Prosecutors from the Prosecutor General's Office have sent an indictment to court against a witness in a criminal proceeding concerning aiding and abetting Ruslan Magamedrasulov, a detective of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, who is accused of acting in favor of the Russian Federation and abusing his influence. During questioning by the investigator and at a session of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv, the witness knowingly provided false information regarding the content of his conversation with the suspect.
This was reported by the press service of the Prosecutor General's Office, according to UNN.
During the proceedings, law enforcement officers confirmed the falsity of the witness's testimony based on the results of a series of examinations and analysis of open sources. In particular, experts analyzed the authenticity and content of audio recordings of conversations. In total, seven forensic examinations (linguistic, phonoscopic, and criminalistic) were conducted in four independent state expert institutions.
Thus, linguistic examinations confirmed that the suspect, a NABU detective, expressed an intention to cooperate with representatives of the Russian Federation. This involved finding buyers and a willingness to sell technical hemp seeds belonging to his family to individuals associated with the state program to support the Republic of Dagestan. It was confirmed that the voice on the recordings belongs to the suspect NABU detective, who made the relevant proposals. The defense claimed that the discussion was allegedly about Uzbekistan, not Dagestan. In turn, law enforcement officers, with the participation of representatives of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine, analyzed the regulatory framework of both countries and established that there are no state programs in Uzbekistan to support the cultivation of technical (industrial) hemp. This is confirmed by the decree of the President of Uzbekistan dated 05.04.2023 No. PP-113. However, such a state program exists precisely in Dagestan (decree of the government of the Russian Federation No. 1932 dated 26.11.2020 and decree of the government of the Republic of Dagestan No. 25 dated 19.02.2024).
The Prosecutor General's Office notes that the results of expert opinions and analysis of open sources indicate that the arguments of the witness and the defense are unreliable. In addition, a forensic psychological examination established that during questioning, the witness evaded direct answers, gave contradictory testimony, tried to avoid disclosing details of events, and showed signs of orienting-instructive communicative behavior. Although he was repeatedly warned about responsibility for false testimony and was under oath.
By their actions, as explained by law enforcement, the witness and his defense tried to create the impression that the suspect NABU detective was not guilty. In addition, the witness confirmed long-term personal contacts between him and the suspect Ruslan Magamedrasulov, which may explain the motives for distorting the facts.
The witness's actions are qualified under Part 1 of Article 384 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The sanction of the article provides for punishment in the form of correctional labor for up to two years, arrest for up to six months, or restriction of liberty for up to two years.
Recall
On July 21, the Prosecutor General's Office, together with the SBU, detained Ruslan Magamedrasulov, the head of one of the territorial departments of NABU detectives. He is suspected of aiding the Russian Federation.
The next day, the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv sent Ruslan Magamedrasulov into custody.
The SBU stated that information about alleged political motives for the detention of NABU employee Ruslan Magamedrasulov does not correspond to reality. The service also claims that all rumors that Ruslan Magamedrasulov was allegedly documenting one of the well-known Ukrainian businessmen are not true.
On September 23, the Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld the pre-trial detention of NABU detective Ruslan Magamedrasulov. The suspect's defense requested to overturn the decision of the Pechersk District Court and choose a milder pre-trial measure.