© Getty Images The Prosecutor General's Office states that an individual under suspicion isn’t connected to the judicial process, yet his residence was searched, and his mobile device was taken.
The Prosecutor General’s Office has leveled accusations against the National Anti-corruption Bureau, asserting they sought to gather evidence in the matter of Ruslan Magamedrasulov, accused of assisting Russia, by scrutinizing a prosecutor engaged in the case.
The UCP contends that NABU executed investigative searches concerning the encouragement to offer a payoff to a prosecutor from the Specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor’s Office and judges within the High Anti-corruption Court, targeting two prosecutors. According to the declaration, one of them has no ties to the subject. Nevertheless, he was part of the group of legal representatives who performed procedural oversight in the Magamedrasulov affair.
“He lacks any procedural standing within the criminal proceedings under inquiry by the NABU and the SAPO. Regardless, by judicial mandate, investigations were carried out at his home and workplace. The inquiries yielded no material proof suggesting his implication in any illicit action. In parallel, the prosecutor’s cell phone was seized. …
“It is evident that inspecting the prosecutor involved with the NABU official’s case and confiscating his mobile device brings forth the potential for accessing details that may serve as vital evidentiary support in these legal actions,” the UCP statement conveys.
The Prosecutor General’s Office further mentioned that NABU’s undertakings “may point towards conceivable endeavors to undermine the reputation of the prosecutors responsible for procedural guidance in the aforementioned judicial process.”
Regarding the other prosecutor under suspicion, who emerges as an intermediary in the $3.5 million bribery instance, the UCP affirmed that he “held no involvement in the probe of the criminal matter, supposedly intended for unlawful closure in exchange for financial gain.” (Per the anti-corruption agencies’ statement, SAPO was investigating the case, and the prosecutor was purportedly meant to persuade his colleague to dismiss it. According to ZN.UA sources within law enforcement, the accused aimed to drop the case concerning land acquisition in the Kyiv region).
The UCP underscored that while the prosecutor faces suspicion for brokering the transfer of a bribe, he lacked the authority to independently demand or terminate the case, as he is not the procedural supervisor in this context.
This morning, NABU and SAPO revealed the discovery of an employee within the Prosecutor General’s Office who had conspired with legal advisors and engineered a scheme to incentivize the prosecutor from the Specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the judges of the High Anti-corruption Court to render a judgement that would lead to the dismissal of a matter under NABU’s scrutiny. The “arrangement” was valued at 3.5 million US dollars. According to anti-corruption bodies, the prosecutor and lawyers successfully received 200 thousand US dollars from the “client”.
As a quick reminder, the head of the NABU's interregional detective division, Ruslan Maghamedrasulov, was taken into custody by the SBU on July 21 on suspicion of state treason and was placed in pre-trial detention without bond.
The SBU alleges that Maghamedrasulov and his father are complicit with Dagestan. The department posted an audio recording purported to demonstrate this, but on the audio track with reduced noise, the conversation indicates that the discussion between father and son pertained to Uzbekistan . Despite this, the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv ordered Maghamedrasulov to remain in detention until October 21.
Inna Vedernikova elaborated on who is accelerating the confrontation among security services, drawing NABU and SAPO into public disputes, and diminishing trust in them in the article “Special services from the lamp: can the genie released by Zelensky be tamed?”.
