On Aug. 15, 2022, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor`s Office (SAPO) notified an ex-prosecutor of the Prosecutor General's Office of suspicion of acquisition of property and forgery. His actions fall under Part 5 Art. 191, Part 1 Art. 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The economic effect is one of the main indicators by which the effectiveness of the work of the National Bureau can be evaluated. While prior to the full-scale aggression of the russian federation it could be measured mostly in terms of funds reimbursed or confiscated to state revenue, after February 24 another equally important aspect emerged - aid to the Ukrainian army.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor`s Office (SAPO) have completed the investigation into the misappropriation of grain worth UAH 14.8 million. On Aug. 12, 2022, the case file was disclosed to the defense for review before its referral to court.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor`s Office (SAPO) have identified new participants in the scheme to embezzle UAH 12.3 million from Yuzhnoukrainsk NPP (a part of “National Nuclear Energy Generating Company “Energoatom” SE) during the purchase of air conditioning systems. They are a financial director and the nominal head of two companies. On Aug. 12, 2022, both were notified of suspicion under Part 5 Article 27, Part 5 Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Suspicions against the previously established participants in the scheme, its organizer (the actual head of the two companies) and the head of an NPP's department, have been updated.
On Aug. 12, 2022, the head of a Poltava district court was notified of suspicion of fraud, incitement to bribery, and concealment of assets. His actions fall under Part 3 Art. 190, Part 2 Art. 15, Part 4 Art. 27, Part 3 Art. 369 and Part 1 Art. 366-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Since the judge's whereabouts were unknown, the suspicion notice was served in absentia.