EMAIL DETAILS

John Buretta: For us it was important to close all cases against Burisma
and Nikolay Zlochevskyi in a legally sound manner | KyivPost

https://www.kyivpost.com/business-wire/john-buretta-us-important-close-casesagainst-burisma-nikolayzlochevskyiin-legally-sound-manner.html

John Buretta: For us it was important to close all cases against Burisma
and Nikolay Zlochevskyi in a legally sound manner
Published Feb. 1. Updated Feb. 1 at 3:47 pm

In mid-January, Burisma Group announced that all cases against its
president, Nikolay Zlochevskyi, and Burisma companies were fully closed.
The former Minister Nikolay Zlochevskyiis one of the few public officials
from the previous government who voluntarily subjected himself to the
investigation in Ukraine. After reviewing the evidence in London and Kyiv,
the criminal proceedings against Mr. Zlochevskyi were dismissed. In the
Ukrainian media, opinions about the need for presenting the public report
and reviewing the decision have been voiced multiple times.

[image: buretta_john]An American lawyer and former U.S. Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, John Buretta, was one of the key attorneys on Mr.
Zlochevskyi’s defense team. In an exclusive interview to UKRAINIAN NEWS
<http://ukranews.com/en/news/476271-attorney-john-buretta-in-the-case-of-burisma-and-zlochevskiy-i-met-with-prosecutor-general-yury>,
John Buretta talks about how the defense strategy was developed in Ukraine,
whether all cases are closed, and if legal proceedings can be renewed.
*Why were the cases against Nikolay Zlochevskyi in Ukraine closed? And,
what is the relevance of the 2015 decision by the UK criminal court?*
The U.K. Central Criminal Court held a formal hearing during December 3-5,
2014, and considered voluminous evidence presented by the U.K. Serious
Fraud Office (SFO) and by Mr. Zlochevskyi. The evidence included thousands
of pages of material produced by Ukrainian authorities at the request of
the SFO, relevant documents produced by financial institutions, and
affidavits and a large volume of documents produced on behalf of Mr.
Zlochevskyi. In January 2015, the U.K. Central Criminal Court, in a lengthy
written decision, concluded that there was no reasonable cause to believe
that Mr. Zlochevskyi’s assets were unlawfully acquired as a result of
misconduct while he served in public office. In addition, the U.K. court
found that the SFO materially and significantly failedto disclose relevant
documents favorable to Mr. Zlochevskyi.

In August 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor General (PGO) opened a
criminal proceeding as to the same matters adjudicated by the U.K. Central
Criminal Court. With regard to the PGO’s investigation, Mr. Zlochevskyi
produced voluminous materials addressing the allegations, as he had before
the U.K. Central Criminal Court. Over the two years the PGO matter was
open, no evidence was presented supporting any claim that Mr. Zlochevskyi
had abused his position while in public office. In September 2016, the
Pechersk District Court of the City of Kyiv concluded that no criminal
procedures should be taken against Mr. Zlochevskyi. In other words, the
Pechersk District Court reached the same conclusion as the U.K. Central
Criminal Court.

*Recently, Burisma paid a large amount in “back taxes”. Some have questions
whether the payment of UAH 180 million was a payoff for the case to be
closed.*
The matter of Burisma’s tax obligations pertains to Burisma. In regard to
the Burisma tax matter, Burisma agreed to cooperate fully with the PGO,
accept an unscheduled documentary tax inspection, assistin a pre-trial
investigation, and provide all necessary documents, materials and
information.The tax obligations that were assessed were the result of an
audit that the PGO conducted of Burisma, which the PGO carried out jointly
with other government agencies, including the State Fiscal Serviceof
Ukraine and independent experts.

*Did you meet Yuriy Lutsenko personally?*
I met with numerous PGO personnel, including Prosecutor General Lutsenko. I
conveyed that Mr. Zlochevskyi had provided voluminous evidence to the PGO
with respect to his assets, that a U.K. court had also analyzed a large
volume of evidence and found no reasonable basis to conclude that there had
been any wrongdoing, expressed Mr. Zlochevskyi’s willingness to cooperate
with Ukranian authorities and noted that the PGO had presented no evidence
of wrongdoing by Mr. Zlochevskyi. I took the same approach on this matter
that I would take on a similar matter before any law enforcement authority
or court.

*When and how did you meet Nikolay Zlochevskyi? Who did invite you to join
his legal team?*
I was retained by Burisma and agreed to the assignment after thoroughly
examining the history of Burisma and Mr. Zlochevskyi and on the
recommendation of other highly-regarded U.S. advisers. I met with Mr.
Zlochevskyi, Burisma’s management and legal team, and Burisma’s
distinguished Board of Directors.
*You used to hold the position of the U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney
General. Why did you decide to manage Ukrainian cases? Do you have work
experience with similar individuals and/or companies?*
I haveextensive experience with assessing allegations of corruption, both
from the government side while serving in the Department of Justice, and
from the private side. I have served as an expert witness in proceedings
outside the U.S. in such matters and have handled a broad range of matters
for companies and individuals involving various countries. Regardless of
the country, it is important that prosecutors follow the law and the
evidence. When the law and evidence dictates the result, as it did before
the U.K. Central Criminal Court and the Pechersk District Court, the rule
of law flourishes.

*Will Nikolay Zlochevskyi return to Ukraine, and when?*
This question should be addressed directly to Mr.Zlochevskyi. From a legal
point of view, today there are no restrictions for his travel both within
the country and abroad. All cases against Mr. Zlochevskyi have been closed
in Ukraine.


Eric D. Schwerin
eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com

Sent from my iPhon