Belarus refused to extradite Ukrainian banker

The Belarusian Prosecutor’s Office explained that extradition of Pavel Borulko might damage the country’s sovereignty.

The Ukrainian Security Service (USS) intended to press charges against the well-known banker for having stolen UAH 620mln from the Deposit Guarantee Fund (DGF). However, the Belarusian Prosecutor’s Office believes that the extradition of the suspected banker might damage the country’s sovereignty and security. According to experts, the refusal is inadequate from the legal point of view. It is speculated that Pavel Borulko will not return to Ukraine alongside a certain agreement, Kommersant reports.

First deputy general prosecutor Renat Kuzmin said that the Belarusian Prosecutor’s Office refused to extradite Pavel Borulko. “We have received an official reply from the Belarusian Prosecutor’s Office. In the reply, the Prosecutor’s Office wrote that, according to article 19 of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations on Civil, Family and Criminal Matters from 22 January 1993, it is impossible to fulfill the request of Ukraine’s General Prosecutor’s Office to extradite Pavel Borulko. As a matter of fact, according to the acting cooperation agreement the Belarusian part is not obliged to provide Ukraine with sufficient explanation of the refusal,” he said. Renat Kuzmin emphasized that representatives of the General Prosecutor’s Office visited Pavel Borulko in the investigation isolation cell in the Belarusian KGB prison.

The criminal case on the stolen funds from two banks - European bank and National Standard bank - was initiated in 2010. Nevertheless, 14 October 2009 the USS informed the National Bank’s management that on 20 August more than 400 clients made deposits of UAH 150 thousand (such deposits are guaranteed) in the National Standard bank “in order to withdraw cash via GDF”. Afterwards, a similar scheme was discovered in the European bank. The investigation showed that these “clients” had come to the bank from Cherkassy and Donetsk regions; after receiving remunerations of UAH 40-100, they tried to get the guaranteed compensation from the GDF upon submission of their passports. According to the USS, the “clients” succeeded in getting total amount of UAH 444,2mln from the Fund.

The USS reports that the key stakeholder among the “clients” was Pavel Borulko who is considered to stand behind these schemes. Moreover, in the National Bank of Ukraine, the banker got refinancing for three banks – European bank, Natioanl Standard bank and Vladimirsky bank. On the whole, the USS accuses Borulko of having stolen UAH 620mln.

According to a legal source, despite the USS’ attempts to have Pavel Borulko extradited, he was released from the investigation isolation cell on his own recognizance. “During the last three weeks he’s been walking freely in Belarus,” the source said. At the same time, legal experts find the formulation submitted by the Belarusian Prosecutor’s Office completely inaccurate. According to article 19 of the Convention referred to by the Prosecutor’s Office, a party can refuse to provide legal assistance if it might damage the sovereignty or security, or if it contradicts the legislation of the party that submitted the request.” The General Prosecutor’s office’s request emphasizes that “the extradition of Pavel Borulko contradicts the legislation of the Republic of Belarus.” “The refusal is naïve from the legal point of view. Belarus cannot suffer any damage from the extradition of the person suspected of financial crimes in another country. Such a reference to this article of the Convention doesn’t make any sense, and has never been made in the legal practice before. The Convention is a prevailing document and can contradict neither national interests, no national legislation,” partner of the legal consultancy Lavrinovich and Partners Maxim Lavrinovich said.