The story of MP Fedir Khrystenko allegedly becoming a "whistleblower" in the NABU and SAPO turned out to be just a smokescreen. As it turned out, the politician, who was involved in a case of high treason and possible cooperation with the FSB, used his status as a whistleblower to achieve the most lenient approach from the court to his own criminal case.
Recently, the court approved Khrystenko's plea agreement in the treason case. The hearing was held in camera, and the details of the sentence — the prison term, additional restrictions, and the circumstances under which the agreement was deemed acceptable — are not disclosed for “security” reasons. Such secrecy raises the question of whether the deputy received a de facto indulgence for cooperating with the aggressor and possible influence on the work of anti-corruption agencies. According to sources in judicial circles, this may not be a real punishment, but a suspended sentence that allows Khrystenko to preserve both his political capital and some of his business assets.
Khrystenko is a native of Donetsk and a former representative of the Ukrainian People's Party. After 2014, he built a business on the supply of Russian anthracite to Ukraine, including from the temporarily occupied territories. His companies, including the Estonian Heating Systems OU, imported products from the Russian Sibanthracite. The raw material ended up at Ukrainian plants, including Metinvest and ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih. Despite the war, the schemes brought in multimillion-dollar profits, and Khrystenko's deputy status allowed him to avoid criminal prosecution for years.
One of the key elements of the MP’s business empire remains the activities of his father-in-law, Serhiy Bryukhovetsky. He continues to run a business in temporarily occupied Horlivka, paying taxes to the so-called “DPR budget”. At the same time, Ukrainian banks, in particular the state-owned “Ukreximbank”, provided Bryukhovetsky’s structures with loans for the acquisition of strategic assets, including the Kyiv shopping center Sky Mall. This strengthens suspicions of a possible political cover-up and Khrystenko’s influence on decision-making in the financial sphere.
Analysts note that the scandal with his alleged "incriminating testimony" against NABU and SAPO could have been part of a strategy to whiten his reputation and mitigate responsibility. Instead of real punishment for cooperation with Russian structures, supply of coal from the occupied territories and connections with FSB representatives, Khrystenko probably received conditions that allow him to avoid consequences disproportionate to the scale of the incriminated actions.
The secrecy of the court's decision and the silence of law enforcement agencies only fuel doubts that this story ended without a harsh legal verdict. The question for society remains: will true responsibility for treason become inevitable, or has the institution of plea bargains once again been turned into a way to save the political and business interests of individual defendants?
