“At the end of last week, on January 9, the High Anti-Corruption Court (HCC) held another session in the case of the former first deputy head of the Dnipropetrovsk OVA, lawyer Volodymyr Orlov. The process reached the finish line — the court officially moved to the debate. The position of the prosecution turned out to be as tough as possible: the prosecutor asked to find Orlov guilty and sentence him to 10 years in prison”, — write on: ua.news
At the end of last week, on January 9, the High Anti-Corruption Court (HCC) held another session in the case of the former first deputy head of the Dnipropetrovsk OVA, lawyer Volodymyr Orlov. Process came out to the finish line – the court officially moved to the debate. The position of the prosecution turned out to be as harsh as possible: the prosecutor asked to find Orlov guilty and sentence him to 10 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
As reported earlier, Volodymyr Orlov is accused of allegedly asking to provide $200,000 for assistance in leasing 19 hectares of forest land (Part 4 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code). However, in the case there is no fact of transfer of money, no established losses, and the main witness is the so-called “agent provocateur” – a citizen of the Russian Federation with several criminal convictions, who simultaneously appears as an applicant in a number of other NABU cases Oleksiy Gonchar. Orlov himself assures that he became a victim of a political order, and the bail of 22 million hryvnias, which was assigned to him earlier, is nothing more than an attempt by the system to “appoint the guilty”.
Exactly how prosecutors justify 10 years in prison without evidence of receiving funds, why the applicant still remains a “reliable witness” for NABU, and who was actually the initiator of this provocation – all this is about journalists UA.News spoke with Volodymyr Orlov. Next is the direct speech of the former first deputy head of the Dnipropetrovsk OVA.
About the meeting at VAX
The trial of my case is effectively over — we have moved on to debate. I want to emphasize: from our side, we did not delay the process in any way. A year and two months passed from the moment of the notification of the suspicion to the end of the trial. That’s pretty fast, and it was us who pushed to get to court as soon as possible and end this, let’s face it, farce. After all, I did not commit any criminal offenses.
Yesterday, the prosecutor said that there was nothing more to investigate. The debate on the part of the state prosecution lasted about 45 minutes. In my opinion, it was complete legal nonsense – just a reprint of what was written in Klymenko’s suspicion and Grebenyuk’s indictment. We destroyed all these “evidences” during the pre-trial investigation, but for now we have what we have.
About the participation of the former head of the Dnipropetrovsk OVA Serhiy Lysak
An interesting moment: even at the preparatory meeting, the judge asked the prosecutor Grebenyuk about the fact that Serhii Lysak appears in the indictment. It says that I allegedly asked for an illegal benefit “for myself and the head of OVA Lysak.” The prosecutor promised to change the indictment after questioning their provocateur Gonchar. However, the review was completed, but the act was not changed. In the debate, we again hear the request “for Orlov-Lysak”. Although Lysak, appearing in court as a witness, confirmed that I could not sign the order on the lease of the plot, since it was not part of my official duties, and the document was not even signed for me. I just didn’t have the authority!
About attempts to “slide” a document for signature
The prosecutor tries to motivate his position by the fact that earlier, when I was acting as chairman, I really signed similar orders. But all the representatives of the departments and the chief of staff confirmed in court: I did not receive this specific document.
Moreover, I told in court, that this draft order was brought to me twice: Lysak’s adviser Andrii Afanasyev in May and deputy chairman Liliya Myagka in June. They tried to get me to sign it precisely at those moments when Lysak was allegedly “going away” somewhere. I asked directly: how do you bring it to me if the head is still in town? And I did not give anyone any instructions about this, I was not interested in this order at all.
About Gonchar’s refusals and hidden records
In suspicion and debate, the prosecutor completely ignores my last conversation with Gonchar on July 31. He then came to see me in Kyiv, “stressed” me to sign the document, asked how to do it. I specifically refused him three times. It is in the case files, but they declassified these records only five months later, when we had already started to get acquainted with the materials. The evidence was simply hidden because it is unprofitable and completely destroys the prosecution’s version.
About the “golden pen” and date manipulation
The prosecutor claims that I allegedly committed the crime on May 2. If I “asked” for the money on May 2, why wasn’t it brought right away? Why did they wait until October 24 (on this day NABU employees came to Orlov with searches — ed. note)? Now in the debate they are making up that I allegedly said to bring the money “three days after signing”. But there are no such words on any record of secret investigative (search) actions (NSRD) made by NABU. There are no deadlines, no tasks – complete nonsense.
In the same way, the prosecution constantly mentions some “golden pen” with which I allegedly had to sign something. This is a pure fiction of Honchar, which he voiced to Bigus and the detectives. Regarding the amount: Gonchar was confused at the court – either 150,000, or as if I told him to “take for himself” another 50,000 on top. That’s how they got the figure of $200,000.
About the identity of the “agent”
This applicant, Gonchar-Torop, is a very controversial figure. He is accused of fraud in two cases in Ukraine and is wanted in the Russian Federation. Even the head of the VAKS in the Salnikov case questioned his testimony precisely because of his reputation as a provocateur.
It is not possible for a person who has made money through corruption all his life and considered it normal, at the age of 50, suddenly become an “ardent anti-corruption fighter”. However, our state prosecution is also satisfied with this. The director of the company, on whose behalf Gonchar allegedly acted, seeking the lease of the plot of land, said in court: “I see this power of attorney, but I can’t say whether it is real, I don’t remember signing it.”
The original of this document is not in the case at all. And what’s more: contrary to the prosecutor, who insists that the applicant, i.e. Gonchar, acted in the interests of the enterprise, we have completely the opposite testimony. The director, owner, lawyer and even the representative of AlfaVeaHouse LLC confirmed under oath that they do not know this man (Gonchar-Torop), did not authorize him to do anything, and learned about the case already from the media. The business owner says, “I don’t know him, I didn’t ask him for anything.” That is, the applicant from the enterprise does not actually exist.
What “evidence” does the prosecutor’s office rely on
During the debate, the prosecutor stated that she found a correspondence with an investor in my phone, where I was interested in housing on the Left Bank of Kyiv (Great apartment complex). Her logic: he was interested in the apartment, so he planned to take a bribe to buy this apartment. At the same time, the prosecutor’s office itself used to lead when it asked cheza deposit, in the amount of UAH 30 million, stated that my wife and I have savings of UAH 17 million. That is, I could buy an apartment without any bribes, but for them the very fact that a person is interested in real estate is already proof of criminal intentions.
Regarding the recordings of the conversation that Gonchar conducted secretly. The defense and I ordered a linguistic examination at the Bacarius Institute. The expert, having read all the NSRD records, clearly confirmed: there is no request for a bribe in my words. Gonchar also admitted at the trial that during any meeting when he was secretly recording, I did not ask him for anything. The prosecutor now says that the examination is “inappropriate” because she does not like the conclusion. She promised to call an expert to the court for questioning, but changed her mind at the last moment. I probably understood: if the expert comes, it will be the last nail in the coffin prosecution .
About Serhiy Lysak’s interests and predictions for the verdict
On January 22, a debate will be held from our side. We will not delay, we want to finish on the same day and wait for the verdict. It is difficult to predict anything, because anything can happen in our country. I know it’s a custom order. The head of the Dnipropetrovsk OVA, Serhiy Lysak, who has certain acquaintances at NABU, worked very hard on it. You can frankly say : in this case, there are two agents — Gonchar and Lysak. The latter did everything to knock me out of the political arena and normal life.
Read us on Telegram and Sends