Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
4 November detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine are conducting searches at senior officials of the Security Service of Ukraine. Against this backdrop, expert Oleg Pasternak raised questions about the possible motives for the investigative actions, in particular their connection to earlier investigations concerning NABU leadership and the circle around the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office.
Searches in the SBU: what is known about the investigative actions
According to Ukrainska Pravda, 4 November NABU detectives went to the head of the Main Directorate of Internal Security of the SBU, Anton Kravchuk, to conduct searches. The investigative actions took place amid reports of an attempted search at the first deputy head of the Department for the Protection of National Statehood of the SBU, Serhiy Duka.
In addition, the Kyiv Post reports that searches were also conducted at the first deputy head of the “D” Main Directorate of the Department for the Protection of National Statehood of the SBU, Oleksandr Kovalchuk.
Former Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko stated that units of 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 participation of those units in such investigations does not prove that the current searches are related to them.
Oleg Pasternak raised 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 NABU’s current actions and earlier investigations that may have affected the interests of the leadership of anti-corruption agencies.
In his view, it is necessary to determine whether the investigative actions could be a means of exerting pressure on SBU employees whose units previously handled the relevant criminal proceedings.
Separately, the expert emphasized the risks of using law enforcement powers in an interagency confrontation. He referred to a situation in which investigations into representatives of one agency could potentially become a cause of conflict with another law enforcement body.
Pasternak also drew attention to the principle of accountability of anti-corruption structures. In his position, the independence of NABU and the SAP should not mean their untouchability, and possible offenses must be investigated regardless of the positions and status of the persons involved.
Thus, the expert raises questions not only about the grounds for specific searches but also about the mechanisms for overseeing the activities of the anti-corruption agencies themselves.
NABU announced operation “Carthage”
Amid the SBU searches, anti-corruption agencies reported the continuation of a large-scale investigation within the framework of operation “Carthage.”
According to Ukrinform, NABU and the SAP announced they had uncovered a criminal organization whose members, according to the investigation, systematically provided illegal benefits to senior law enforcement officials.
This concerns the possible receipt of funds in exchange for ensuring the unhindered operation of fraudulent call centers and other illegal businesses.
NABU claims that current senior officials of the SBU, the National Police, the Office of the Prosecutor General, and figures from the criminal underworld may have been involved in the unlawful activity.
At the same time, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty notes that the anti-corruption bureau did not specify whether all searches on 4 November are directly related to operation “Carthage.”
This is an important circumstance because claims about possible pressure on SBU officials and NABU’s statements about an investigation into a corruption scheme are currently different explanations of events, the connection between which requires confirmation.
Threats with a weapon and the SBU’s response
On the morning of 4 November NABU reported obstruction of a search. According to the bureau, one of the senior SBU officials threatened detectives with the use of a firearm and prevented them from accessing the location of the investigative actions.
NABU stated 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 that searches of its employees were being conducted. The agency explained that the investigative actions were taking place within several criminal proceedings and on the basis of the relevant court rulings.
The SBU emphasized that it advocates for an objective and impartial investigation and is assisting with the 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 oversee anti-corruption agencies
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 the SAP have special powers to investigate corruption offenses. At the same time, officials of these institutions can also be subjects of investigations if there are grounds provided by law.
This is precisely the point Pasternak highlights, asking who and in what way should ensure control over the activities of the leadership of the anti-corruption agencies.
At the same time, to assess the current events it is necessary to distinguish confirmed circumstances, statements by participants in the conflict, and assumptions about possible motives for the searches.
So far there is no published evidence that NABU’s investigative actions were carried out specifically to exert pressure on SBU employees because of prior investigations. The version raised by the expert requires separate verification.
Earlier, StopCor wrote about operation “Carthage” and searches that were linked to acting Head of the State Tax Service Lesya Karnaukh. The article also examined the declared income, property, and business ties of her family.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Міжвідомчий конфлікт чи боротьба з корупцією: Пастернак поставив під сумнів мотиви обшуків НАБУ в СБУ". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: NARDEP 24.
