Damaged mobile phones have become one of the public arguments in the case of SBU General Serhii Duka, the former first deputy head of the Department for the Protection of National Statehood. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine published photographs of the devices, while prosecutors stated in court that the general had tried to destroy them during the search. At the same time, NABU employees themselves do not shy away from methods of destroying phones during searches either—as evidenced by the case of now-former detective Ruslan Mahamedrasulov, UNN writes.
The phone as an "argument" in criminal proceedings
During a hearing of the High Anti-Corruption Court on the choice of a preventive measure for Serhii Duka, Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office prosecutor Mykola Karas described the circumstances of the search at his home. According to the prosecutor, while detectives were trying to enter the premises, Duka was smashing mobile phones and also damaged a hard drive.
This package contains mobile phones. This is what happened to them; now we will examine the video of the search and see in what way, who represented themselves there, how this risk was realized and what this even is
Later, NABU made a separate post on its social media accounts, publishing photographs of damaged devices allegedly from the searches at Duka's home.
The defense questioned the investigators' claims. Duka's lawyer, Yurii Sukhov, noted that it was still necessary to establish exactly whom the phones belonged to and what evidence was contained on those devices. The mere fact that a device was damaged does not prove that it contained materials important to the criminal proceedings.
I don't know (what these remains are—ed.). That's what I said in court. They say these are mobile phones. I'm not a specialist; I could have brought anything in some package and said: "Look, here are broken mobile phones"... Criminal procedure does not allow assumptions; the prosecutor has to prove it. The issue here is not whether this is a phone or whose phones they are. The issue is that the prosecutor says evidence was destroyed. But how does he know that there was evidence on the phone? Even if we assume that it is a phone. How does he know that?
This is different from how Mahamedrasulov destroyed phones
Thus, NABU and SAPO built part of the information campaign in the case against Duka around phones smashed during the detention of the major general.
At the same time, a similar situation occurred during a search at the home of now-former NABU detective Ruslan Mahamedrasulov, who was detained in July 2025. Later, in an interview, he justified himself by saying that he had "simply folded it in half."
I did not break the phone… My phone is an integral part of my work. It contains many operational contacts and communications with people who assist us. Disclosure of this information is first and foremost a threat to them, their lives and health. Unfortunately, this was subsequently confirmed. So yes, (on my part—ed.) there were certain actions. But this did not happen at the beginning of the investigative action; it happened when I already understood what was going on and what their real objective was… I simply folded it in half, and that was it
Photo of the damaged phone from the searches at Ruslan Mahamedrasulov's home
Whether the former NABU detective folded the phone or smashed it is a matter of nuance; in any case, the device was damaged. Nevertheless, the public coverage of these episodes differs substantially. In the case of Serhii Duka, NABU made the episode involving the damaged phones a separate line of communication, without even knowing what information was stored on them. Meanwhile, the story of Mahamedrasulov became known primarily through his own explanations in the media.
Selectivity or bias
Lawyer Oleksandr Babikov told UNN that the difference in approaches to covering similar circumstances could indicate selectivity on the part of the law enforcement agency.
If, in one case, information about a suspect destroying a phone is actively disseminated, while in another, a similar episode involving a former NABU detective is effectively left out of public communication, this undoubtedly indicates selectivity. Moreover, it may reflect a deliberate intention to form a preconceived opinion in society about the alleged existence of an intention on the part of an individual to avoid liability or destroy evidence. When it concerns their own employees, they can refrain from commenting or avoid drawing attention to it altogether. When it concerns other individuals, however, the information is not merely disseminated publicly but is also used in motions seeking the application of a preventive measure
According to him, law enforcement officers often interpret the fact that a phone was damaged as the destruction of evidence in a specific criminal proceeding. However, he stressed that in order to conclude that evidentiary information was destroyed, it is necessary to establish what data were stored on the device and whether they were related to the specific criminal proceeding.
Every owner has the right to decide independently what happens to their property. All the more so because a mobile phone may contain personal information that a person does not want to disclose: certain contacts, photographs, or other private data that they do not wish to place in someone else’s hands. In order to claim that evidence was destroyed in this way, it is first necessary to unlock the phone, gain access to the information, and establish whether it contained any data related to this criminal proceeding at all
In Babikov’s view, such selectivity in covering certain circumstances may indicate possible bias on the part of the agency or its representatives, since showing only certain circumstances may influence public perceptions of individuals involved in criminal proceedings even before a court establishes their guilt.
Quite often, one can observe situations in which, during searches, jewelry or money is seized even though it has no connection whatsoever to the investigation of a specific criminal proceeding. Sometimes photographs from other criminal cases are even used. This practice is characteristic not only of NABU and SAPO but also of other law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, it gives the impression that law enforcement officers first destroy the reputation of a public figure and completely discredit them, after which society loses interest in whether a crime was actually committed and whether the court established the person’s guilt after examining the evidence. A fairly illustrative situation can also be observed in this particular proceeding. A certain impression is created of the person’s alleged involvement in some criminal acts, but at the same time there is a lack of specifics. Personally, I have not heard a single clear fact of which this person is suspected
To recap
On November 4, NABU and SAPO announced that they had exposed an alleged criminal organization whose members are suspected of systematically providing unlawful benefits to senior law enforcement officials in exchange for unhindered operation of fraudulent call centers and other illegal businesses.
One of the individuals involved in Operation "Carthage" was Major General of the Security Service of Ukraine Serhii Duka. He is charged with participation in a criminal organization. The general himself denies his guilt.
Earlier, lawyer Yurii Sukhov published Serhii Duka’s open letter from the pre-trial detention center. In the address, the general stated that he had devoted 26 years to serving Ukraine, a significant part of which he spent organizing and conducting special operations.
In addition, Duka stated that he saw an attempt by certain representatives of anti-corruption agencies to settle personal scores in their actions. He called for his activities to be assessed on the basis of evidence rather than sensational headlines.
On Friday, November 13, it became known that bail for Major General Serhii Duka had been posted in full—65 million hryvnias. Duka’s colleagues from the special service and his fellow servicemen contributed to raising the funds. On the same day, the general was released from the pre-trial detention center.