On December 9-20, 2018, at the congress of judges of Ukraine, four new members of the Supreme Council of Justice were elected. The list was also fortunate enough to come to the ex-judge of the Supreme Economic Court, Larisa Ivanova.
Earlier, she submitted her candidacy to the Supreme Court and during the competition she received a negative opinion from the Public Council of Integrity, who saw the inconsistency of her family’s official income with the actual livelihood. However, the mismatch of wealth and incomes is not what the judge calls attention at when voting, so at the congress for Larisa Bronislavovna voted as many as 180 people.
Meet the newly appointed member of the Supreme Council of Justice, Larisa Bronislavovna Ivanova.
Since 1993, Larisa Ivanova has started working as an assistant to the Chairman of the Kyiv Arbitration Court. In 1996, she became a judge of the same department. But in the period from 2002 to 2011, he also held an administrative post of deputy chairman.
For Yanukovych’s presidency, and a year after the appointment of the head of the Supreme Economic Court of the odious Victor Tat’kov, Ivanova also was transferred there. There she stayed until the dissolution of the department and the establishment of the Supreme Court, where the newly elected member of the SCJ also tried, but left.
At this stage, the «pre-judge» period of Ivanova’s work should be singled out, because she became a lively topic for discussion during her interview with the HQCJU. The commission raised questions about Larisa Bronislavivna’s numerous assets. Judge explained their origin to work in the German Democratic Republic during the time of the USSR. It was allegedly there that she managed to stay, and was a stalker, and a tasksetter in the shop, and even picked up strawberries in the fields. However, information about the work activity did not make such information. It turns out, however, there are such people who have been able to keep and, most importantly, to increase their assets from the time of the Soviet Union to this day.
Ivanova’s income become of interest to the journalists of one of the central TV channels. In an interview, she reported false information about their origin, she says, «worked 10 years abroad for the currency» and during the interview with the HQCJU approved it.
As is known, the newly-elected member of the SCJ was a pool of judges Tat’kov-Yemelyanov, against which the Prosecutor General’s Office conducted a pre-trial investigation into the fact of unlawful interference with the system of self-distribution of cases. They created 45 judge specializations, many of which were of an artificial nature and duplicated, prosecutors say. This made it possible to send the necessary cases to the right judges with great probability. Larisa Ivanova, though not on the list of judges who received cases as a result of such a method, however, was systematically in the boards of judges who worked under such a scheme.
The Public Council of Integrity has found at least 7 decisions approved by Ivanova as part of the board with the participation of Naftogaz’s party. Four such decisions come at a time when her son Anton worked there as a lawyer. In the opinion of the PCI, the judge should, in such cases, declare the self-discharge, which was not done.
In her declaration of family ties, Larisa Ivanova recorded a son as a judge, a daughter, who is notary, and the wife of a brother — also a judge.
We analyzed the publicly available declarations by Larisa Ivanova in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. The income of the candidates consisted exclusively of the salary of the judge. The husband had received a minimum pension for all years, in 2016 declared income from the provision of property for lease, and in 2017 he first showed interest on deposits and UAH 781,900 in entrepreneurship.
Larisa Ivanova and her husband Volodymyr have two land plots within Kyiv and Kyiv-Svyatoshinsky district. All the shares acquired during the period of judging, and some of them — free of charge. According to the PCI, a judge has at least two privatized land, which raises doubts about compliance with certain articles of the Land Code.
It is known that one plot in the Mezhyhirya region, estimated at 50 thousand dollars, is presented to her daughter.
Also, the couple declared the two for five apartments with a total area of 323 square meters in Kyiv (two of them at a new cost of $ 100 thousand), acquired in the period from 1997 to 2009, that is when Larisa Bronislavovna already worked in court. Only paying for communal services will cost a penny.
Now let’s turn to the most interesting. In addition to expensive apartments and land lots, Ivanova’s spouses have a big house in Kyiv, which fits into the declaration as unfinished, although the house looks finished. Recall that this house become of interest to journalists. Larisa Bronislavovna explained that «she worked 10 years with her husband abroad for the currency». However, this statement denied the PCI in its conclusion.
By the way, pay attention to the house in the neighborhood, There lives the brother of Larisa Bronislavivna Yevhen Sokurenko, whose wife is working in the Economic Court of the Kyiv region.
Anton Ivanov, the son of Larisa Bronislavivna, also a judge of the Economic Court, but of Lugansk region. In 2012 he bought a spacious apartment in Kyiv for 106 square meters, having paid for it UAH 695 477. In the same year he received a house of 61 square meters from the management of housing. At that time he was 26 years old.
Larisa Ivanova has recorded her income statement for Mitsubishi Pajero and the daughter’s HONDA CR-V 2011 edition, which she uses herself. Crossover is the property of Galina Ivanova, she is a private notary. In the network, such the car sells for UAH 450 000 with a run of 89 thousand km. According to the tax information, it is slightly more than the official income of Galina Volodymyrivna in the period from 2012 to 2016.
In addition, the son of the newly elected member of the SCJ Anton 2009 bought an Audi A5 car, but for unknown reasons did not declare its value. Now such a car sells at the lowest price for UAH 359 450. By the way, according to the PCI, in the year of car purchase, Anton Ivanov still had no lawyer’s license and lived with his parents. Probably, the parents also helped him to buy a car.
Analyzing the property of the family, the PCI concluded that only the official data of its own declarations Ivanova’s family spent 9 years (from 2002 to 2011) on the purchase of real estate and valuable property approximately 259 thousand dollars, which exceeds the amount of their official income for currently.
According to the PCI, significant expenses were incurred on trips abroad. The public, having checked the data from the judge’s dossier, has calculated the cost of UAH 150 thousand. In particular, in 2016 two trips to Turkey and once to Slovakia by car. In 2015, the family stayed abroad for a total of almost a month.
As you can see, the sources of the property of judge Ivanova caused many questions from representatives of the public. However, if the public has been at least partly involved in the selection process of judges, judges of judges, namely the Supreme Council of Justice, are elected without any public participation. By law, most members of the SCJ are elected by the same judges, that is, the judges themselves choose those who will be able to punish them for further misdemeanors. However, there are serious doubts as to how independent judges choose themselves. So, a few days before the congress of judges, a list of the four winners to the posts of members of the SCJ, which has already been agreed «from above», was published. For the odd coincidence, these four candidates, including Larisa Ivanova, were elected members of the Supreme Council of Justice. Is it possible to speak of any independence of the judiciary system, if almost 200 judges are ready to vote without pre-qualification for candidates, rather than make their own choices? Here is the rhetorical question. Obviously, without changing the rules of election of judicial qualifications bodies, one can hardly speak of a successful judicial reform.