On June 20 Our Ukraine declared in parliament that it would block the vote on the agenda unless a special committee of inquiry was set up to investigate the Bank Ukrayina bankruptcy. That fraction’s Viktor Korol, who had chaired a similar committee in the previous parliament, is prepared to complete the investigation. In his words, forming a committee of inquiry was discussed at a coordinating meeting of deputies’ groups and fractions, yet the legislative leadership somehow never brought the issue to a vote.
The previous committee of inquiry caused several scandals before the elections, implicating noted political figures allegedly involved in or with the bankruptcy, including Ihor Mitiukov, Oleksandr Tkachenko, and Oleksandr Volkov, leaving all these said gentlemen unruffled. But then fresh evidence surfaced, supporting what had been dug up by the committee, and caused much ado.
The bankruptcy issue remains of great interest, since the bank used to rank very high in the number of its corporate customers controlled by very important people. Most likely, a new committee will be formed sooner or later, just as the peak of its activity is likely to coincide with an active phase in the 2004 presidential campaign. Hence the importance of the figure to become its chairman. People’s Deputy Korol could be regarded as an acceptable candidacy in terms of professional experience, yet his political affiliation could well create problems for the commission.
Another important point is that Our Ukraine leader Viktor Yushchenko also figures among the suspects. Before the elections, some of the media carried copies of documents indicating that his daughter’s tuition was financed by the bank. In addition, its rivals dug up information pointing to Viktor Yushchenko’s brother Petro as being involved with a company that received a large loan from the bank prior to its bankruptcy. However, the allegation was never actually corroborated and no charges were pressed.
Be it as it may, there is little doubt that, with the presidential race approaching, the portfolio of documents incriminating Viktor Yushchenko (and other politicians) as being involved with the bank will be used again. Under the circumstances, whoever acts as the coordinator and manager of information figuring in the investigation will play a key role.
If it is Viktor Korol, he will, of course, find it hard to avoid being accused of political bias or lack of party discipline. Actually, this explains why no one seems in any hurry to set up a new committee of inquiry, the more so that its jurisdiction could well extend further than collecting damaging evidence against the so-called extremists guilty of liquidating the bank and of wheeling and dealing when selling its property. Blows could also be aimed in yet other directions.
Mr. Korol announced that, if and when committee chairman, he will investigate the privatization of the Ukrsotsbank and Prominvestbank.
The idea to revive the Ukrsotsbank and Prominvestbank privatization case indicates another recent trend in the Ukrainian economy and politics: conflicts stemming from a redistribution of property and talk about re-privatization. All this maneuvering around the committee of inquiry has nothing to do with revitalizing the banking system, channeling credit to the real economy, or serving depositors’ interests. The lawmakers ought to consider expanding the committee’s field of endeavor. It is very good at scandal-mongering, albeit relying on uncorroborated evidence, but this brings forth no real fruit, simply because the committee’s functions are limited. Political scandals are also not likely to help the national banking get to its feet any faster.
