Dina Pimakhova: Suspicion Against Me Is NABU's Revenge for Refusing a Bribe

A large, candid interview with the former first deputy head of the State Migration Service.

Dina Pimakhova, former first deputy head of the State Migration Service, became known to the general public on November 29, 2017, when the official found herself at the center of an interagency conflict between the NABU, SBU and Prosecutor General's Office.

As it turned out, NABU agents spent 11 months developing the first deputy head of the State Migration Service in order to document her receiving an improper benefit. To do this, one of the agents, “Sergei Titenkov”, aka Sergei Boyarsky (son of former Party of Regions MP Yuriy Boyarsky), infiltrated Pimakhova's circle, artificially arranging an acquaintance with her former husband: he was selling a car in Zaporizhzhia, and the agent posed as an interested buyer.

After getting to know Pimakhova herself, the agent spent more than half a year communicating with the official on personal topics, arranged chance meetings even in other cities, waited for her outside work, invited her to expensive restaurants and rented yachts, so that at the right moment he could ask her to help obtain a residence permit for a foreigner in exchange for a cash reward.

According to Pimakhova, what alarmed her was that “Titenkov” literally stalked her: he waited outside her home and work and did not understand the word “no.” In September, Pimakhova filed a statement with the SBU and, together with the security service's operatives, began documenting the “agents'” actions. At the moment of handing over the bribe to Pimakhova, when NABU detectives were supposed to detain her, the NABU agent was detained by SBU officers.

Later it became clear that the SBU had uncovered a NABU agents' safe house and installed cameras in it. The published conversations made clear that NABU officers were in despair because the civil servant refused to take money, and the operation had gone too far: among the options for a successful “sting,” they discussed getting Pimakhova drunk or entering into an intimate relationship with her. The well-known agent “Katerina” proposed infiltrating the family of the first deputy head of the State Migration Service (Pimakhova was looking for a nanny for her children), while “Sergei Titenkov” was to “bring him over with some powder” so he could call Pimakhova and ask her to “solve the issue,” since she has many influential acquaintances.

In December 2017, SAP head Nazar Kholodnytskyi was skeptical about the prospects of the Pimakhova case and said the proceedings were unlikely to be brought to a logical conclusion, since the crime could not be proven in court. In February 2019, in an interview with the newspaper Slovo i Delo, the SAP head described “heated discussions” between NABU detectives and a group of prosecutors: the latter were not signing the suspicion because they did not see the elements of a crime.

However, on December 19, 2019, two years after the described events, an SAP prosecutor signed a suspicion of promising and offering an improper benefit (Part 4, Article 368). If her guilt is proven in court, the former deputy head of the State Migration Service faces 8 to 12 years in prison. According to TK Media, Oleksandr Omelchenko may be a kum (close associate) of NABU director Artem Sytnyk.

On December 23, the High Anti-Corruption Court chose for Pimakhova a preventive measure in the form of night-time house arrest, obliging her not to leave home from 22:00 to 06:00. The court also imposed on the former official the obligations to surrender her passport for travel abroad, not to communicate with witnesses in the case, and to wear an electronic bracelet. SAP prosecutors had requested this preventive measure.

In an interview with TK Media Pimakhova candidly recounts how she was asked to leave her post “amicably,” and in December 2016 was warned about an order from the security forces; how NABU agents infiltrated her circle, why the investigation became active two years later, and how she became a bone in the throat of the anti-corruption bureau's leadership.

— Two years ago Nazar Kholodnytskyi stated that the case against you would hardly be brought to a logical conclusion, since it would be impossible to prove your guilt in court. Today Kholodnytskyi is still head of the SAP, and anti-corruption prosecutors have signed the suspicion. Over two years, has anything changed, have new facts emerged?

— Not a single new fact has emerged. On the contrary, I am charged with “offer or promise” for the period June to September 2017. I submitted the statement [about the bribe offer] to the SBU in September 2017. NABU opened criminal proceedings against me only in November 2017.

That is, NABU registered criminal proceedings on November 28, 2017, when I had already been working with the SBU and the Prosecutor General's Office for two months.

— Are we talking about a promise or receiving funds?

— Absolutely not. No funds are charged against me. There is only “offer or promise.” The essence is this: the offer and promise were made within the framework of cooperation with the SBU. After I was convinced that this person [the agent] was ready for such actions [giving a bribe] and heard the amount, I set all of this out in my statement. And after two months of work with the equipment the SBU fitted on me, with which I conducted these conversations, he was detained.

On November 28, they [NABU], as the Criminal Procedure Code requires, opened criminal proceedings to hand me the first installment of the sum: 15 thousand dollars. I came to the meeting. After all, I had been working with the relevant law enforcement agencies for two months; I was not engaging in amateur activity. He brought the money, I took it, and he was immediately detained. The money was, naturally, seized within the criminal case based on my statement about the bribe offer.

— Your activities were documented by NABU back in the summer, but the criminal case was opened only in November. Within what framework was your case being developed?

— Within the framework of operational-search activity (OSA). It is important to say that within OSA, law enforcement agencies have the right to work until the moment a person commits a crime. That is, they find out, they watch, they carry out operational-search measures, including wiretapping the person and maintaining visual contact, right up until the person commits a crime under the Criminal Code.

If, however, the person has committed a crime, then within 24 hours, as the Criminal Procedure Code requires, it is mandatory to enter the information and register the criminal case in the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations. After that, one officially moves from OSA to criminal proceedings and continues working the same way, but now within criminal proceedings. This is how the legislator provided for the process.

— According to the investigation, you accepted the offer in the summer.

— Yes.

— Why, in that case, did NABU detectives not react to you back then, and why were you not detained?

— Moreover, they did not even register anything on this in the ERDR, as the process requires. The Criminal Procedure Code is not a work of fiction. Here one must act as prescribed. This is what happens when you really want something but nothing works out over two years. They sifted me through a sieve, examined my activities under an X-ray, and turned inside out everyone they could. And nothing. Because there is nothing. There were no unlawful actions.

— In the recordings published by NABU, the discussion concerns an Arab investment fund and 30 thousand dollars. The NABU press release refers to 1,800 dollars and a passport for a citizen of Vietnam. What are you being charged with?

— I am being charged with two episodes. The first is conversations about a residence permit and allegedly 1,800 dollars; the second is  conversations about 30 thousand dollars.

—  Is the episode you reported to the SBU in your statement also counted?

— Of course.

— Tell us about the first episode. Where did the 1,800 dollars come from and what was the “scheme”?

This “agent” approached me as a friend. That is, he worked his way into my trust, spent half a year hanging around, sitting next to me… And then my friend, an acquaintance, a buddy, says to me: “Din, I'm opening a company here, I need a foreign man to work for me. But I'm still in the process of registering my business, and I can't get him set up with us. What options are there at all for a foreigner to get a residence permit so that he can work here?”.

This is provided for by law, and I answer: a temporary residence permit can be obtained through work in two cases. The first is if he gets a job at someone's enterprise. The second is if he himself becomes a founder of an enterprise, registering it on the territory of Ukraine. And then, after the enterprise is registered, the whole package of documents is reviewed by the Employment Center. These are not my functions.

The documents have to be submitted to the Employment Center, which issues a work permit. Once it is obtained, the person can enter on a D visa. Even if he is already here, he still has to leave. Then he re-enters and obtains a D visa at the embassy on the basis of the work permit. Only after that can he obtain a residence permit for work.

Recently there have been minor changes in the legislation: it is now possible to avoid leaving the country to obtain a visa. But the point is: only after obtaining a “residence permit” does a person receive a residence permit for one year. When he conducts his activity in relation to the enterprise he registered, his tasks are paying taxes and filing reports with the tax authority. Whether he stands and sells some goods, or delivers water, or does some other activity, is nobody's business. This is what the legislator provided for. This is not a violation of the law. No one from the Migration Service or other supervisory bodies will later check whether he works or not. If his enterprise does not operate and exists only on paper, he did not pay taxes and did not keep records, that is a different question. Then his residence permit will not be extended. All of this is provided for.

I gave this consultation to a friend. He says: Din, you understand... it's possible for him to become a founder, he will conduct his activity… I tell him: well, ask a lawyer, there are many law firms that handle this. Of course I'm not going to go and get this permit for him now. I am not collecting documents for the Employment Center. I'm not going to do this.

“Couldn't you recommend a lawyer to me, because I haven't hired anyone yet and I need to?” he asks. “Recommend a lawyer? No problem, I know one.”

I found one and gave him the contacts of a firm that does this. I did not communicate with them personally; I asked an acquaintance for the contacts. And I said: here they prepare all the documents, the person does this in accordance with the law and takes money for it, as for services.

— Is the firm also a defendant?

— They were not charged with anything. They are just mentioned.

— What happened next?

— He says: “Din, could you at least find out what package of documents he [the lawyer] needs and tell me the list… because I don't understand this, it will be hard for me to talk to him…”

I told him: such-and-such documents are needed, and this is no secret. This information is on the Employment Center's website. This information is on the law firm's website. This information is in the Cabinet of Ministers resolution. That is, the person learned from me only about the existence of the procedure.

He asks: how much do these services cost? I say: I don't know. We discussed how much they might possibly cost. I just went to the website again. As I understand it, the taxes alone come to more than 10 thousand hryvnias. The lawyer pays them himself, because he receives a power of attorney from this person.

— Is this what you meant about where the 1,800 dollar sum came from?

— Yes, yes. In hryvnia equivalent. This is a legal mechanism. The firm works in this area, documents are submitted under a power of attorney, and nobody falsifies anything. Because otherwise they would not be working anymore; law enforcement would have already detained them.

He says: Din, well, I don't understand this and never will…

What must be done next? The law firm first asks for a power of attorney to be prepared. Without a power of attorney they cannot act at all. I told “Titenkov”: please, and passed on information that he needed to contact the lawyers directly.

My task was to help a friend by giving him a lawyer. But “Titenkov” gave me his business card and asked me to “send them what they need to their email”. I said: you know, I won't be sending anything… I don't have time.

And indeed, this law firm, interested in its client and in the services they provide daily, sends it to him directly, and this has been established within the criminal proceedings…

— They send a commercial offer?

— No, a power of attorney, so that the lawyer can go to government bodies and prepare the necessary package of documents. Nobody is going to forge documents. A power of attorney to represent a person's interests on the territory of Ukraine. That's all. That's all that was done, and on this issue everything ended. This is an absolutely legal matter, which they now call an “offer,” and I explained which documents must be provided. Not to me, first of all, but to the person for processing. And that it will cost such-and-such. But it's not me who sets that price; it is not within my powers at all. 

“They said: resign, otherwise it will be bad”

I want to tell you what you could not read. What happened before. Why I did not provide this information: I did not consider it necessary, and I had not been served with any suspicion before.

— Go ahead.

— I worked at the Kyiv Migration Service as head of the department for asylum seekers and social integration. That is the refugee category, roughly speaking. Then a competition was announced in the central office for the post of first deputy head of the State Migration Service of Ukraine. I thought about it and analyzed it, I had doubts, but in the end I still submitted an application to the National Civil Service Agency and a package of documents to take part in the competition. In total five people participated. I won the competition on October 27, 2016, taking first place. After this, strange things began to happen.

— Such as?

— They started holding up my special check by the NAPC and dragging it out, and they did not appoint me. Even the people who on the same day won the competition with me for other posts had already been appointed. I followed these appointments; the Cabinet appointed them, and their special checks had been closed. Mine had not.

After that, while I was at work on December 6, 2016, a person came to my workplace. It was Berezniakivska 4A. He reported some information that indeed, regarding me, some kind of, how to put it, “deals” were taking place, or whatever the right term is. He said: “an order.”

— An order to delay the appointment?

— No, that I needed to be… that there was talk in law enforcement that I had to be “caught on something” so that I would not be appointed.

— Who could have been behind this?

— He did not say who, did not give a surname. He said: you've been targeted, and provocations are being prepared against you aimed at bringing criminal liability under Article 368 by some unscrupulous law enforcement officers for a cash reward. When I asked “why are you telling me this?” he replied that he had good human qualities and did not want to allow an injustice.

In short, I was in shock. After this, on December 7, 2016, I wrote a statement addressed to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, the head of the Security Service of Ukraine, the head of NABU Artem Sytnyk, and the head of the NAPC Natalia Korchak, in which I fully set out the situation: that I now hold this post, that such-and-such a person came to me, between 11 and 12 o'clock, at such-and-such address, and said the following words. I explained that this is connected with the fact that I won the competition on October 27, yet I still have not been subjected to a special check, although it should be carried out within a month. I see strange people coming to my workplace: the door opens, “I represent such-and-such, we can come to an agreement.” Nonsense. I was throwing them out. I described all of this to them and indicated the phone number I use.

I reported it to four bodies, and asked them: if this is indeed groundless, let the head check it; if it is well-founded, if there are documents and facts showing that a person is guilty and something must be done, then please do it.

At the citizens' appeals department they then considered it and informed me that there were no grounds for entry into the ERDR. Roughly speaking: when there is a specific crime and a specific person, write and come back.

The day before all this, I had a conversation with yet another person. I named him to the SAP prosecutor on Tuesday, the 24th, the day before yesterday. I attached this statement. I did not submit this statement a second time now.

— What conversation?

— I reported it on Tuesday, to NABU. I named the person who told me I had to resign from my post. I want them to establish this.

— So you were asked to resign from your post?

— Before I was warned about possible provocations in December 2016, one person suggested that I resign from my post, on my own, voluntarily. He said: resign, otherwise it will be bad. I said: I won't resign. And it won't be bad, because I will be careful not to break the law, God forbid. That's all. I am set up to work this way. And I left. I did not write a statement about this person proposing that I resign.

— That was in December 2016. And when did NABU start working on you?

— The NABU special operation began three weeks after I submitted that statement. It started in January 2017, right after I successfully passed the NAPC special check.

On December 30, two months after the competition, although the check should be carried out within a month, I was summoned to the NAPC. There, five people questioned me with a video camera pointed at my face, about my declaration; they had the right to do so. I brought the documents, answered all the questions, sat there for two hours telling everything, and left all the documents. They had to close the check because they found nothing. And already in January NABU started a special operation against me. How can I not believe in such coincidences?

— Do you allow that the NABU special operation and the provocations you were warned about are links in one chain?

— This is unambiguous.

— What was the formal pretext for the special operation?

— Formal: “exposing violations, exposing abuses, and also crimes in the Migration Service.” Just such a general phrase.

— Was there some complainant?

— I don't know.

Since the investigation is not yet finished, I understand you have not yet had access to all the case materials. Is that right?

— I have not seen them yet, no.

— If law enforcement officers were carrying out an order, who could have been behind it and financed it?

— Not caught, not a thief. I have no right to say that this person is the client, because I am not the law enforcement body that would establish it. And it has not been established, because nobody dealt with it. And Indychenko (Borys Vitaliyovych Indychenko, head of the second NABU detective unit, ed.), the head of the detectives, was not questioned and was not asked. But this is certainly connected with the fact that certain people were interested in my not being appointed. And as soon as they understood that the NAPC special check had been concluded positively, they decided to act in this way.

— Who besides you was vying for the post?

— Five people in total. The first is appointed to the post, and the second is entered in the protocol. And if the first refused, did not pass the special check, or died, or something else happened, some life circumstances that prevented him from taking up the work within a year, or he left within a year, then the second is appointed without a competition. I cannot accuse that candidate himself. He never told me anything.

I say that such-and-such a specific person told me to write a refusal. His surname and the post he held at the time, which was not a post in the Migration Service, indeed was not in the Interior Ministry system at all, but a post in a completely different body. One way or another, he had influence over the NAPC at the time; this is an established fact, and there was a serious media scandal about it.

The pre-trial investigation body must sort out, based on my statement, who exerted what pressure on me. One way or another, I pointed this out. Let them sort it out.

— Do you believe he will sort it out?

— No, I am not sure. I think… there is a saying, and I am more and more convinced of it in this case: “The main thing is not to come out on yourself.” The main thing in this business, as law enforcement officers say, is not to end up exposing themselves in the end. Not to catch yourself. So, of course, it is disadvantageous to ask Mr. Indychenko whether this comrade took any measures. Although one could check the phone data. What's it called, a tracker? The towers?

— Cell connections?

— To find out from cell connections whether this person communicated with one of the candidates, what interest he had, and what actions he took using his powers.

“To get close to me, they started renting a car from my former husband”

— Sergei Titenkov, who is also Sergei Boyarsky, as it turned out. When did he appear in your life, and how?

— The NABU special operation began in January 2017, but “Titenkov” appeared only in March. What was done for two months? They wiretapped my phone within the OSA framework in order to understand whom I had close relationships with, and in order to approach… this is already an established fact, I confirm every word I am saying now… so that they could “approach me the right way” and so that I would trust this person and start communicating with him. This is what Borys Vitaliyovych Indychenko thought, having extensive experience working in law enforcement against organized crime in Odesa… Here is a new agency, but the people are old. For two months he worked only on establishing how to get close to me. Let that be.

In March 2017, my former husband called me. We were still living in Zaporizhzhia, before I moved to Kyiv. We divorced in 2007. I maintained relations with him, we remained friends, he started his own family, and I started mine here. Andrey (former spouse, ed.) called me and told me about his life problems, how he works, how hard it is, what is happening. We talked over an open line, since we have nothing to hide. Certainly he did not ask me about any work matters, God forbid.

After this, Borys Vitaliyovych established that Andrey was selling a minibus in Zaporizhzhia. He had a small bus-related business there. He was selling a minibus, and his phone number was posted online and showed up in the minibus sale advertisement. Agents contacted him, posing as buyers, and arranged a meeting in Zaporizhzhia. After this “Titenkov” got ready and went to Zaporizhzhia, but not alone; together with another employee, as it later turned out, of NABU. They arrived posing as representatives of the Arab organization Mubadala, a fund which, according to my research, is practically the largest in the world, with 229 billion dollars in investments. That is, today they have entered 50 countries with investments, including neighboring countries. They have not yet entered Ukraine. “Titenkov” himself went in, without their permission.

— They had no relation to the Fund?

— No, people at the Fund did not even know they were opening anything here. Borys Vitaliyovych Indychenko invented the legend, and “Titenkov” got into the role and presented himself as a representative of the fund. He came to Zaporizhzhia for the meeting. As it later turned out, the meeting was at the Intourist hotel on Festivalna Square, opposite the regional state administration. He came. He asked for a man, not “Titenkov,” but another one, about a minibus. They told him they would be investing money and would need to travel. They are interested in land, buying agricultural land, in general buying various land. They need to travel around the region and not only around Ukraine. And supposedly they need a minibus to get around. But he said he himself does not make decisions; now his superior is at a meeting with the governor in that regional administration, which can be seen from the hotel café. He will come soon and make a decision. And in the meantime, probably, “Titenkov” was sitting somewhere in a room, hiding.

After that he comes down and actually gets acquainted with Andrey. Andrey is only interested in selling the bus. They say: you misunderstood me, we don't want to buy the bus, we want to rent it.

Whether that day or later, they ask: maybe Andrey has business proposals, since he is also a small businessman? They want to pursue agricultural activity, and Zaporizhzhia region suits that? Andrey says he will think about it. They give him a business card.

Then “Titenkov” casually says: I have questions, maybe you know who could advise? I need to employ people, foreigners, they have to come, including staying here in Zaporizhzhia, but we don't know how to arrange them properly. Maybe someone could advise, someone connected with you? I'm in Zaporizhzhia for now, but I'm going to Kyiv soon.

But since Andrey is far from all these matters, he understands that by the words “lawyer” and “foreigners,” I, as a lawyer, can help, although he may not even know what the Migration Service does. He calls me in his presence and says: Din, could you help this person here, answer his question?

I say: Andrey, well, I don't really deal with such matters at all.

“Well, please, I'm asking you, it's interesting, they have such a good business.” I say: well, all right. He gives my number to “Titenkov.” In March “Titenkov” appeared in the life of my former husband, and in April in mine.

And then he calls me. I am busy. He calls a second time, and I am busy again. Then it somehow became awkward for me. And it somehow turned out that he himself ended up downstairs, under the entrance.

We meet. We talk for literally three minutes and shake hands. “Here's my card.” And he gives me a brochure. I say: so what's the question? He answers: “Investments, this and that.” I ask again: “Andrey said you'd have some question, that I should answer some question, that you've run into some problems.” “Well, that will come later, for now that's all, thank you. Now I know that if anything comes up, I can contact you. I'm going.” Well, he went, and went.

I put the brochure aside. We started communicating. He approached very tactfully. He wrote and called. He would appear like a mushroom growing out of the ground. They simply watched and looked at whom I was communicating with. And then, maybe at the end of May, he started a conversation about a foreigner getting a work permit. I sent him to a lawyer. After that he led me through this question all through July, but everything was absolutely legal.

After the statement I submitted in September, analyzing the situation, I understood that the person who had come in December, warning about possible provocations, was right, and I assumed it could happen. I analyzed the behavior of everyone around me, including “Titenkov.” And I made a firm decision for myself: if a person comes to me who will offer me [schemes], and a situation arises like the one I described to the Prosecutor General, the Security Service and NABU, I will not run away, I will not hide, I will not try to avoid meeting anyone, because I am confident in my position. I do not make documents; I watch what I sign, analyze documentation so that nothing is slipped to me. I do not have any unlawful conversations.

I will keep an eye on this person and do everything to write a statement, so that when he attempts to give me an improper benefit, he is detained. But for that I needed, so to speak, to know that these actions were unlawful, at least.

In this case, with the first question the person came to me with, “Titenkov”, they were absolutely lawful. He, having heard that one must act this way, that no document will be forged by anyone, does not pull anything out from under the table, but only needs to give a power of attorney to a lawyer, so he runs around, works, and does everything the way the law provides…

— Did he ever start working with the lawyers?

— I don't know whether they started working. That was their relationship. I know only one thing for certain, 100 percent: that no residence permits were issued and no work permits were arranged.

He asked me: how much will it cost? And I answered clearly. As it turns out, in dollar terms, converting from hryvnias, these rates really do range from one and a half to three thousand dollars depending on the law firm. I also emphasized that these are their rates and that I don't need anything. I said it well, I remember it very well. I will insist on this, so that these materials are raised and heard in court, if God forbid there is one. I clearly remember saying this. And now in the documents it is absent; they simply omit it. It is absent in the printouts and the transcripts. This phrase is not there at all.

“NABU agents rented a yacht for a day”

— And what about the second episode?

— The second time “Titenkov” approached me with a “question” was August 27. That is how NABU dates this event. It was the first time he mentioned it. He first asked: think about whether I could arrange citizenship… My department director, a very serious person from the Mubadala firm, needs his colleague's documents arranged. We really need to get him citizenship.

I say: what grounds? He says: none.

And if none, then how? No way. On 27.08 we indeed talked, and here it was already about “well, you'll still do it anyway.” A little earlier I had started to understand that he was constantly trying to pressure me. One way or another, it's visible. It's not the same when a person says “think about it” versus “you, please, think about it” [emphasis on tone and intonation].

“Understand, they won't understand me at work, I'll have problems,” he said.

Even in their transcript, which the prosecutor read out in court, he says: Dina, you understand yourself what a department director is, understand, understand me simply as a friend. I really need to do this. Really.

Pressure was being applied; in the course of the conversation I became convinced that he was indeed ready to pay a large sum. Convinced of his intentions, I then had a question: to which body should I turn?

If I write to the body where he works, the following situation will arise: they will see this statement, “Titenkov” will immediately disappear from my life, so as not to take the case and not to register Article 369, “bribe giving.” In the worst case, they will open a case; I believe it will be registered under Article 369, but they will register it against me. I allowed for all possibilities.

I allowed that he was simply a citizen, “a person who needs to resolve an issue.” But such people, when they hear “no,” say “well, no and no.” Here, however, there is non-acceptance of the word “no.” He wants this. Here we are already starting a big game.

The person started pressuring me in a way I simply cannot convey. He appeared in front of my workplace by chance, as if he was just passing by. I'm not there, and he is standing there. He says “I'll wait anyway.” He's under the house, not far. I say: I don't want to meet with you now. “Well, please, let's talk.” Moreover, I had nothing to answer.

Journalists say to me: “You could have refused!” You could have said “no.” Of course. But not when you are being pulled into a trap from all sides. If I had not brought the situation with “Titenkov” to a head, sooner or later they would have recruited someone from my friends. I know that some of my close people were approached and threatened. Sooner or later they would have gotten to me through the same nanny, planted documents in the apartment, then detained me somewhere “drunk” or “with drugs,” come to the house and found the documents. And the nanny would have said: “foreigners come here every day.”

And then such an interesting situation happened: he invites me on a yacht. He says: my friend, the businessman Alexei, will be there. I say: fine, I accept your offer. This was supposed to be a trip on Sunday. On Sunday he came to my house. I did not say “no” to him, though I knew I wasn't going to go. He started calling me; I didn't pick up, I put the phone down and wrote him a text message along these lines: “SBU officers are conducting searches at my place, I can't go with you.” Why did I do this? To check what advice he would give me, how he could help me, what words he would say, what he would try to find out.

— You didn't have a search?

— Of course not. Because during a search you can't write SMS messages, and they knew that perfectly well. A while later he writes: “Well, the searches are over, can we go now?” So the yacht stood idle, fully equipped, all day. Can you imagine how stupid you'd have to be to write something like that? What nerve: they need the yacht, and it's standing idle. At that time I did not understand exactly who he was. I could not know that he was a NABU employee. I'm telling you: he's an ordinary person. People have problems. What yacht could there be… Well, go and ride it, you didn't take it for me. As Lutsenko said at the briefing, they were considering the question of establishing some personal relations, of an intimate nature. That is exactly what Alexei, as I understand it, was planned for, as a candidate, my fiancé, my suitor. This is also confirmed by the published surveillance recordings.

— During preparation [for the interview] it turned out the recordings no longer exist.

— Yes, the recordings were deleted.

— They rented the yacht from the operational budget, with taxpayers' money?

— Naturally. That's how law enforcement officers live here. Pretty cool, right? I confirm all of this. I'll tell about the money separately later. There was more besides the yacht… People will find it interesting. 

All of this started around 12 o'clock, and at 5 he writes me: well, are you free, can I finally take you on the yacht? Anyway, goodbye, everything is clear. Naturally, I'm not going anywhere. What do I do? Naturally, he keeps pressuring, pressuring. On September 26 I went to Volodymyrska, to the SBU central office. I went in, walked through the doors and said that I asked for an appropriate employee to come down to me who could take my statement. I am a civil servant, in such-and-such a position. Please, let them know, I want to talk to the appropriate employee. I wrote a statement and I want to submit it. I allowed that this could be some strange agent of some special service. But still, I could not be 100% sure. And even if I'm mistaken, I'm just a person. Let him not be offended. I act according to the law. Why? Because he is pressuring me. He simply doesn't understand the word “no.” He pressures me, he tracks me down, he waits. You understand, these ambushes, these chance encounters, it's really awful. When you plan one thing and you have to give attention to a person because he happened to turn up here. “Well, please, no, well come on, well I'm asking you”… that's really awful, in fact. In short, that's it, the statement is submitted. Whether he was an employee or not, how would I know? A person offers me a bribe, sort it out. I leave. They claim there was a leak of information. They decided that SBU officers came to me and recruited me. Then the question: it's illogical. The yacht was about two weeks before the statement. So why didn't they immediately take my statement away from me? Why did they allow me to use a phone to correspond precisely with the person who directly… Well, that's utterly stupid. Even a layman would understand if he thought about it. If you showed it in a film, a person would understand, let alone law enforcement. Proving a leak of information to them is impossible. They have now written suspicions: “in connection with a leak of information, she submitted a statement.”

The tracker data can establish that during all this time I was there only once, on the day I submitted the statement. They simply do not want to look into this. It is not interesting to them.

In short, based on my statement, a bribe-giving case was entered into the ERDR. They fitted me with the relevant equipment, after which I went to meet “Titenkov.”

Next came conversations for which I cannot bear legal responsibility. At the time I did not know this, but after the meeting they set up surveillance on him. I could no longer meet with him myself, only with the equipment. They followed where he went, to a safe house. They identified this entire group of nine people, under the control of Borys Indychenko. As it later became clear, they installed the relevant equipment in the apartment. And for two months they listened to what the “great group of law enforcers” was doing. And the “great group” did the following: for two hours they advised “Titenkov” on “how to persuade” me. He says: “She doesn't want to, but it has to be done.” Work was done in this apartment not only on me. There was also state secret information there, and forged documents. Well, that's already their business [the SBU's]. SBU officers did not tell me that this was a NABU employee.

He hissed: “Dina, what kind of setup is this?”

— Tell us how the detention happened.

On that day, when the money was handed over, I was very worried. I asked the SBU officers: are you definitely going to detain him, and not me after the money transfer? I did not want to take the money.

— Where did you meet with “Titenkov”?

— At the Leo Club restaurant.

— Were SBU officers nearby?

— Yes.

— So you're sitting there. You have a camera. And he has a camera too?

— I did not know beforehand that he had a camera.

— You're sitting. Are SBU operatives and NABU operatives nearby?

— We came earlier [with SBU officers] and waited for him. As soon as he handed me the money, in the second minute, the SBU detained him first. The NABU people scattered. They did not intervene.

— How did he react?

— He introduced himself to them as “Titenkov” and did not reveal his personal details. I looked at him, he looked at me and said this phrase: “Dina, what kind of setup is this?”.

I said: “I don't know what setup. I didn't set anyone up. I act within the law.” And at that moment they began pulling a camera out of him. They tugged at the wires. They took out the equipment. I said: “Mm, that's all correct, yes, excellent.” They put handcuffs on him. They asked him: whom will you call? He answered: “Dad.” I went home, and he went to the Prosecutor General's Office.

— What happened next?

— Panic began. Information appeared in the media. That night I still went to the Prosecutor General's Office and gave testimony. And the next day I held a briefing. NABU at that moment was editing a film until 4 a.m. And they announced the disruption of the special operation. Supposedly they were exposing an “organized criminal group” that is “protected by the SBU.” Then they went to Lutsenko and started telling him: “You don't know anything, there was also a Vietnamese,” showing him some clips from the film. Lutsenko came out to the briefing and said: there was not even a case opened against Pimakhova. At 16:00 NABU released the film with the clips. They made the cut the way that suited them. Well, that's their business. I did not make any documents for anyone [to order]. I had to prove things to everyone and justify myself. It was a big stress.

— Besides Titenkov, other agents were detained as well.

— Yes, seven people in total.

— They were served with suspicions of provocation...

— Three of them. Three were served suspicions: “Titenkov,” Indychenko, and Sikorska (Yekaterina Sikorska, known as “agent Katerina,” ed.).

On the evening they detained “Titenkov,” they went on further and conducted searches. One of the detectives got scared and climbed into a box from under a computer. He sat in it through the whole search, afraid to come out. By law we cannot carry out provocations. One can infiltrate organizations and document, but one cannot offer, request, or interfere in someone's personal life. NABU believes it can. The special operation against me was called “Fatima.” In the published surveillance video there are such conversations. “Agent Katerina” calls me “Fatima” and says I am looking for a nanny. And I did have such a period. I was openly looking for a candidate on an open line. And they needed access to my home. They also discussed how to get me drunk.

“You were invited as a witness, but the situation has changed”

— And so the agents were served suspicions. And in the spring of 2019 the SAP closed the case against them. Why did the SAP and NABU handle the case against their own agents, rather than the SBU, which detained them? And why was the case closed?

— These two cases are like thread and needle. Do you want to consider mine? Then let's consider them together, as evidence. They swallowed up this criminal case. The Prosecutor General's Office was conducting it and really investigated it. They even flew on business trips to the Vietnamese and the Iranian and questioned them. And then the Prosecutor General's Office handed the case over, under inventory, to NABU's internal security department. To themselves! This happened at the end of 2018. And at the beginning of 2019 the case was closed by one of the SAP prosecutors and signed by a detective from the next office.

— And they revived activity in the case against you.

— Yes. In June I was summoned for questioning as a witness, along with several acquaintances. I came on my own, without a lawyer, told everything, and left. Then in December, six months later, my mother-in-law called and said that NABU officers had brought me a summons to appear for questioning.

— To receive a suspicion?

— As a witness. I went again, without a lawyer, thinking I needed to tell them something again. I arrived and they told me: “We summoned you as a witness, but the situation has changed. Now you are moving to the status of suspect.”

Another person stood there with a camera, filming. I asked for a lawyer; they allowed me to call one. In the end I accepted the suspicion. On Friday, with my lawyer, they served a motion for house arrest at night. The grounds given are that I could run away. But I have three children, and while they were conducting the case I gave birth to a third child. The child is 9 months old. Where would I run to? I will appeal. Before the arrest there was a case when we had to take the child to the hospital urgently at night. It's a very small child, only inpatient care. What was I supposed to do? If I went, they would start intercepting me. The prosecutor says: “Nothing terrible, call an ambulance and hand the child over to them, there are trained people at the hospital, they will sort it out.”

The lawyer said in court that I had a search in January 2018. Two years have passed, and I didn't “run” anywhere. Then they came, rang the doorbell; I didn't open, I called my lawyer. I was afraid they would plant something. I said the lawyer would be there in 15 minutes and I would open. They did not wait for the lawyer; they forced the door with a crowbar. They found nothing. They took a financial law lecture notebook from the university. And they took a sheet with the login and password for my son's Apple ID, which I had set up and written down. I said: “On what grounds are you taking it?”

Prosecutors refused to sign the suspicion. You quoted Kholodnytskyi. I don't know which interview you read, but I read Novikov's interview in Slovo i Delo. He [Kholodnytskyi] said that NABU repeatedly came with a draft suspicion, but the procedural leaders did not see the elements of a crime. In the end prosecutor Omelchenko signed it, and he is Sytnyk's kum. I consider this revenge.

Why? Colossal amounts of money were spent. Nine agents worked for 11 months. We went to the restaurants “Goodman,” “Shoti,” “Suluguni.” He ordered expensive drinks and expensive dishes, for 8 thousand hryvnias. I tried not to accept treats at his expense, so as not to consider myself indebted. Once he came to Lviv when I was on a business trip. Supposedly he was just passing by, buying a property in Truskavets. It was after hours, in the evening, we were sitting with colleagues, chipping in to pay the bill. We moved from restaurant to restaurant. And then he suddenly started taking out money. It's even written in the covert recordings. I tell him: “What's this money? Have you lost your mind?” He says: “Give it to the lawyers, because I can't.” He starts counting money. I say: “No, give it yourself.” He tries again: “Maybe this is for you, like a lover for the evening?” So even such conversations took place. And here the prosecutor says in court: there it is! “Unintelligible.” I say: what “unintelligible”? In the protocol it says “inaudible.” They believe that here I agreed. Well, I will commission an examination. In Lviv we all chipped in on the bill and he took part. But he told the prosecutors that he paid for everything himself.

I think between one and two million hryvnias were spent. We rode a Range Rover. We rented yachts. Flights on planes. This is far from 100 thousand hryvnias. And these funds must be accounted for, especially if there is a NABU audit, and there will be one someday.

— What do you link such a gift to you from NABU with?

— The Rivne Court of Appeal upheld the decision on Sytnyk. He was entered into the register of corrupt officials. And right after that, on Thursday, I was served with the suspicion.

— After the events of November 2017, you went on leave. After that you resigned. What are you doing now?

— During this time, while the investigation has been going on, I got married, gave birth to a child, a girl named Rita. She is 9 months old. As they say, not even three years have passed. Now I work in the legal field, not in civil service. I do not plan to return to civil service for now.

Interviewed by: Volodymyr Koval

Transcribed by: Yevgeniy Blazhko

Edited by: Volodymyr Koval and Yevgeniy Blazhko