Channel Pryamiy Demands Investigation Closure and End to State Bureau of Investigation Pressure

Ongoing Pressure on Channel Pryamiy

According to 5 канал: Channel Pryamiy has formally appealed to Acting Prosecutor General Anton Kovalsky to halt the relentless pressure exerted by the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and to terminate the criminal case initiated in 2019 based on a complaint from Andriy Portnov. The case alleges tax evasion related to the 2017 transaction involving the purchase and sale of the channel’s share capital. However, the State Tax Service of Ukraine has raised no objections regarding the participants in the deal, and multiple expert examinations have found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Reports reveal that in July 2020, former head of the SBI investigative team, Oleg Koretsky, received orders to seize Channel Pryamiy as material evidence. This move sparked concerns among media circles, who interpret the case as politically motivated pressure against Ukraine’s fifth president, Petro Poroshenko. The channel claims that Portnov pressured SBI investigators to open criminal proceedings, which the bureau promptly initiated despite the absence of any incriminating facts in Portnov’s complaint.

Judicial Decisions and Current Developments

Several court rulings over recent years have addressed this matter. On May 31, 2023, the Shevchenkivskyi District Court ordered the SBI to close the case against Channel Pryamiy. This decision was upheld by the Kyiv Court of Appeal on September 13, 2023, confirming the case's closure was lawful. Nevertheless, the SBI continues to disregard these rulings and refuses to close the investigation, raising fears of ongoing harassment against the channel.

It is important to highlight that the State Tax Service has no claims against any parties involved in the transaction, underscoring the lack of grounds for criminal prosecution. Media experts and observers remain concerned that this case may serve as a tool for political pressure on opposition media and political figures. Channel Pryamiy insists it faces unjustified actions by law enforcement agencies.

The situation surrounding Channel Pryamiy’s criminal case exemplifies the complex dynamics between media freedom and political influence in Ukraine.

The SBI’s refusal to comply with court orders to close the case signals potential threats to independent journalism, drawing alarm from journalists and human rights advocates. This case also highlights the crucial need for judicial independence and adherence to the rule of law in a country where media play a vital role in supporting democratic governance.

The ongoing legal battles faced by Channel Pryamiy echo similar pressures experienced by other media outlets in Ukraine. For instance, lawyers for former President Poroshenko have also raised concerns about judicial interference and undue pressure in cases involving sanctions. These instances highlight a troubling trend of political influence on the judicial system, which could have broader implications for media freedom in the country.