Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
Expert Oleg Pasternak suggests that NABU searches of three senior SBU officials may be connected to prior investigations into the leadership of anti-corruption bodies and their inner circle.
4 November, detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine are conducting searches at senior officials of the Security Service of Ukraine. Against the backdrop of these events, expert Oleg Pasternak raised the question of possible motives for the investigative actions, in particular their connection to prior investigations concerning the leadership of NABU and the circle around the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office.
Searches at the SBU: what is known about the investigative actions
According to Ukrainska Pravda, 4 November, NABU detectives carried out searches at the head of the Main Directorate of Internal Security of the SBU, Anton Kravchuk. The investigative actions took place amid reports of an attempted search of the first deputy head of the Department for the Protection of National Statehood of the SBU, Serhii Duka.
In addition, the Kyiv Post reports that searches were also conducted at the first deputy head of the Main Directorate “D” of the Department for the Protection of National Statehood of the SBU, Oleksandr Kovalchuk.
Former Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko stated that the units of the three SBU officials had previously been involved in investigations of criminal proceedings concerning NABU Director Semen Kryvonos and the close circle of the head of the SAP, Oleksandr Klymenko, including members of his family.
At the same time, the mere fact of prior involvement of those units in such investigations does not prove that the current searches are related to them.
Pasternak raises the question of possible pressure on the SBU
Commenting on the situation, expert Oleg Pasternak drew attention to the circumstances of the searches and the possible link between the current actions of NABU and prior investigations that may have affected the interests of the leadership of anti-corruption bodies.
In his view, it is necessary to clarify whether the investigative actions could be a way to exert pressure on SBU employees whose units previously handled the relevant criminal proceedings.
Separately, the expert emphasized the risks of using law enforcement powers in inter-agency confrontations. This concerns a situation in which investigations into members of one agency could potentially cause conflict with another law enforcement body.
Pasternak also drew attention to the principle of accountability of anti-corruption structures. In his view, the independence of NABU and SAP should not mean their untouchability, and possible offenses must be investigated regardless of the positions and status of the individuals involved.
Thus, the expert raises not only the grounds for the specific searches, but also the mechanisms for controlling the activities of the anti-corruption bodies themselves.
NABU announced operation “Carthage”
Against the backdrop of the searches at the SBU, anti-corruption agencies reported the continuation of a large-scale investigation under operation “Carthage.”
According to Ukrinform, NABU and SAP announced the exposure of a criminal organization whose members, according to the investigation, systematically passed illicit benefits to senior officials of law enforcement agencies.
This concerns possible receipt of funds in exchange for ensuring the unhindered operation of fraudulent call centers and other illegal businesses.
NABU claims that active senior officials of the SBU, the National Police, the Office of the Prosecutor General, and representatives of the criminal milieu may have been involved in the illegal activities.
At the same time, Radio Svoboda notes that the anti-corruption bureau did not specify whether all the searches on 4 November were directly related to operation “Carthage.”
This is an important circumstance, since the allegations of possible pressure on SBU officials and NABU’s statements about investigating a corruption scheme currently represent different explanations of events, the connection between which requires confirmation.
Threats with a weapon and the Security Service’s reaction
In the morning of 4 November, NABU reported obstruction of the search. According to the bureau, one of the senior SBU officials threatened the detectives with the use of firearms and did not allow them access to the site of the investigative actions.
NABU noted that the search was conducted on the basis of a ruling by an investigating judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court. The bureau also reported the arrival of SBU special forces at the scene.
At the same time, the Security Service of Ukraine officially confirmed the searches of its employees. The agency explained that the investigative actions are taking place within several criminal proceedings and on the basis of the relevant court rulings.
The SBU emphasized that it supports an objective and unbiased investigation and is facilitating the conduct of procedural actions.
Thus, despite public statements about a possible confrontation between law enforcement structures, the SBU officially confirmed its readiness to cooperate with the investigation.
Who should control the anti-corruption bodies
The situation around the searches raises a broader question about the limits of independence of law enforcement agencies and the mechanisms of their mutual accountability.
NABU and SAP have special powers to investigate corruption offenses. At the same time, officials of these institutions can also be the subject of investigations if there are grounds provided by law.
This circumstance is precisely what Oleg Pasternak points to, asking who and in what way should ensure control over the leadership of the anti-corruption bodies.
At the same time, to assess the current events it is necessary to distinguish confirmed circumstances, statements of the participants in the conflict, and assumptions about possible motives for the searches.
So far, there is no published evidence that NABU’s investigative actions are being conducted specifically to exert pressure on SBU employees because of prior investigations. The version raised by the expert requires separate verification.
Previously, StopCor wrote about operation “Carthage” and searches that were linked to acting head of the State Tax Service Lesia Karnaukh. The article also examined declared income, property, and business connections of her family.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Обшуки НАБУ у високопосадовців СБУ можуть бути спробою тиску через попередні розслідування – експерт". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: StopKor.