During a HACC hearing, prosecutors questioned former MP and developer Maksym Mykytas, who is accused of attempting to bribe Dnipro Mayor Borys Filatov to secure a metro construction contract for companies linked to Mykytas, bypassing competitive procedures.
Below are the key points from the session.
Experience in the Chornobyl zone
Mykytas recounted that he began working at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 2002, right after university, as a project management engineer for a subcontractor. He worked on-site preparing reports. By 2007, he had become co-owner of Ukrenherhomontazh and Ukrbudmontazh, which acted as subcontractors for foreign general contractors operating in Chornobyl at the time.
Later, his companies started bidding directly as part of a consortium, bypassing subcontracting, and subsequently worked directly with the EBRD on Chornobyl projects.
Who called whom first
When asked by the prosecutor who initiated contact with the mayor of Dnipro, Mykytas did not answer directly. He claimed he called Filatov at the request of the mayor’s deputies. According to him, Deputy Mayor Volodymyr Miller asked him not to mention prior conversations with Miller or his colleagues during his talk with Filatov.
Mykytas stressed that he was not interested in Filatov personally but needed qualified technical staff to discuss resuming works under the EBRD contract.
The prosecutor repeatedly asked whether Mykytas found it suspicious that the mayor’s deputies could not communicate with him directly and whether, at that time, he had any prior suspicions.
The defendant replied that he had three cases of suspicion. When the court asked whether that included this particular proceeding, he said:
“No, without… Well, only one was with the NABU, the others were more like trumped-up cases. I had a conflict during elections with the head of the amalgamated community, who has since fled to Russia. There was a scandal, and he avoided meetings. It was raining, the buildings were closed, and this was during the election. Another one was just a made-up situation, and the third one is NABU, essentially. So, two were unimportant, and the third is NABU.”
In response to whether the “strange communication” between the mayor’s deputies and the mayor concerned him, especially considering the ongoing investigations, Mykytas said he could not recall, as too much time had passed, and he saw no connection with his previous cases.
Connection to Metrobud
The defendant stated that he was merely acting as a consultant in this situation, brought in by acquaintances among the company’s owners and employees. He emphasized that they engaged him because of his significant experience with the EBRD, highlighting that work at Chornobyl had been completed ahead of schedule, within budget, and without complaints.
When asked why his personal involvement was so crucial, Mykytas said:
“…at that time, by mid-2022, when the full-scale war was already in full swing, I believe there was no one else in the country with my level of direct, practical experience with the EBRD…”
Letter to the EBRD
Mykytas explained that he prepared talking points together with experienced people and suggested including them in the delegation to the EBRD. When asked why city council staff could not draft the letter themselves, he said they probably lacked sufficient experience or knowledge. He also noted that even the EBRD office in Warsaw was unsure how to act until a letter came from the London office.
He sent his draft points via Signal messenger to Deputy Mayor Volodymyr Miller and believes his text was used. He did not recall from whom he learned about the EBRD’s response.
The concept Mykytas suggested to Filatov included:
-
Metrobud – at that time a subcontractor for Limak.
-
Tunelbud, which was proposed as the engineer or the leader of the group of companies (insurance, occupational safety, coordination of works, coordination of subcontractors, reporting to the EBRD, reporting to the client, medical equipment, compliance with safety measures).
-
Ukrbud – for design work.
-
Ilyashev & Partners – for legal support.
Another large company with strong financial capacity was to be brought in to support the group, but Mykytas could not recall its name.
He added that company participation and shares could vary during the process, and even the bank could propose other companies. He described it all as a “raw concept.”