Fact Check: "Chernyshov returned to Ukraine just before corruption charges were unveiled."
What We Know
Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov returned to Ukraine on June 22, 2023, after an official trip abroad. His return coincided with growing media speculation regarding his involvement in a corruption investigation. This investigation was initiated by Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) and involved allegations of corruption linked to officials from the now-dissolved Communities and Territories Development Ministry, which Chernyshov previously headed (Kyiv Independent, Mezha).
Chernyshov's trip to Vienna was announced on June 16, just three days after law enforcement revealed the corruption scheme, raising questions about the timing of his absence from Ukraine (Kyiv Independent). Upon his return, he stated on Facebook that he would resume work in the Cabinet of Ministers and mentioned the need to address what he termed a "smear campaign" against him (Kyiv Independent).
Analysis
The claim that Chernyshov returned to Ukraine just before corruption charges were unveiled is partially true. While it is accurate that he returned on June 22, the corruption charges were formally announced shortly after his return, specifically on June 23, when prosecutors requested his suspension and bail due to allegations of abuse of office and bribery (NV).
The timing of his trip and return raises legitimate questions about whether he was attempting to evade scrutiny. However, it is also essential to note that foreign trips are a regular part of his duties, as stated by the National Unity Ministry (Kyiv Independent).
The sources used in this analysis are credible, with the Kyiv Independent and Mezha being reputable news outlets in Ukraine. They provide detailed accounts of the events surrounding Chernyshov's return and the subsequent legal actions against him. However, the narrative surrounding the "smear campaign" could indicate a potential bias in Chernyshov's defense, as it seeks to frame the investigation as politically motivated.
Conclusion
The claim that "Chernyshov returned to Ukraine just before corruption charges were unveiled" is partially true. While he did return shortly before the charges were formally announced, the context of his trip and the nature of his duties suggest that his absence may not have been solely an attempt to evade the investigation. The timing is certainly suspicious, but it does not definitively indicate wrongdoing on his part prior to the charges being unveiled.
