SBU perceives suspicion of Vitiuk as revenge for detention of NABU employees
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) perceives suspicion of Brigadier General Illia Vitiuk as revenge for the detention of NABU employees, the special service said.
"NABU and SAPO employees have declared suspicion of Brigadier General of the Security Service of Ukraine I. Vitiuk. The SBU perceives such actions as a response to the justified detention by the Service of several employees of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau at the end of July this year," the official SBU comment on the Telegram channel on Tuesday said.
In the SBU's comments, they recalled that "recently, the SBU exposed one of the heads of NABU interregional departments for trading with the Russian Federation [Article 111-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine], and detained another employee of the Bureau for high treason and transferring information to the Russian Federation [Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine]."
"In the opinion of the SBU, the announcement of suspicion of I. Vitiuk by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office is revenge on the part of the NABU and the SAPO for the fact that the Security Service of Ukraine effectively counteracts Russian influence on state bodies and exposed several employees of the Bureau for committing crimes," the SBU emphasized.
It is noted that "I. Vitiuk's suspicion was announced precisely after the high-profile detentions of the Bureau's representatives, although the corresponding criminal proceedings were opened almost a year and a half ago. During this time, NABU and SAPO employees were unable to collect a convincing evidence base that would confirm the illegal enrichment and false declarations that I. Vitiuk is accused of."
The commentary emphasizes that "the reason for opening criminal proceedings was the presence of an apartment in his family, which was allegedly purchased at an understated price with funds that were allegedly not obtained legally. At the same time, the investigation ignored: the conclusions of many expert reports that refuted the purchase of housing at an understated price. In particular, those expert reports that were initiated by the NABU itself; the conclusion of the NACP, which, after conducting thorough checks, found no signs of illegal enrichment in the family of I. Vitiuk; the entrepreneurial activity of I. Vitiuk's wife and her receipt of legal and declared income, for which housing was purchased for the family [confirmed by a number of state expert reports]; the testimony of numerous witnesses who, despite pressure from the investigation, refute the prosecution's version."