Corruption reconstruction? – Tales from the port

A few days ago an American acquaintance working with the Ministry of Health in Kyiv contacted the blog seeking a recommendation for an import broker at Odessa Port – a container within which a US car will be arriving and the acquaintance did not want to pay over the odds for its import.

Quite right.

However the blog is unaware of any “honest brokers”.  Also there is a new scheme relating to a “one stop shop” for car imports that may be a better all-in-one solution to consider.

Thus a little poking about around the port, port functionaries, and port “facilitators” was required in order to provide any sort of answer behind which the remotest due diligence had occurred.

The conversations entered into did not tell a particularly welcome tale, albeit private conversation with such individuals contains no small amount of hearsay.  Ergo, what follows will be worded carefully, and a reader is invited to continue reading on the proviso that what is written is a summary of such uncorroborated chit-chat.

When Alexander Vlasov was appointed to head Odessa Customs in April 2017, the blog asked whether it was indeed a Chernomyrdin moment.  A matter of “we wanted to do better, but things turned out as always.”  

That entry was solely occupied with the mystery regarding the swift, opaque and therefore troublesome appointment of Mr Vlasov.  What was the rush with a candidate with a quite reasonable curriculum vitae, a man who would have probably done very well in any real competition for the post?

“A “competition” for the Head of Odessa SFS was launched on 29th March – and by 31st March it became clear that Alexander Vlasov would be appointed with the current “acting” Mr Safonov to be appointed his Number 2.

“Competition” is rightfully encased by inverted comma’s, for transparency and suitable time for applicants to submit their interest and battle for the position via interviews, tests, and be subjected to public scrutiny there was none.

“Competition” thereby can be read as “arbitrary appointment” despite the necessary lip service being given to statute and public alike.  Indeed, while the “competition” was officially announced on 29th March, it was already clear at least a few days before that announcement in both media and social media that Mr Vlasov would “win” the yet to be announced “competition”.

For those wondering about Mr Vlasov’s background, for the first decade of this century he worked within the machinery of the SBU, more recently followed by year or two stints within the Tax Service, and then Economics Ministry.  In 2016 he was the head of the Inter-Regional Management of Operational ATO Support Zone of the SFS (Phantom Unit), with his last position being Chief of the Interdepartmental Center for the Prevention and Detection of Violations of the Law on State of Customs (also known as the “Black Hundreds”).

Prima facie, an impressive resume – so why such a clearly opaque, rigged and rushed “competition”?  At the time of writing there is nothing to suggest (serious) nefariousness by Mr Vlasov historically, nor any noted lapses in integrity.  Perhaps some will surface, perhaps there are none to surface.”

A possible answer was floated during this recent series of chats.  That proposition was that it was not the State that was in a rush, but it was Mr Vlasov who was in need of a quick exit from the Phantom Unit – and Odessa was the immediate and suitable vacancy.

It was offered that when SFS Chief, Roman Nasirov was taken down by NABU in early March 2017, so too was the roof removed over numerous lucrative scams and schemes at the administrative border with the occupied territories of Donbas – scams and schemes in which the Phantom Unit was allegedly involved.

Thus media and criminal investigations, notwithstanding eventual court cases relating to alleged nefarious acts of the Phantom Unit would follow very quickly.   Already corruption schemes relating to Alexander Khalkovsky of the Tax Police, a man associated with Roman Nasirov and Alexander Vlaskov, were media headlines in June of this year relating such acts along the administrative border.

An accurate account of the behind the curtain shuffling?  Well perhaps.

The timeline would fit the tale.  Mr Nasirov taken down on 3rd March, the Odessa “competition” for the Customs post was officially announced on 29th, and Mr Vlasov announced the winner on 31st March.  Blistering speed when there are ministries and also the National Bank that have had acting Ministers in post for years in some cases, many months in others.  There are also numerous large SOEs that remain without CEOs after several years.

Thus speedy appointments raise flags.

Nevertheless there are always many different way to join the dots and deliver a different picture every time – and that presumes all dots are supposed to be joined.

As yet by way of partial corroboration there are no court case results that have delivered any verdicts against the Phantom Unit that the blog has found – albeit that does not mean such investigations are not on-going, nor that cases have not been submitted to the court.  In fact there may even be verdicts that have eluded the search by the blog (though that seems unlikely as the courts are not known for their speed).  Thus prima facie a reader, like the blog, is left to ponder the accuracy of such conversation content.

However, returning to the aforementioned nefarious Alexander Khalkovsky, he has yet to be fired or disciplined or investigated for the allegations of corruption around the occupied territories that made media headlines.   Nevertheless, the Tax Police hierarchy would of course be happy to see him go rather than suffer continued prickly and unwelcome media scrutiny that occurred in June.

Lo, it was claimed, he has apparently instead moved to the SFS following another “competition” – similar to that of Mr Vlasov in speed and opaqueness it appears.  Upon winning a “competition” on 25th July held in Kyiv, Mr Khalkovsky is the head of the Department for the Provision of Technical Protection of Information, and controls the Department for the Protection of State Secrets (or similarly worded department titles).  The conversation left it unclear if the appointment is for a position in Odessa or a central appointment in Kyiv.

Once again a search provides little in the way of information regarding any such “competition”, and by extension any other candidates he would have been in “competition” against – if the “competition” occurred at all.

Nevertheless, if the appointment is to a post in Kyiv, the interlocutors claim he will be transferred to Odessa.   Perhaps corroboration will come swiftly as those spoken with would have it Mr Khalkovsky will take up his appointment in Odessa very soon – a matter of days it was said.

The interlocutors further stated that many old corruption schemes of under-weighing cargo, or over allowing for packing/packaging, and the re-designation of cargo contents has returned – in exchange for an illicit 30% fee for importers.  Once again, without speaking with any importers, corroboration is absent.

Odessa is a city that is mercantile above all else – and long associated with organised criminality, particularly relating to the ports (notwithstanding the political and institutional class if a reader attempt to separate them from organised criminality).

It is also a city that when speaking to those lurking behind the curtain, is full of colourful personalities that will regale a listener with intrigues to which only varying degrees of confidence can be attached.  Thus a reader is once again reminded that this entry is a summary of private conversation and hearsay within.

An obvious question a reader will ask, is why Mr Vlasko, if rapidly decamping the Phantom Unit for Odessa Customs, would consider that position some sort of safe haven?  Likewise Mr Khalkovsky?

The answer given when that question was asked suggested that it was not considered a safe haven, but rather one last location for significant enrichment prior to disappearing before the authorities came knocking – the inference being therefore, forewarning would be given, and also that the authorities are very well aware of what is allegedly going on.

The next question of course, to flee to where?  In the case of Mr Vlasko is was claimed Amsterdam where he has property and his son apparently studies.  No location was offered for Mr Khalkovsky.  Perhaps such friends of the blog such as Hubert Smeets and Laura Starnik will get an interesting little story in The Netherlands if so – not withstanding an eventual extradition request to The Netherlands too perhaps.  Amsterdam however, is probably not the best place to try and avoid any extradition attempt when it comes to Europe.  (Austria would be a far better bet.)

Whatever the case, if there be any merit to any of the intrigues floated and summarised above, serious questions need be asked of the central authorities in Kyiv.

Clearly there would be questionable decisions within the SFS management.  Oversight questions for the Ministry of Finance to which the SFS is subordinate.  Where is the Prosecutor’s Office?  NABU? Police? Rhetorically, and laced with a heavy dose of cynicism and sarcasm in equal measure, where are the concerned statements by the politicians of Odessa (for they too will be very aware of the intrigues as told to the blog)?

With regard to the US acquaintance seeking an “honest broker” to deal with the import of his car, where to find the least dishonest broker in Odessa, and how many similar tales will be listened to during this quest?