On December 23, 2020, the Deputy Prosecutor General Oleksiy Symonenko transferred the criminal proceeding as of the Deputy Head of the Presidential Office from the National Bureau to the Security Service of Ukraine. The decision was made secretly, without consultations with NABU and SAPO late at night: the note to the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations was entered at 11:42 p.m.
The law prohibits the transfer of cases under the NABU jurisdiction to other pre-trial investigation bodies. Thus, the Prosecutor General’s Office deliberately made an illegal decision, which grossly contradicted the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
The NABU Detectives gathered evidence of the illegality of actions of the Deputy Head of the President's Office (the formerly a top official of the SE UkrBud at the time of committing a crime). The investigation revealed that he was involved in providing an improper advantage for the fictitious forensic expert opinion in the case as of seizing UAH 81 million from the National Guard of Ukraine.
On December 1, on the eve of the notification of suspicion, the Prosecutor General secretly, without notifying the SAPO prosecutors, without examining the materials of the criminal proceedings, without any legal grounds, changed the group of prosecutors. This decision postponed the notification of suspicion for 17 days.
Today at 12:30 a.m. the High Anti-Corruption Court planned to choose a preventive measure for a top official of the President's Office. Taking to the consideration the suspect key role in the corruption scheme, the investigation asked for choosing a preventive measure in a form of temporary custody with UAH 10 million alternative bail. In order to prevent the choice of the preventive measure the PGO transferred the criminal proceeding to the Security Service of Ukraine. The SAPO prosecutors got the information at 9 am.
Therefore, instead of protecting the State interests, that suffered losses due to the actions of the suspect, the Prosecutor General’s Office actually advocated for his personal protection. Such actions completely discredit the public authority, whose activities should be based on the rule of law, legality and justice, impartiality and objectivity. The PGO neglected all in order to protect an official suspected of corruption.