How far can a deputy go? The story of Hetmantsev's manipulations in the Concord Bank case reveals the depths of political maneuvering.

The head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Finance, Taxation, and Customs Policy, Daniil Getmantsev, accused the co-founders of Concord Bank of fraud and claimed that criminal cases against them were improperly closed. However, these statements are blatant manipulations, as there have never been any cases against Elena and Yulia Sosedok. Moreover, both the first instance and appellate courts recognized the decision of the National Bank of Ukraine to liquidate the bank as illegal. Why do politicians indulge in outright lies and manipulations? How do they affect public trust in state institutions, and why is it essential to combat the manual control of state bodies? This was explored by UNN.

Manipulations and False Statements

After Concord Bank co-founder Elena Sosedka published a video detailing the persecution and destruction of the financial institution and Daniil Getmantsev's involvement in this, the deputy claimed that a criminal case against the shareholders of Concord Bank was unlawfully closed. Nevertheless, this information turned out to be not just manipulation but a complete falsehood. There have never been any criminal proceedings against Elena and Yulia Sosedok.

Furthermore, both the first instance and appellate courts ruled that the National Bank of Ukraine's decision to revoke the banking license and liquidate Concord was unlawful. This also refutes the accusations directed at the bank's shareholders and indicates Getmantsev's bias.

He himself admitted that the destruction of Concord is a personal matter for him.

"It is obvious that Getmantsev became aware that the Prosecutor General's Office is considering our complaint regarding his unlawful actions concerning Concord Bank. This issue has been relevant for a long time, as his violations are not just an attack on our bank, but a slap in the face to the entire Ukrainian legal system. Yet, instead of being accountable for his actions, Getmantsev decided to act preemptively. He gathered signatures from deputies to possibly compel the Prosecutor General's Office to open a criminal case against us, the owners of Concord, even though there are no legal grounds for it. In this way, he attempts to divert attention from his own crimes and discredit those who dared to oppose him. This is unprecedented. A person who admitted that 'Concord' is a personal matter for him now wants to involve not only deputies but also the Prosecutor General's Office, which logically should be a guarantor of the law, not a tool for settling scores. Getmantsev, as always, tries to shift his responsibility onto others, but we will not let this impunity go unnoticed," - stated Elena Sosedka.

Experts interviewed by UNN also indicate that the head of the tax committee is biased and interested in destroying Concord. For instance, the president of the All-Ukrainian Association of Retired Judges, Denis Nevyadomskiy, advises taking legal action against Getmantsev in such a situation.

"A defamation lawsuit should be filed to protect honor, dignity, and business reputation. According to the European Court of Human Rights ruling in 'Sanchez v. France': authors of social media messages, particularly public figures, bear responsibility for the content of comments left by other users under their publications," - noted Nevyadomskiy in an exclusive comment to UNN.

According to him, the fate of such a lawsuit will depend on the wording used by the defendant and the evidence provided by the plaintiff.

"The peculiarity of these lawsuits is that the plaintiff only needs to prove the fact of spreading false information, while the defendant must prove that these statements or evaluative judgments are true," - added Nevyadomskiy.

Manual Control of State Bodies

One of the most egregious facts highlighted in the video published by Elena Sosedka is that Getmantsev allegedly tried to influence the tax service. In particular, the deputy supposedly attempted to force the tax authority to charge VAT on banking services that are not subject to taxation by law. Such actions not only violate the law but also demonstrate a clear attempt to manage state bodies manually.

Nevyadomskiy points out that this could be a criminal offense.

"It is essential to understand what kind of influence this was and how it was exercised. In case of exceeding official powers or abusing them, criminal liability is provided under Article 364 of the Criminal Code," - he emphasized.

It is worth noting that the media has repeatedly pointed out that Getmantsev influences the decisions of the State Tax Service through his former assistant, Yevgeny Sokur, who currently serves as acting deputy chairman of the State Tax Service of Ukraine.

According to Sergei Dorotich, head of the #SaveFOP movement, such behavior by the deputy is linked to the sense of impunity among the powerful in Ukraine.

"When you enter power, and I say this from experience as a former civil servant of the second rank, I understand what a warm bath is for a civil servant when there are no issues you cannot resolve with a single phone call; it is a very strong temptation, indeed. The higher up (in power - ed.), the greater the temptation. So, such levers that Daniil Getmantsev has... He can feel secure and feels like a god; he understands that he can do anything without consequences. He knows he can destroy a business, seize it, take it over," - Dorotich explained in an exclusive comment to UNN.

All of this, according to him, leads to Getmantsev openly manipulating, lying, and destroying businesses that do not suit him.

It should be noted that Getmantsev's manipulations cast doubt on the independence of state bodies and create a dangerous precedent. If a deputy can publicly accuse citizens of non-existent crimes and influence tax decisions, instructing courts on what decisions to make, this undermines trust in state authority.

Lawyers and public activists emphasize that cases like Getmantsev's and Concord Bank should be investigated by law enforcement agencies. Additionally, an important step is to create mechanisms to control the statements of public figures and hold them accountable for manipulations and distortions of facts.

Getmantsev's accusations against Concord raise the question: can politicians use their positions to exert pressure on businesses and citizens? In a democratic society, this should not be the norm. However, his actions, especially the interference in the activities of the tax service, indicate otherwise.

Reminder

It was previously reported that the shareholders of Concord appealed in court against the decision of the National Bank of Ukraine to withdraw the bank from the market. The first instance and appellate courts recognized the decision of the NBU to revoke the license and liquidate Concord Bank as unlawful and canceled it. However, Ukrainian legislation is structured in such a way that the process of withdrawing a banking institution from the market, once initiated, is irreversible.

Despite the war in Ukraine, the process of withdrawing banks from the market has not stopped. As of February 24, 2022, liquidation was initiated for eight banks. In 2023, for the first time in Ukraine, not only bankrupt banks but also profitable institutions faced liquidation and revocation of licenses - this concerns Concord Bank. As Elena Sosedka stated, at the time the regulator announced the decision to liquidate the bank, there were sufficient liquid assets in the financial institution to make all necessary payments within 2-3 weeks. However, the liquidation process is strictly regulated by law and can take up to three years.