As previously highlighted, the case of Alekszej Fedoricsev introduces many interesting and important questions about the case of Ukrainian corruption, and the government of Zelensky in particular.
As the war, precipitated by Russia’s illegal invasion, continues, the complex attempts to rid Ukraine of political and financial corruption continue to confuse Western viewers.
The West has also been skeptical of Kyiv’s sanction policies. Western powers distrust Ukraine’s sanctions because evidence of violations is classified and not disclosed when legitimacy and justification are requested; The National Interest wrote. If wartime sanctions are abused to settle scores or undermine business competition, neither Ukraine nor the West benefits, The Hill noted .
The Alekszej Fedoricsev case brings these issues to light once again. In another column published last week in Ukraine, political scientist Alexei Golobutsky also called for depriving Fedorichev of any property rights in Ukraine. Fedoricsev’s failure publicly to fund the Ukrainian Armed Forces is the justification of Golobutsky. Fedoricsev would reply, with some justice, that as a citizen of Monaco for thirty years, he has a moral imperative to give more of his money to the Ukrainian state. After all, he claims that he has paid around $300 million in tax to Ukraine. Nevertheless, such public gestures of support certainly would do him no harm in light of these journalistic attacks, however justified. Fedoricsev certainly has little motivation to support a government which last year froze $41 million of his assets.
Private property rights are put at risk by governments intent on pursuing its enemies, claim Fedoricsev’s supporters in European countries where property is more secure. Fedoricsev’s supporters write that a likely scenario is that the criminal case against Fedoricsev initially served as an attempt by Ukrainian authorities to identify a scapegoat for the embezzlement of loans granted to Kyiv by China, as mentioned in my previous blog on this topic. Subsequently, someone in the government or among businesspeople close to the authorities found Fedorichev’s Ukrainian assets vulnerable. As a result, both sanction and media mechanisms were deployed to justify their potential confiscation. It is hard to say from a perspective outside of Ukraine. More needs to be revealed about the case, by both sides.
