ВІКТОР ШОКІН НАГАДУЄ ПРО СЕБЕ | VIKTOR SHOKIN REMINDS ABOUT HIMSELF
14 min read
Screenshot
УКР | ENG
Віктор Шокін, Генеральний прокурор України у 2015–2016 роках, надіслав на електронну пошту УСІМ анонс його книжки англійською мовою, посилання на інтерв’ю, опубліковане в «Юридичному Віснику України» (див. нижче), а також анотацію на його книжку й англомовний переклад тексту інтерв’ю, яке ми публікуємо сьогодні на нашому сайті.
***
Віктор ШОКІН: «Лише закон робить нас справедливими, гуманними та розсудливими…»
Дорогі друзі,
Надсилаю вам своє інтерв’ю англійською та українською мовами, а також інформацію про мою книгу «Правдиві історії про міжнародну корупцію Джо Байдена в Україні, або Хто не може бути президентом США», яка найближчим часом з’явиться у продажу. Основна частина книги присвячена міжнародній корупції віце-президента США Джозефа Байдена в 2014–2016 роках. Також у своїй книзі я описую своє незаконне звільнення з посади Генерального прокурора України та деякі політичні аспекти того періоду.
З повагою
Віктор Шокін,
Генеральний прокурор України (2015–2016)
***
Цю біографічну книгу написав Генеральний прокурор України Віктор Шокін (2015–2016) про свій біографічний шлях та пошуки справедливості.
Основна частина книги присвячена історії міжнародної корупції віце-президента США Джозефа Байдена у 2014-2016 роках, яку дослідив автор книги.
На думку автора, злочини та правопорушення високопосадовця США на території України пов’язані як з його особистою корупцією, так і з корупційною діяльністю його сина Хантера в раді директорів української компанії Burisma.
Автор також відкриває завісу над політичною та особистою складовими стосунків президента та його найближчого оточення з віце-президентом США у період 2015-2016 років.
Книга наповнена державними та офіційними документами, листами високопосадовців, позовами та судовими рішеннями, які підтверджують позицію автора.
Переважна більшість документів публікується вперше.
Для широкого кола читачів, які цікавляться українською політикою та міжнародними відносинами.
**^
Viktor Shokin, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine in 2015–2016, sent an announcement of his book in English to UWIN by email, a link to the interview published in the “Legal Bulletin of Ukraine” (see above), as well as an annotation to his book and an English translation of the text of the interview, which we are publishing today on our website.
***
Dear friends,
I am sending you my interview in English and Ukrainian, as well as information about my book True stories about Joe Biden’s International Corruption in Ukraine, or Who cannot be the President of the United States, which will be on sale in the near future. The main part of the book is devoted to the international corruption of US Vice President Joseph Biden in 2014-2016. I also describe my illegal dismissal from the post of Prosecutor General of Ukraine and some political aspects of that period in my book.
Sincerely,
Viktor Shokin,
Prosecutor General of Ukraine (2015–2016)
***
Viktor Shokin: Only the Law Makes Us Just, Humane, and Rational…
Viktor Shokin is, without a doubt, a legendary figure of our time. This is confirmed not only by the facts of his biography. In fact, fate has repeatedly thrown such challenges at him that many others would have abandoned the profession of investigator or prosecutor and opted for a career change. But not Viktor Shokin. Principled, determined, and extraordinarily active, he has always been at the forefront. It is no coincidence that, during a debate last June, U.S. President Donald Trump accused Joe Biden of egregious corruption in the dismissal of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
Legal Bulletin of Ukraine (Hereinafter — LBU): Let’s talk about your professional investigative career. It’s a demanding, stressful job and not always rewarding. What kept you in it for nearly 30 years?
V. Shokin: After graduating from the Kharkiv Law Institute, I worked as an investigator for eight years in the prosecution office of Kyiv’s Moskovskyi District. Then, for six years, I served as a senior investigator for particularly serious cases in the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office.
I dealt with complex cases such as murders, robberies, rapes, and bribery. It was work driven by ideals, rooted in law and justice. Today, I feel nostalgic for that approach to work, for the passion of youth, and for the dedication to the cause.
In my opinion, one of the key cases of the 2000s was the murder of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze. His body was discovered in November 2000, but for almost two years the investigation made no real progress. I believe that there were people in both the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs who were interested in ensuring that the murder of the journalist, which had caused significant political turbulence, would never be solved. I assumed the post of Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine on July 10, 2002. The very next day, I convened a meeting on the Gongadze case. Such meetings were held daily at 8 p.m. in my office, and by the end of summer, we knew the names of all four perpetrators, including a high-ranking police officer—Oleksiy Pukach, head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. At the time of the crime, he led the Ministry’ssurveillance department, commonly known as the “outdoor surveillance unit.” Our investigators faced immense challenges to obtain documents from this department.
We knew that Oleksiy Pukach had organized Heorhiy Gongadze’s murder, but we lacked the evidence necessary for court proceedings. In 2003, Pukach was arrested for destroying classified documents that detailed surveillance of the journalist. He burned some of these documents to cover up the murder. Pukach spent four months in a detention center, but then an order came down, and the murderer was released on bail. Of course, he fled, and we were all dismissed from the Prosecutor General’s Office, including then-Prosecutor General Sviatoslav Piskun. It’s worth noting that Piskun was not involved in the investigation of this case, except for not obstructing it. The investigation was dropped.
When I returned to the Prosecutor General’s Office in 2005, I resumed the investigation, reassembling the same investigative team. However, by then, we faced competition from the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU), which, under the leadership of Oleksandr Turchynov following the Orange Revolution, began to interfere significantly with our work.
He believed for some reason that Oleksiy Pukach was hiding in Israel. It is unclear what this assumption was based on. I, on the other hand, intuitively felt that Heorhiy Gongadze’s murderer had not left the country and was hiding somewhere in Ukraine. In 2005, Oleksandr Turchynov sent a group led by Andriy Kozhemyakin to Israel to arrest Pukach. I warned Kozhemyakin that proper documentation was necessary, without which they would be ignored in Israel. The group spent a week in Israel but was not received by anyone. Eventually, they were asked for documents from the Prosecutor General’s Office. After several more weeks, they returned empty-handed—Pukach was not in Israel. My intuition that the murderer had not fled Ukraine was confirmed in 2009 when Pukach was located in a remote village deep in the forests of Zhytomyr Oblast. He was subsequently brought to justice and remains in prison to this day. However, the Gongadze case is not fully resolved. The most critical part remains: identifying the mastermind behind the crime, who still lives freely in Ukraine. I have my own opinion about who that person is.
Another high-profile case from that time is the so-called “White Brotherhood” case, involving an esoteric, totalitarian cult. Thousands of people in Ukraine and beyond fell under the influence of two manipulators—Yuriy Kryvonohov and Maryna Tsvyhun. Believing in the apocalypse prophesied by the cult’s leaders, people abandoned their families and donated their money, apartments, and other possessions to the cult. In November 1993, cult members seized St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv and threatened to set themselves on fire. Kryvonohov and Tsvyhun were arrested by law enforcement officials. I remember that during interrogations, Tsvyhun insisted on being called by her ritual name, Maria Devi Khrystos. It seemed to me that this young, beautiful woman, under the influence of her mentor’s suggestions, truly believed in her “divine” mission and that she was the “reincarnation” of the Virgin Mary. We investigated the “White Brotherhood” case thoroughly and brought it to court. Many of the cult members were found to be mentally disturbed, but Tsvyhun herself was found to be mentally competent. She was sentenced to four years in prison, while Kryvonohov received six years. Both served their full sentences.
One of the most challenging cases in terms of security and complexity was the case of the Gromov gang. This group operated in Zaporizhzhia, Western Ukraine, and Rostov, Russia. The gang was responsible for 16 murders and around 70 armed robberies, including attacks on banks. Investigating this case, I spent nearly three years living in Zaporizhzhia. It is an investigation I am still proud of. The gang, which consisted of 17 members, received lengthy prison sentences, with three—including Gromov—sentenced to life imprisonment.
LBU: Please tell us about your “unfinished tenure” as Prosecutor General.
V. Shokin: After the Maidan events, in late June 2014, I was invited to serve as Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine. I was tasked with overseeing the legality of activities in “power” agencies—namely, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU), and the Tax Service. Naturally, I would have preferred to oversee the investigative direction of the Prosecutor General’s Office. I admit, when I was later offered the position of Prosecutor General of Ukraine, it came as a complete surprise. I recall one day in early February 2015, Vitaliy Yarema, then-Prosecutor General of Ukraine, called me and said that both of us were expected by the President of Ukraine. We arrived at Bankova Street, where Vitaliy Yarema handed Petro Poroshenko a resignation letter. It was Petro Poroshenko’s idea to appoint me Prosecutor General. I think the President was looking for a professional in his inner circle but couldn’t find one. My three previous terms as Deputy Prosecutor General and Poroshenko’s familiarity with me probably played a significant role in my appointment. We had known each other for a long time, although we always addressed each other formally.
It was clear that my impartiality toward politicians was an important factor. Probably, my aversion to public relations and, conversely, my respect for real, result-oriented work also played a role. On February 10, 2015, President Petro Poroshenko submitted a resolution to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to dismiss Vitaliy Yarema from the post of Prosecutor General of Ukraine and appoint me to the post. The Verkhovna Rada expressed significant confidence in me with 318 votes in favor – more than the constitutional majority. I became the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, serving the entire Ukrainian people, not Petro Poroshenko. I openly told Petro Poroshenko this to his face at the time and reaffirmed it in my speech from the rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada on the day of my appointment.
I believe that the decisive factor for the members of parliament who supported my candidacy was that I am not a politician, but a professional lawyer. My entire career showed that I was guided by the rule of law, the interests of Ukraine, legislation and the professional responsibility of the Prosecutor General’s Office. At the Prosecutor General’s Office, I concentrated on my work and refrained from the “trendy” foreign trips of that time. I did not make a single official trip to EU countries, the United States or elsewhere. All foreign trips were made by my deputies, who were responsible for their respective areas. I prioritized several tasks: the Maidan cases, the fight against corruption, and the reform of prosecutorial bodies.
In the spring of 2015, I initiated the creation of the General Inspectorate – an internal security body tasked, among other things, with uncovering corruption within the Prosecutor General’s Office. On March 6, 2015, I presented a step-by-step strategy for reforming the prosecutorial bodies. This included the introduction of prosecutorial self-governance through the establishment of a Prosecutors’ Council and a Qualification and Disciplinary Commission, in whose work the Prosecutor General had no right to interfere. This was truly unprecedented in our system.
I organized an open competition involving international experts, which led to the creation of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. Following the appointment of SAP’s head, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine was finally able to begin its full operations.
As for the Maidan cases as a whole, I had reasons to predict that we would be able to finish the investigation of the main episodes by the end of 2016. However, I was not allowed to finish; I was dismissed.
As early as the summer of 2015, it became clear that under my leadership, the Prosecutor General’s Office had begun to deliver results, work effectively, and undergo reforms. The then EU Ambassador to Ukraine, Jan Tombinski, said in an interview: “The kind of reform work we have seen in the last four months is something we haven’t seen in Ukraine for many years.”
LBU: How did the story of your dismissal as Ukraine’s Prosecutor General unfold?
V. Shokin: I can’t recall the exact day or time when Petro Poroshenko first indicated that he wanted to remove me from my position, but it definitely started with discussions about Burisma. I was told, “Don’t push the investigation too hard,” implying that Joe Biden was unhappy because his son was on the board of directors, and we needed to understand Ukraine’s dependence on American, specifically Biden’s, support. Poroshenko never explicitly said, “Close the case.” In fact, he wouldn’t have dared to say such a thing to me because he knew well that this would be a blatant violation of the law, and he also knew that I respected the law. His insistent “Don’t press on Burisma” seemed more like a recommendation to slow things down.
A striking episode signaling Biden’s dissatisfaction with Ukraine’s Prosecutor General over the Burisma case came from U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. On September 25, 2015, during a business forum in Odesa, Pyatt suddenly declared that “the investigation into Burisma has unsatisfactory results.”
LBU: Why Burisma specifically? Were you surprised that the Ambassador chose this case among thousands of criminal cases?
V. Shokin: This happened because he was communicating Vice President Joe Biden’s position, and of the many investigations, Burisma was the only one that Biden was interested in. This was a shock to the entire law enforcement system. It was doubly shocking to diplomats because ambassadors do not have the right to interfere in a country’s internal affairs. Such a statement by the U.S. Ambassador appeared to be blatant interference by a representative of a foreign state in the course of a criminal investigation.
Pyatt’s comments puzzled not only Ukrainian investigators and diplomats, but also the British Embassy. A few hours later, a British Embassy official in Ukraine, Patrick Torkington, who was a liaison officer with the National Crime Agency, sent an official message to the Main Investigation Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office. He stated, “Neither I nor my country understand the motives behind the statement made by the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. He added, “British law enforcement, which participated in the investigation of Burisma and froze Mykola Zlochevsky’s bank accounts containing $23 million on the basis of a London court decision in the spring of 2014, was surprised, to say the least, by the U.S. Ambassador’s remarks.”
Frankly, Burisma was not a top priority in my work. Of course, I was well informed about the progress of the investigation, the new discoveries by the investigators, and the facts uncovered. But my main focus was on the Maidan cases, the crimes of Viktor Yanukovych and his government, and the rescue of Ukrainian prisoners of war in Donbas. There was an overwhelming amount of work, running 24/7, leaving little time for rest. Poroshenko, however, frequently reminded me of Burisma, and increasingly so since the fall of 2015. He was getting annoyed, and the tension between us was growing. At that time, sporadic attacks on me began to appear in the media. There was even an assassination attempt – on November 2, 2015, an unknown gunman fired at the windows of my office on Riznytska Street. The bulletproof glass, installed earlier by the former Prosecutor General Viktor Pshonka, saved my life.
By the fall of 2015, my working relationship with the President of Ukraine had become strained. It became increasingly clear that the president no longer wanted a strong and independent Prosecutor General. I am certain that Poroshenko’s decision to remove me was made months before our final discussion about it—probably as early as November 2015. I heard that at that time, Yuriy Lutsenko had asked Poroshenko to appoint him as the next Prosecutor General.
LBU: What was the essence, the main reason for your dismissal? After all, the Prosecutor General’s Office seemed to be performing well under your leadership.
V. Shokin: My dismissal was discussed between Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry said: “I just wanted to see if there’s a way to resolve the issue of replacing Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Shokin. I know that the Vice President is very concerned about this, and I think it would be good to try to find a solution.” The “solution” referred to by Kerry, as dictated by Vice President Joe Biden, was handled “creatively” by Poroshenko. He calledme and tried to scare me: “Biden is coming to Kyiv with information about your corruption.” I shrugged and said, “Let him bring it.” I knew that any accusations of corruption against me would have to be fabricated.
On December 15, 2015, Joe Biden visited Kyiv, and politicians and analysts in Ukraine speculated about the purpose of his trip. Now it is clear that the visit had no other purpose than to try to hide his connection to the corrupt Ukrainian gas company Burisma. The only thing Biden “brought against me” was a dose of political poison. He blackmailed Poroshenko, saying that Ukraine would not receive a $1 billion loan guarantee unless I was removed from my position as Prosecutor General. I agreed to resign because I understood how critical the funds were for my war-torn Ukraine.
LBU: You’ve prepared a book detailing some of the most high-profile illegal activities of the time. Could you give us a preview of its contents?
V. Shokin: I don’t say much—it will be published soon and people will be able to read it. The central theme of the book is the idea of justice. Justice exists, and it must be fought for. People may criticize me for many things because, in my work, I sometimes operated on the edge, strictly following the law and demanding its fair enforcement. Of course, not everyone liked that.
In my work, I aim to achieve several goals that I believe will benefit both Ukraine and the U.S. First and foremost, I want to restore justice and prove that my dismissal in 2016 was orchestrated by then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, as he himself admitted during a press conference. Biden’s goal was to stop a criminal investigation into the Ukrainian company Burisma, whose board of directors included his son, Hunter.
I also present my version of the investigation into the murder of journalist Pavlo Sheremet in 2016. I am confident that the organizers and masterminds behind this crime can still be identified. In addition, there are several international corruption investigations that I have initiated in Ukraine. Completing these investigations, including the Biden corruption investigation in Ukraine, is a matter of honor for me. My book covers all of this.
LBU: Do you stay in touch with former colleagues and do public activities? We hear little about you after your dismissal.
V. Shokin: In my book, I provide a detailed account of my dismissal. As for communication with colleagues, it is ongoing and active. We all care about our law enforcement system and want to see positive changes.
Thank you for your concrete and interesting answers. The questions were asked by Viktor Kovalsky.
***
This biographical book was written by the Prosecutor General of Ukraine Viktor Shokin (2015–2016) about his biographical path and the search for justice.
The main part of the book is devoted to the history of international corruption of US Vice President Joseph Biden in 2014–2016, which was investigated by the author of the book.
In the author’s opinion, the crimes and offenses of a high-ranking US official in the territory of Ukraine are associated with both his personal corruption and the corrupt activities of his son Hunter on the board of directors of the Ukrainian company Burisma.
The author also lifts the curtain on the political and personal components of the relationship between the President and his closest associates and the US Vice President in the period 2015-2016.
The book is filled with state and official documents, letters from high-level officials, lawsuits and court decisions that prove the author’s position.
The vast majority of documents are published for the first time.
For a wide range of readers interested in Ukrainian politics and international relations.
