Viktor Vasyliovych Chumak

Position:

former Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine

Date and place of birth: 

06/5/1958, Khmelnytskyi

Information about relatives:

Viktor Chumak is married. The married couple has two children.

Education:

Kyiv National University named after Taras Shevchenko

Information about work (when, where he worked, in what positions):

Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine (2019—2020). People's Deputy of the VII and VIII grades. Chairman of the VRU Committee on Combating Organized Crime and Corruption (2012-2014), Deputy Chairman of the same committee (2014-2016), acting Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

 Member of the Agency for Prevention of Corruption. In March 2015, he was one of the four official candidates for the position of Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.

 Until 2010, he was the director of the Department of Political Analysis and Security of the International Center for Advanced Studies. Areas of specialization: security and defense, law enforcement, constitutional law, administrative law, military law, migration law, customs and border law.

In 1992-2004, he worked in management positions in the State Border Service of Ukraine, in 1981-1992, in command positions in the Armed Forces of the USSR.

Since 2010, he has been the director of the Ukrainian Institute of Public Policy.

On December 12, 2012, he became a People's Deputy of Ukraine of the 7th convocation, running for and being elected from Vitaliy Klitschko's "UDAR" party in single-mandate capital district No. 214.

Involvement in one of the cases (which case, position at the time of involvement):

In the transcript of the protocol of his interrogation, Oleksiy Yermilov testified that he did consult with then Deputy Prosecutor General Viktor Chumak before giving an alibi, which turned out to be false. Later, this conversation was confirmed by Chumak himself in a comment under the journalist's post on Facebook. It turned out that he was a friend of Yermilov's family and allegedly advised Yermilov to give an interview to journalists if he remembered that Antonenko was with him on the night of the murder of journalist Pavlo Sheremet.

"The witness during the interrogation on January 13 told the investigative authorities that he consulted with the Deputy Prosecutor General about providing information to the police Viktor Chumak. And then the same Chumak extended the term of the pre-trial investigation for another 2 months, when others refused to continue. I think the witness could not directly and frankly say that he was sent by the prosecutor's office. But there can't be such a coincidence,"– explained Andrii Antonenko's lawyer, Stanislav Kulyk.

At the same time, as the witness reported, Antonenko's lawyers were the first to contact him, check his alibi and establish its falsity. Back in August, the defense spoke at the meeting about the verification of Mr. Yermilov's statement and exposed its falsity. In addition, the lawyers never submitted a request either from the defense side or from the suspect himself about the existence of such an "alibi" and did not wish to involve Yermilov as a witness or to question him in court. This information about the false alibi is distributed and constantly speculated on by the prosecutor's office.

And on December 8, 2020, prosecutor Mykhailo Tishin also substantiated the relevance of Antonenko's influence on witnesses with these false testimonies of Yermilov. However, when asked by the judge how exactly Antonenko influenced the witness, the prosecutor did not provide evidence to confirm these words. The prosecutor's office has no confirmation that Yermilov was under the influence of the defense or the accused. By the way, Antonenko's lawyer Stanislav Kulyk stated on February 11 that the witness with a false alibi was sent by the prosecutor's office. Thus, the Prosecutor General's Office created the conditions to still refer to the risk of influence on witnesses, which does not exist. For almost a year now, the Kyiv Court of Appeals has recognized the risk of influencing witnesses as actual, only in view of a false alibi.

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

The information is being clarified  

Involvement in other cases that had public resonance (in which case was noticed, status within this case, year, month):

The information is being clarified