothing about the sale of shares, which occurred in 2014, until the end of 2020. However, we obtained V.S. Prodyvus’ as a deputy, which show that the absence of shares had been declared as early as in 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the judges of the Supreme Court simply chose not to evaluate the statute of limitations, because how else to justify its omission when the plaintiff not only acknowledged the transfer of shares but also declared their absence three times?

However, this is not all. According to Volodymyr, with which Supreme Court judges S.V. Bakulina and V.I. Stedenets agreed, the documents on the basis of which the shares were sold in 2014 were allegedly removed from the depository institution by the defendant in the case. This circumstance was confirmed by witnesses (employees of the depository institution).

We became interested in what kind of depository institution this is, that in fact did not even report the loss of strict reporting documents to law enforcement agencies, did not set up the appropriate commission for the loss of documents, and did not make an official report about the loss of documents, as required by law.

The depository institution turned out to be nothing simple; it is LLC "FC "TCM "Register-Consulting," whose owner is Prodyvus’ cousin - Andriy Kopiyka. The director of this depository institution and representative at the time the case was heard in the first instance court was Oksana Benivska, who was formerly the assistant to V.S. Prodyvus as a member of parliament.

Oksana Benivska was later replaced as the representative of the depository institution in court by a lawyer - Oleh Hontar, who in this case is a representative of LLC "FC "ST "Register-Consulting," and at the same time acts as the representative of Volodymyr Prodyvus in a number of other court cases, such as the equally resonant case of returning the presidency to Prodyvus in the Ukrainian Boxing Federation.

This is the so-called judiciary "by regional standards." Interestingly, does Volodymyr perhaps have an acting or directing education? Because it turns out that to regain a business sold six years ago, it’s enough to sketch a scenario (albeit not very creative) and ensure all participants, namely the depository institution, follow it. And to ensure everything goes according to plan and the testimony of the depository institution does not fail, send your own lawyer to court to represent the interests of this institution.

Well, if the behavior of Volodymyr Prodyvus, considering his reputation, as a person far from fair conduct, raises no additional questions for anyone, then there are still questions for the Supreme Court judges who made such a decision. For example, did Volodymyr convince Judge V.I. Stedenets to rule in his favor while driving him in a car? 

Unfortunately, we will not find the answer to this question. We can only note that judges S.V. Bakulina and V.I. Stedenets are judges of the old guard, who manage to hold their positions despite all reforms and frequent corruption scandals.

For example, information is available on the Internet regarding Judge S.V. Bakulina that she was classified by the investigation as part of the group of judges of the HACCU who were involved in illegal case distribution with violations of the law-established procedure. The Prosecutor General’s Office is investigating a case on illegal intervention by the former chairman and deputy chairman of the HACCU, Tatkov and Yemelyanov, in the functioning of the automated court document circulation system. Involved in issuing dubious decisions within a panel that allowed illegal construction on historical and cultural significance territories.

All this information did not prevent her from slipping into the newly elected Supreme Court.

Similarly, the indication of false information in the declaration regarding the scope of property and income in 2016 did not prevent V.I. Stedenets from being selected for the “new” Supreme Court.

Such are the elites of the nation - the judges of the Supreme Court, who, over their years in the system, despite all judicial reforms, have allowed themselves more than once, in “exceptional” cases, to turn a blind eye to obvious things and make decisions contrary not only to the law but to any norms of morality. How about legalizing racket through the judicial elite?

from-ua.org