Logvinsky’s arrest in absentia: new details in the Golden Mandarin case

30 May 02:41

The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court has imposed a pre-trial restraint on a defendant in the so-called Golden Mandarin case. It is a former People’s Deputy from the People’s Front, Heorhiy Logvynskyi. This was reported by the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, "Komersant Ukrainian" reports

The chamber considered complaints from the defense and prosecution against the previous decision of the investigating judge, who refused to take Logvinsky into custody on October 29, 2024. The former MP of the VIII convocation is currently outside Ukraine.

The panel of judges of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court ruled in favor of the prosecutor.

After the suspect is detained and brought to the pre-trial investigation venue, the investigating judge will decide on the application of this measure of restraint.

The decision came into force upon its announcement and is not subject to appeal in cassation. According to the pre-trial investigation body, the person is suspected of organizing the misappropriation and legalization of more than UAH 54 million from the state budget (part 3 of Article 27, part 5 of Article 191, part 3 of Article 27, part 3 of Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

On July 10, 2023, on behalf of the Head of the SAPO, the prosecutor, together with NABU detectives, served a notice of suspicion of organizing the embezzlement and legalization of over UAH 54.179 million to a former MP of Ukraine, a current lawyer, whose actions are qualified under Part 5 of Article 191, Part 3 of Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. He became the seventh suspect in the Golden Mandarin case. This became possible due to the termination of the former MP’s immunity, which he had due to his family ties with the ECHR judge.

As the former MP left the territory of Ukraine on the eve of the termination of his immunity, he was notified of suspicion in accordance with Articles 135 and 278 of the CPC of Ukraine.

What is known about the Golden Mandarin case

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau suspects Georgiy Logvinsky of organizing a scheme to seize UAH 54 million in favor of the Golden Mandarin company through possible misleading the European Court of Human Rights in a case against Ukraine.

According to the SAPO, on July 10, 2023, on behalf of the head of the department, the prosecutor, together with NABU detectives, reported suspicion of organizing the seizure and legalization of more than UAH 54 million from the state budget. These are the events that took place between 2013 and 2016. It was then, according to the investigation, that the former MP developed and implemented a fraudulent scheme, misleading the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The fictitious company Zolotoy Mandarin Oil LLC, which was controlled by the scheme participants, filed an application with the ECHR allegedly because of an unenforced Ukrainian court decision to recover a debt from Kyivenergo PJSC since 2009. The amount of the claim is over UAH 54 million.

However, as it turned out, at the time of the application:

the company already had debts to the state-owned Rodovid Bank in the amount of more than UAH 70 million;
its property and accounts were blocked;
the rights of claim to Kyivenergo had been assigned to another company, and Golden Mandarin had already received money for it;
the director of the firm was under investigation for fraud.

These facts were hidden from the ECHR.

Fleeing the country and manipulating the declaration

After the case was referred to the ECHR, the former MP reached an agreement with the leadership of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which facilitated the conclusion of a “friendly settlement” declaration. Thus, the state recognized its responsibility for the allegedly unenforced court decision in a dispute between two private companies.

On the basis of this declaration, a payment was made from the state budget – UAH 54.179 million, which was subsequently laundered through conversion centers.

Arrest and international search

Since the ex-MP left Ukraine before the termination of his immunity (which he had as a relative of a judge of the ECHR), the notice of suspicion was served in absentia – in accordance with Articles 135 and 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Earlier in this case, six people had already been notified of suspicion – they were served with amended notices with updated circumstances and qualifications. The investigation is ongoing.