\n \nRumors about the resignation of the first minister of Tymoshenko's cabinet are confirmed by the press service of the Ministry of Justice and not confirmed by Roman Zvarych himself. According to the press service of the Ministry of Justice, Zvarych has already written a resignation letter. \n \nZvarych himself maintains intrigue regarding his possible resignation. The only comment so far that the minister gave to Channel 5 is that he will not tolerate pressure on himself from any side and that his further actions will depend exclusively on the position of Prime Minister Tymoshenko. \n \n"I will not allow any businessmen who are also people's deputies of Ukraine and have very powerful positions in the oil refining sector to interfere in the work of my department. And, secondly, I also will not allow the actions and decisions of individual members of the government to try to draw members of my family into corruption schemes," Zvarych said. \n \nWithout saying anything directly, the minister made more than transparent hints about what exactly led to his possible resignation. The matter indeed involves businessman-deputy-oil magnates, Tymoshenko's interests, the Cabinet's decision to ban oil re-export, and also the drawing of the minister's family into corruption schemes. \n \nAccording to information obtained by UP, the immediate reason for the minister's decision was the events that occurred at the Ministry of Justice on February 10. Last Thursday, people's deputy Ihor Yeremeyev (Lytvyn's faction) arrived at the ministry in Zvarych's absence. Introducing himself as Tymoshenko's adviser, he "brought" the prime minister's demand to prepare a legal opinion of the ministry regarding the planned Cabinet order on banning oil re-export. \n \nAccording to UP sources, Yeremeyev practically dictated the opinion and even took a copy for himself, without coordinating his actions with the minister in any way. \n \nIhor Yeremeyev is a Volyn businessman-deputy, leader of the faction of former agrarians, and is considered a man of Lytvyn. He is the owner of the Volyn business group "Continuum," which controls 43% of the "Halychyna" refinery; he also owns a chain of filling stations. \n \nWhy did the conflict arise and why did Yeremeyev need to interfere in the work of the Ministry of Justice? Answers to this question can be found in the open letter of the company "Oil Transit" to Tymoshenko, which was passed to the UP editorial office. We present the most interesting part of the letter: \n \n"Dear Madam Prime Minister! \n \nWe categorically protest against illegal actions regarding our enterprise and brutal interference in its foreign economic activity. \n \nLLC "OIL TRANSIT" purchased Russian oil for the purpose of its subsequent sale to Slovakia in accordance with a foreign economic contract. The oil was delivered to the customs territory of Ukraine, all customs operations were carried out, and all payments and fees provided for by law were paid to the state budget. However, officials of the Central Energy Customs refused customs clearance of the oil 4 times. The Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine filed a protest against the illegal actions of the customs. \n \nWe emphasize that the contract of LLC "OIL Transit" does not affect the domestic market of oil and petroleum products of Ukraine. The specified volume goes outside the volumes of oil planned for supplies to Ukrainian refineries in accordance with the annual protocol between Ukraine and Russia (confirmed by a letter from the deputy head of the Federal Agency for Energy – O. Gordeyev). Its fulfillment by a Ukrainian resident is beneficial for Ukraine, since it brings more than 20 million dollars to the state budget. \n \nSince, contrary to the requirements of the law, customs officers are not processing the export (re-export) of oil, we turned to you with a request to look into the situation. After all, the Head of the State Customs Service of Ukraine, M. Kalensky, stated that our oil is not undergoing customs clearance on the "instruction of the higher leadership of the state." We did not believe this. But on February 14, 2005, M. Kalensky addressed you with a letter in which he informed you of the groundlessness of further refusal of customs clearance of the oil. \n \nAs follows from the letter of the Head of the State Customs Service of Ukraine M. Kalensky, it is precisely you who are that "higher leadership of the state" which gave the illegal instruction to hold our goods – oil. And it is precisely by this letter that M. Kalensky "exits the scheme," shifting responsibility to you for illegal actions and orders. \n \nAt the time when our oil was being held, from your assistant (that is exactly how he introduces himself, and it is in exactly such a capacity that he is present at your meetings) people's deputy I. Yeremeyev came a proposal to "run" the oil through the "Halychyna" refinery and a number of enterprises (LLC "Spectrum Petrol," "Continuum – Ukr – resource," PE "Votum-A"), which would allow I. Yeremeyev to reimburse VAT from the state budget under a fictitious scheme, using resident enterprises of Ukraine controlled by the "Halychyna" refinery. LLC "OIL Transit," finding itself in a hopeless situation, agreed to sell oil to the "Halychyna" refinery in the amount of 35 thousand tons. \n \nHow surprised we were when (despite the scandalousness of the situation), the "Halychyna" refinery sent an agreement for the purchase of oil not to the plant, but to the private enterprise "Votum-A" – whose director is a peasant from the village of Torchytsia, Stavyshchansky district, Kyiv region, V.Yu. Zaichuk, who, having VAT and excise tax payment privileges, has more than 7,000,000 US dollars to pay for a 35-thousand-ton batch of oil. \n \nThe following testifies to the fact of using the export of oil and petroleum products for the purpose of fictitious VAT reimbursement: in January 2005, the "Halychyna" refinery declared the customs value of one ton of A-80 gasoline at 630.00 US dollars (for comparison: the Kremenchuk refinery declared this same gasoline at 314.40 US dollars per 1 ton). The amounts declared for VAT reimbursement differ accordingly. \n \nAgainst the backdrop of the struggle against us, on February 9, 2005, you instructed Minister of Economy S. Teriokhin to prepare a draft Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on banning oil re-export, citing a deficit of fuel and lubricants for the sowing campaign. \n \nThere is no such deficit. For the first quarter of 2005, Russia offered Ukrainian oil refining enterprises 7,060,000 tons of oil. In January, 1,243,000 tons of oil were received. In February, 1,029,000 tons of oil were confirmed with resources. Ukrainian oil refining enterprises are not taking the declared volumes of oil from Russia. And this means that for the next quarter Russia will reorient oil flows, and Ukraine will receive oil only within the limits of the actual supply volumes of the first quarter, as was reported to you by the deputy head of the Federal Agency of Russia O. Gordeyev." \n \nThat is, the letter actually refers to a method of embezzling budget funds through a VAT refund scheme that the real participants in the scheme did not pay. It should be noted that upon transitioning to the described scheme, "Oil Transit" does not lose funds, however it finds itself drawn into a shadow VAT refund scheme. \n \nAccording to UP sources, one of the company's employees is the wife of the minister of justice. And that is precisely why, in the comment to Channel 5, the minister speaks of "drawing members of his family into corruption schemes." That is, in fact, the matter concerns a "hook" on which the minister himself could be caught. \n \nIt is noteworthy that the letter also features the head of the customs service, Kalensky – another "man of Lytvyn." As is known, his "frank" report on smuggling methods at a Cabinet meeting was highly praised by Yulia Tymoshenko. \n \nAt first glance, the situation looks quite banal – the Cabinet adopts a decision that negatively affects the business of the minister's wife, the minister submits his resignation. \n \nHowever, information obtained from our sources allows for a different conclusion. \n \nAccording to UP data, Zvarych is leaving because he is outraged by the return of the old principles of government operation. \n\nCabinet decisions may contradict someone's business interests, including the interests of his wife. But Zvarych is protesting against the "manual management" of government bodies customary in Kuchma's times and the open use of the Ministry of Justice as a machine for legalizing any decisions of the Cabinet whatsoever. \n