This is where the mysterious drug dealer lives.
The Drug mafia in Kremenchug
Part 1
TO SEND SUSPECTS TO JAIL, THE KREMENCHUG DEPARTMENT FOR ILLEGAL DRUG TRAFFICKING USES FRONT WITNESSES
By Larysa ARTEMENKO
When talking about crimes, very often Ukrainians use the word mafia. But even more often they use drug mafia. What do they mean? Does a mafia really exist in Ukraine? Training manuals for police officers do not even contain the word mafia. Alternatively, it might also be referred to as a organized criminal group. In some more serious cases the police use organized criminal network. So what does mafia have to do with it? Is this Italian word applicable to the Ukrainian situation at all? Seemingly, it is. Very much so. The main difference between a mafia and an ordinary criminal group is that a mafia is closely connected with the local police and government. Moreover, with the central police office and government too.
The investigation gives The Telegraph a clear idea that such a criminal organization exists in Kremenchug. There is no other explanation for some of the events that have taken place in the city relating to drugs.
We arrived at this conclusion after analyzing criminal sentencing and documents relating to cases of illicit trafficking and drug abuse that were brought before the Avtozavodskiy Regional Court of Kremenchug in 2004. The sentences and materials investigated include 225 criminal cases starting with the case #1-5/2004 and ending with case #1-847/2004.
The first point that drew our interest was the situation with witnesses.
VLASENKO AND BOGUSH - “CALL WITNESSES”
After you read the fiftieth sentence of cases concerning drugs, you are likely to notice one characteristic feature, the cases are different and the names of the defendants are different, but the names of the witnesses are the same.
Two names were found very often – K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush. For example, a suspect was detained in Telmana Street. And K.G. Vlasenko was passing down the street. Meanwhile, A.V. Bogush was walking toward him. They were in the right place at the right time to witness the suspect being detained by the police. The same scenario happened at Kooperatyvna Street. Another drug addict was caught. And again K.G. Vlasenko was passing by. By “chance,” A.V. Bogush was there too. Of course, this time they were witnesses again. An entirely similar case took place at Lugova Lane, and on Moskovska Street and God knows where else. Whenever a police officer thinks of detaining a suspect, here they are - K.G.Vlasenko and A.V.Bogush - just like a piano in the shrubs.
What is wrong with this situation, one would ask? Well, it seems that the police have found two disciplined witnesses who are always together, who are willing to serve the people of Ukraine. Why bother? This is why. These witnesses were always at the crime scene on time and regularly avoided testifying in court. Whenever K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush were to serve as witnesses, the defendants claimed that the drugs were planted by the police. The witnesses never showed up to testify who was right.
This is a very weird coincidence indeed, so we decided to take a closer look into the cases where K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush were witnesses.
PASHCHENKO AND LAVRYK TOOK ME TO THE RIVER WHERE THEY “BATHED ME” AND AFTERWARD I FOUND MYSELF IN THE HOSPITAL WITH A STROKE
Case #1-525/2004; criminal case #04315032
According to the medical case, Svitlana Pinayeva, a chronic drug addict, with a previous conviction in 2004, was detained twice for possession, on February 19 and 20. Each time she was picked up on Lugova Lane (Revivka). The documents show that the detention was carried out according to procedures, in presence of the witnesses K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush. The procedure of examining and confiscating the syringe with narcotics was completed by an authorized operative of the Kremenchug Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking, Senior Lieutenant Matyash (page 11 of the case). A senior authorized operative of Kremenchug Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking, Senior Lieutenant Pashchenko, took the witnesses’ testimony (page 70; 71; 72; 73). Both stories coincided. On February 19 at 13:30, the police officers asked them to witness the detention of a girl with drugs at a service station in Kooperatyvna Street. On February 20 at 10:30 K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush were again taken to Kooperatyvna Street to a shopping mall where the same girl was caught with the same drugs.
WHY DID THE WITNESSES’ SIGNATURES DISAPPEAR?
The officers documented the process, completed the records, and no faults were find. Only one thing spoiled the idyllic picture “painted” by the police. Vlasenko didn’t leave his signature on the witness’s statement where he mentioned that he saw Pinayeva’s detention on February 19 (page 73 of the case). How could it have happened? Imagine, an officer is there completing the record. Then they had it over to the witness for him to sign since without the witness’s signature, the statement is not valid. Otherwise, it would just be fiction.
At any rate, the signature wasn’t there. Why? I have no idea, I really have no idea. It is too early to jump into conclusions. Let’s move on to the next step, the court session.
SVETA TELLS HOW SHE WAS BEATEN…
At the court hearing, Svitlana Pinayeva claimed the following (page 193 of the case),
- On February 19 I didn’t see any police officers. On February 20 I met Pashchenko and Lavryk, they made me get into the car, took 15 hrn and punched me a couple of times. Under this kind of pressure, I signed everything they asked. On the other hand, I really appreciate what happened to me. When everything was over, I stopped taking drugs and asked for medical treatment. As I said, Pashchenko and Lavryk took my 15 hrn, they also showed me the drugs in the trunk of their car and said that they were mine. Later they drove me around Revivka for some time to make me recognize that I was guilty of two crimes. Pashchenko and Lavryk forced me to meet Mr. Kononenko, the Chief of the Local Office of Kremenchug Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking. He himself punched me very seriously. I signed everything they wanted me to sign and that is why they let me go after I had given a written statement to not leave the country.
Later Pashchenko and Lavryk “bathed me” in the river. The water was very cold and I found myself in the hospital with a stroke and pneumonia. At first I had treatment at Kremenchug City Hospital #1, later I was transferred to Poltava. I brought a notice about my stay to Mr. Tsurapi, the investigator. He promised to hand the notice over to the court…
The Chief of the Correctional Facility Subdivision where Sveta was serving her sentence wrote this about Sveta’s characteristics, “…a woman with a balanced personality, sociable, and soft. Her attitude toward work was appropriate. She has a teenage son and some relatives. They regularly kept in touch with her and sent her letters…”
SVETA GIVES THE NAME OF THE MYSTERIOUS WITNESS
Sveta also said that she had a witness who spent the whole day with her and could confirm that she was not detained on February 19:
- On February 19 I was together with a man. His name is Sergiy Volodymyrovych Butenko. At the moment he is at Pre-trial Detention Center #23 or at Correctional Facility #69. We spent the whole night in Kryukiv, till dawn. That day should be very special to him since his birthday is also on the 19th, but of May.
After Sveta’s confession, prosecutor Dubova asked for a break. Judge Syrovyetnik announced a break to identify the location of the witness Butenko and to call him to court. Apart from that, the judge required the prosecutor’s examination of the actions undertaken by officers Pashchenko and Lavryk and by Mr. Kononenko, the Chief of the Local Office of Kremenchug Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking. And, finally, the court passed a resolution to call the missing witnesses, K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush, to court.
The decisions that were by made the judge turned out to be absolutely legal and logical. Another moment of waiting and justice would be reached. Either the witnesses K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush would testify that Sveta lied and on February 19 she was indeed detained, or the witness Sergiy Butenko would prove that they spent the whole day hand in hand together with Sveta and somebody else was telling lies. Meanwhile, the prosecutor was to examine the actions of Pashchenko and Lavryk. Everything should be made clear. And it became clear.
BLIND THEMIS
The Kremenchug paralegal, 3rd class lawyer V.I. Levytskyy held an expert examination and announced that a criminal case would not be opened because there was no criminal culpability in officers’ Pashchenko, Lavryk and Kononenko actions. These conclusions were reached after the officers implied that they didn’t see anyone. Officer Lavryk even said that he had never met or detained poor Sveta!
Witnesses K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush never showed up in court. The court limited itself to examining their written testimony, including K.G. Vlasenko’s interrogation that he didn’t even sign (page 73 of the case). Defendant S. Pinayeva begged that the witnesses be called to court so that they themselves, in the court hall, could testify that they saw her with drugs! But who listened to her?
Judge Syrovyetnik was informed about the location of Sergiy Butenko. Starting October 23 he was service at Kremenchug Facility #69 (page 177-179 of the case), which was located nearby. However, for unknown reasons, he was not brought to court. He never testified.
On December 2, 2004 the court found Svitlana Pinayeva guilty of the crime based on Paragraph 309, Part 2 of the Criminal Code which corresponds to repeated illegal purchase and possession of narcotic substances. S. Pinayeva was set with the term of her service by the blind Themis. Everything was taken care of very quickly; it was December, the last month of the year. They rush to close all the cases in December.
COMMENTARY
There are two things that make me wonder. First, why didn’t the judge want to interrogate the witnesses? Secondly, why was the prosecutor’s examination, let’s just say, a bit strange? Surely, a 3rd class lawyer should have known how to better carry out an examination. The rest of the public (excluding the lawyers) clearly comprehend that no police officer would admit to using physical punishment and threats. Just imagine, “Well, you know, my job is so stressful. Drug addicts are real freaks. Yes, I’m sorry that I couldn’t control myself and punched her a couple of times!” If the defendant’s and the police officers’ testimonies don’t coincide, then it would be logical to question the witnesses. Why didn’t the prosecutor think of that?
And, the last strange thing is, why didn’t the judge call witness S. Butenko to court? He was a very important witness, wasn’t he? The Telegraph searched for S. Butenko and tried to check the defendant’s testimony. Sergiy Butenko was indeed serving at Kremenchug Facility #69. At least that verifies the first part of S. Pinayeva’s testimony, she didn’t lie. S. Butenko was really born on May 19, 1976. According to other facts, he did know S. Pinayeva. Of course, they could have made agreed on the same story. But they could have also simply been together that day. However, it is not the journalist’s responsibility to check those facts. Why didn’t the judge do it?
IMPRISONMENT OF THE FATHER’S SON DIDN’T WORK OUT
Case #1-292/2004 is possibly one of the most scandalous cases in the record of witnesses K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush. Judge Kalinovska examined the case with assistance from prosecutor Goldinova. The case involves two episodes. One of them was confirmed during the court hearing, the other wasn’t. The case was sent back for additional investigation. Since a verdict was not reached, we are not printing the name of the defendant.
But here’s the story. According to information from the Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking, Mr. A was detained twice for possession. At first he was caught with marijuana, the first time was confirmed in court and the defendant was named guilty of the crimes stated in Paragraph 309, Part 1. The second time, he was again detained for possession, but this time during the court hearing, there was a real scandal. Witness A.V. Bogush didn’t come to any of the court sessions. The court received a notification saying that witness A.V. Bogush doesn’t live at the address he indicated in the record. Witness K.G. Vlasenko came to court. He testified that he didn’t take part in the defendant’s detention and that he didn’t sign the statement and that the signature found on the record wasn’t his own (page 38 of the case). After K.G. Vlasenko’s testimony, the case crashed.
What made the witness make such a risky statement? Everyone claims the same thing. The defendant’s father, Mr. A is a very well-known and powerful citizen in Kremenchug. It was not so long ago that Mr. A was the Deputy Chief of the most serious police department in Kremenchug. He knows how to persuade people.
Strange, but the officers detained the defendant anyway. Even thought they knew perfectly well whose son he was. According to one of our well-informed sources, the detention of Mr. A is an echo of a hidden struggle inside the police circle.
While Mr. A’s case was under investigation, the officers of the Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking used him twice as a witness in cases #1-224 and #1-1-523/2004.
That is an example of another method often employed by the officers of Kremenchug Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking. They use detained drug addicts whose case is under investigation as witnesses. Such witnesses will testify to anything the officers ask because they are totally dependent on them.
However, could this witness be considered unprejudiced and uninterested in the case? Why don’t Kremenchug judges pay attention to suspicious witnesses?
I DEMAND THE COURT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS PLANTED THE DRUGS ON ME
Case #1-180/2004; criminal case #03311198
This was one of the first cases where K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush were witnesses. Judge Yashchenko examined the case with the assistance of the prosecutors Maksymenko, Dubova and Syori.
According to the Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking, defendant Stukalov (who was earlier convicted) was caught with drugs on November 16, 2003 at his house on Telmana Street. The detention was carried out by officers of the Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking Lavryk and Pashchenko. The records of the witnesses’ questioning were completed by an officer of the Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking Matyash. The witnesses signed everything.
During the court session, witness K.G. Vlasenko said, “I can give you no explanation about this fact as I do not remember the circumstances of the case”. However, he admitted that the signature on the document was his. It is so strange that K.G. Vlasenko could have forgotten the case so quickly. Not even 12 months passed from the day of Stukalov’s detention on November 16, 2003 to the first court session on February 12, 2004. To be a witness in a criminal case is not very typical. He should have remembered at least something. Of course, only if he was present at the crime scene.
Witness A.V. Bogush didn’t show up to court for a long time. Later, he confirmed that he was a witness when Stukalov was being detained.
It looked like everything is quite clear. Two witnesses confirmed that they were both present when the defendant was detained. Only the defendant insisted that he had no drugs and they were planted by the police officers. What is more, he claimed that the witnesses were no witnesses at all. They are police officers acting as witnesses (page 252 of the case). Surely, the criminal was lying!
The records of witnesses’ questioning blurred the clarity of this case a little bit. There was a mysterious similarity in the handwriting of the phrase, “Everything is laid out according to my words and I read it”, that completes the records of the two different witnesses, A.V. Bogush (page 140 of the case) and K.G. Vlasenko (page 141 of the case). This is strange… two guys with the same handwriting? And that handwriting isn’t even the same as other specimens of their handwriting? Especially that of K.G. Vlasenko. He (or the person who wrote for him) in cases #1-347 and #1-525 wrote very small and with consistent letters. While in Stukalov’s case the words in the phrase that K.G. Vlasenko wrote at the end of his record were almost jumping off the line.
How could an experienced judge not have paid attention to this mysterious coincidence?
Somehow he didn’t. Stukalov was sentenced with two years of imprisonment and his appeal to the Poltava Court of Appeal was rejected. So he had to serve two years at a correctional facility. When bringing in the verdict, the judges referred to Vlasenko and Bogush’s statements, “who are not police officers. They confirmed that in their presence the drugs were taken away from the defendant” (page 281 of the case).
By the way, Stukalov complained that he was beaten up and made wear a gas mask to sign the documents. However, the prosecutor’s investigation carried out by the senior paralegal of Kremenchug, 3rd class lawyer Myronov, didn’t reveal criminal responsibility in the actions of police officers Zalivchyy, Leleka, Pashchenko and Lavryk.
WE ARE NUMEROUS, AND WE…
The cases indicated before are not the only cases where K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush were the witnesses. They witnessed cases #1-124; 1-140; 1-196; 1-202; 1-310; 1-347; 1-312; 1-319; 1-350; 1-369; 1-502; 1-567.
Here we faced the same problem with their signatures.
On case #1-347 the defendant insisted that there were no witnesses when he was being detained. Not only Vlasenko and Bogush had troubles with their signatures. Witness S.A. Karpenko (case #1-329) said in court that the signature on the records wasn’t his. He was neither present when the drugs were confiscated, nor did he sign any records. By the way, the signature that should have been considered as Karpenko’s signature (page 138 of the case) looks very much similar to the signature which should be recognized as that of Vlasenko’s in a completely different case, #1-347 (page 17 of the case).
Karpenko’s co-witness A.O. Polishchuk didn’t once come to court. The Telegraph was lucky to find the invisible witness. He, too, was the witness in other cases. As for the case, #1-329, Andriy Oleksandrovych told us that he didn’t remember the facts of the case. And that he, generally speaking, was a rare visitor to town since during the previous year he went to work in other cities. When we asked him how the officers of the Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking could find him, he said “they know me very well”. Isn’t it weird that a person who was constantly out of town could have been a witness to several arrests?
In case #1-312, witness A.V. Ursulik claimed during the court proceedings that he didn’t see the officers take drugs away from the defendant Legeza; he wasn’t questioned and he didn’t sign any statements. And it turned out that Ursulik’s signature was not on the records of that case (page 187 of the case).
For this case, the judge even made a special remark stating that “the court has some doubt about the truthfulness of the witnesses’ testimony (meaning K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush) because they have been witnesses in other cases concerning drugs and their testimony was never confirmed in court”.
Because of the lack of space, we cannot provide you with all the examples of the inconsistencies with witnesses and their signatures. These tasks should be completed by special institutions.
COMMENTARY
There was no other place to start this series of publications about the drug mafia in Kremenchug than with the story of the witnesses. During court proceedings, the witnesses play a crucial role. Only their presence guarantees justice.
But if the witnesses are made testify about something they have never seen, law and order go to hell. Like in Kremenchug.
Why does the Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking allow this to happen? It’s all very simple. The cases that we covered here almost always include only one incident. That is they include at most two instances of buying drugs without intent to sell it later. The officers say that to complete all records and to examine the suspect, four hours is enough. And that’s it. The case is closed. You can report to the authorities closed a criminal case.
Why isn’t there a report? Why not to jail for those drug addicts that make our lives so miserable?! That is what a typical law-abiding citizen thinks about this topic. The system is not selective. This means that if police officers regularly break the law, then everyone can break the law, both criminals and law-abiding citizens. Which is the major threat.
WITNESS BOGUSH DIED ON MAY 4
The Telegraph tried to find the imperceptible witnesses. The guys indeed weren’t found according to the addresses indicated in the numerous records of interrogation. A question arises, why did the officers of the Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking that filed the statements for K.G. Vlasenko and A.V. Bogush indicate bad addresses for the witnesses? The officers did know where the witnesses lived, otherwise how could they have found them for other cases? Or maybe they didn’t have to find them? Just put their signature.
We did find the witnesses. But we were too late to meet Andriy Bogush. Forever. On May 4, 2005 he died of unknown circumstances at the territory of Kremenchug Open Workings Administration. Andriy was employed there recently. His mother, Lyudmyla Heorhiyivn, agreed to answer some question concerning Andriy’s witnessing.
Andriy’s family provided The Telegraph with a few interesting notes prepared for Andriy’s speeches in court. For example, he testified on seven cases of buying drugs by Mrs. S at the dead end of Bazhana Avenue and about two episodes of examining a crime scene (October 2003). Andriy said that the police officers gave him those notes.
Liudmyla Heorhiyivna, where did your son work before getting his last job at the open workings administration?
He worked at the police.
Does he have it documented in his history of employment?
No, what would be the reason for that? He was officially employed at the security service of the railway car factory. His salary was very decent.
Then how did he work for the police?
He was just a member of the voluntary citizen patrol. It was through that organization that he was called for those cases.
In the records of his questioning, his current workplace was indicated as “unemployed”. Andriy was unemployed in 2004, wasn’t he?
How can you say that? Andriushenka was a very hardworking boy. He was always trying to do something to earn a living. He had gotten married and wanted to start doing a redecoration…
Why did Andriy switch jobs and quit the factory?
Well, he was experiencing a difficult time there. Not at the factory, but as a member of that patrol. He couldn’t stand it any more. Andriy even told me that Kostya left so he wanted to leave too.
Who is Kostya?
They took them …to courts together with Kostya. Kostya quit earlier. He couldn’t stand it. (Kostya was the other witness, K.G. Vlasenko).
Andriy said that he didn’t want to be on the patrol any more?
Yes, we had a talk about it. He complained that he didn’t want to be called to court any more. He had had enough of those papers…Well…Andriushenka was a very good boy and he was suffering there…He said, “Mom, the prosecutor is watching my eyes, he understands that it’s all a lie! I cannot do this any more…” All those courts are such a shame. My daughter, I mean Andriusha’s wife Lilya, she is very precious, so she complained that in the middle of the night those guys came and smashed the door! She was asking who they were. But they only said that the police are looking for her husband?! So she got so scared… Who knew that it all would turn out like that? What are we to do now?...
The certificate of service for Kostyantyn Vlasenko were delivered to this address. His parents said that he hasn’t lived here for a long time already. He left the police, then found a job at a factory. He doesn’t want to be a witness. Got married and …thank God.
On May 4, Andriy Bogush didn’t come back home from work, from the first shift. His cell phone was switched off (as it turned out later it had been switched off since 11 o’clock in the morning. However, Andriy’s mother insisted that his phone was always on because they contacted each other during the day a couple of times).
When Andriy’s wife and mother went to Kremenchug Open Workings Administration at 7 o’clock in the morning they were told, “Andriy is gone. He is dead”. And that clean clothes were left in his locker but they wouldn’t let them see Andriy’s body. That is the story that Andriy’s mother told The Telegraph.
The official reason for Andriy’s sudden death was stated as suicide, the assembly line operator, at his time free from work to the guard buildings (his body was found in one of the distant booths at the open workings site) with an intent to steal copper replacement parts for switches”. While trying to steal those parts, he was killed by an electricity current.
Some of his relatives, however, think that Andriy was killed because he “knew too much”.
The Telegraph’s correspondent asked Andriy’s mother if the police found his fingerprints on the copper plates that he might have been trying to steal, or on the turnscrew with which he might have tried to unscrew the plates, or on the metal surface of the booth where he was found? Liudmyla Heorgiyivna said that there never was any formal investigation carried out. Why?
And one more thing. If Andriy was going to steal metal after work why didn’t he change into clean clothes? It would be very strange to come back with stolen parts to the locker room to change. Somebody might have spotted him. Why take that risk?
On March 29, Andriy Bogush might have been 23. Six months ago, on September 18, he got married. Three months ago he quit the police. A month ago he died.
The Telegraph didn’t manage to receive any official comments on the facts from the Chief of the Local Office of Kremenchug Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking, Lieutenant Colonel Kononenko because as a commander of his unit, he was constantly in the field, reaching him at his office turned out to be impossible. However, we are ready to publish the questions that we planned to put to the Lieutenant Colonel, keeping in mind that the series of our publications on the matter has only started:
1.Did the Chief of the Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking ask for explanations from his officers about the falsified signatures of K.G. Vlasenko (case № 1-292/2004); S.A. Karpenko (case № 1-329/2004); A.V. Ursulik (case №
1-312/2004)? What kind of explanations did the officers give?
2.How can the Chief of the Department for Illegal Drug Trafficking explain the fact that in the records of witnesses A.V. Bogush and K.G. Vlasenko completed by the officers of his Department, we found the incorrect information about the place of residence and place of work of the witnesses (the record “unemployed” doesn’t coincide with the records in their history of employment)?
3.How did the officers of the Department reach the witnesses with false addresses if that was the only contact information they had? And if the officers used the right contact information, then why didn’t they indicate it in the records? We should remind you that A.V. Bogush and K.G. Vlasenko were witnesses in 12 cases in 2004. It is very difficult to believe that every time they coincidently were at the place and time of the defendants’ arrests.
This investigation was carried out with the assistance of the Danish Association of Investigative Journalists. The archives from the investigation and copies of the printed materials were submitted to the Danish Association for publishing.
The Chief of the Criminal Department of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine have received the copies of the documents.
Click below to read the following volumes of The Telegraph's articles “Drug mafia:
Part 2
Click here to read the original articles:
