Prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office Ivan Saienko: «The purpose of the seizure of my phone by NABU detectives may be to obstruct the investigation in the case of Ruslan Magamedrasulov»

On the morning of October 9, NABU announced the exposure of a prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office and lawyers for incitement to provide an undue benefit in the amount of 3.5 million US dollars. NABU stated that “the funds were allegedly intended for further transfer to SAP prosecutors and HACC judges for making a decision to close a criminal proceeding being investigated by NABU detectives.”

Although NABU’s official information mentions only one prosecutor of the PGO, as it later turned out, NABU detectives carried out searches at the homes of two prosecutors of the Prosecutor General’s Office.

The goal of NABU’s investigative actions may have been the seizure of the mobile phone of another prosecutor — Ivan Saienko — who is not mentioned in the Bureau’s press release but was part of the group of prosecutors in the case of the head of one of NABU’s interregional detective departments, Ruslan Magamedrasulov, suspected of aiding the aggressor state, according to the Prosecutor General’s Office.

At this time, this prosecutor does not have any procedural status in the criminal proceeding being investigated by NABU and SAP, and his role, actions, and possible involvement in corruption offenses were not specified in the HACC order authorizing the search.

However, on the morning of October 9, a search was conducted at his residence and workplace, which, according to the PGO, ended without results — no physical evidence was found that could indicate his involvement in any crime.

At the same time, the prosecutor’s mobile phone was seized, which carries risks of access to information in the case concerning Magamedrasulov.

“By a strange coincidence, precisely in the midst of this investigation against the prosecutor, actions are being taken that raise reasonable doubts about their objectivity. In this context, there is a risk of conflict of interest and selective use of investigative mechanisms by NABU detectives and SAP prosecutors,” noted the PGO.

According to the PGO, this may indicate attempts to discredit the prosecutors who exercise procedural supervision in the case concerning Magamedrasulov and to create a corresponding informational background.

“It is obvious that conducting a search at the home of a prosecutor who worked on the case of a NABU official and seizing his mobile phone carries risks of access to information that may serve as an important evidentiary basis in that case. Therefore, this calls into question the impartiality and true motives of such procedural actions,” emphasized the PGO.

The Judicial-Legal Newspaper spoke with Prosecutor General’s Office prosecutor Ivan Saienko about the grounds for the search and the circumstances of the seizure of his phone.

– How was the search conducted, and how did NABU detectives explain the grounds for conducting it specifically against you?
– The search began at approximately 7 a.m. in my apartment. After reviewing the HACC ruling, I asked the investigator about my involvement in the circumstances stated in the ruling. Because in that ruling, only a single sentence, among other narrative, at the very end, mentioned that I might be involved in the stated circumstances. When I asked what exactly my role was, the detectives could not provide an answer. It was clear they had no answer to that question.

Thus, I did not receive a clear answer. They stated that they had “some data.”

During the search, they inspected everything in the apartment — belongings, objects, documents. No prohibited items, no items withdrawn from circulation, and no items connected to the criminal proceeding within which the search was conducted were seized. Moreover, the investigators had printed protocols, markings of money, and even the small amounts of money that were in the apartment were checked, and none of the items or things they were supposed to find were discovered.

Only my personal mobile phone was seized.

– Regarding this phone – what exactly was the purpose of its seizure?
– I want to emphasize that I have never had any connection to the case that served as the basis for the search, and I did not participate in the circumstances described by NABU. In my opinion, the direct purpose of the search was the need to seize the phone in order to extract information from it.

The NABU detectives understood that I was part of the group of prosecutors in a number of high-profile criminal proceedings concerning NABU employees, in particular in the case of Ruslan Magamedrasulov. Therefore, I believe that the direct necessity to seize the mobile phone concerned work-related matters and information that may be connected to the investigation of that very criminal proceeding concerning other NABU employees.

– In your opinion, how might the information from the phone be used?
– I believe their goal was to use this information to further obstruct the work of other prosecutors, investigators, and other persons involved in conducting the pre-trial investigation and procedural supervision in the said case.

It should be noted that with respect to the other prosecutor, the one actually mentioned in NABU’s release, the HACC ruling states that one of the PGO employees, not in the course of performing official or procedural duties, allegedly could have been an intermediary in the transfer of a $3.5 million bribe to HACC judges. At the same time, according to the information available to the PGO, this prosecutor had no relation to the investigation of the criminal case that was allegedly to be closed for the undue benefit. He could neither demand nor close the case himself, as he is not the procedural supervisor in it.

The Prosecutor General’s Office emphasized that it does not support any form of politicization of criminal prosecution or “witch hunts” and remains interested in objectively establishing the truth. Therefore, it expects the official provision of the criminal case materials from NABU and SAP.

“This is necessary for conducting an internal review. In the event that well-founded suspicions are confirmed and there is an appropriate evidentiary base, all measures provided by law will be taken,” the PGO emphasized.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER, Facebook page, and Instagram to stay up to date with the most important events.