Artem Sytnyk: There's no institutional conflict between NABU and SAPO. The competent authorities should evaluate the actions of the SAPO Head

04.04.2018 00:00
The Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine noted during his report to Ukrainian Parliament on April 4, 2018, that the situation surrounding the SAPO Head does not affect investigation of criminal proceedings under the NABU's jurisdiction. Cooperation between the NABU Detectives and the SAPO prosecutors continues as usual.
 
"Our fight  against corruption has never stopped. In March, NABU and SAPO completed twice as many investigations as in the previous two months. In total, more than 100 cases from anti-corruption bodies are in the courts now", said Artem Sytnyk.
 
Commenting the situation on the undercover investigative activities regarding the SAPO Head, which were conducted by the NABU in Feburay-March, 2018,  the NABU Director informed that the NABU directed all materials on the SAPO Head's alleged criminal and disciplinary offences to the competent authorities: namely, the  Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine as a pre-trial investigation body in this criminal proceeding, and the Qualification-Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors (the relevant complaint  was sent on March 30, 2018).
 
"Whatever happens we can not  ignore the facts of alleged unlawful actions", the NABU Director commented the speculations on possible risks and consequences of investigating the SAPO Head.
 
As it was reported before the Detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) as part of a joint group with the investigators of the Prosecutor General's Office (PGO), for a certain period of time had carried out investigative actions in the framework of a criminal proceeding registered by the PGO on alleged offences by the SAPO Head. The data obtained as a result of the undercover investigative activities show signs of possible criminal and disciplinary offences in the actions of the SAPO Head, namely unlawful compelling on witness to testify during an interrogation; interference with activity of a judge in order to prevent him from performing his duties; disclosure of information on pre-trial investigation; inclining subordinate prosecutors to commit actions for the benefit of persons involved in criminal proceedings and other.
For more details please see the presentation attached.