The Prosecutor General’s Office issued a statement regarding the nighttime searches, noting that the issue of dismissing an PGO employee implicated in a NABU investigation from the prosecution service is being decided. The PGO also commented on the searches in the official premises of the Prosecutor General, the First Deputy Prosecutor General and other PGO employees, and said that any possible excess of the bounds of lawful access to materials from criminal proceedings unrelated to the subject of the search would be thoroughly examined as part of the criminal proceedings, UNN reports.
Details
As stated in the statement, "the Prosecutor General’s Office considers it important to distinguish between two issues being discussed in the public sphere today:
- first — examining the possible involvement of one of the PGO employees in unlawful activity related to the operation of fraudulent call centers;
- second — the searches conducted overnight in the official premises of the Prosecutor General, the First Deputy Prosecutor General and other PGO employees, during which NABU detectives gained access to materials from other criminal proceedings.
Regarding the first issue, the Prosecutor General’s position is unequivocal. Using one’s position, status as a prosecution service employee or official powers to cover up or facilitate any criminal activity is unacceptable and will be punished with the liability stipulated by law. Regarding the PGO employee who is implicated in the NABU investigation, the issue of his dismissal from the prosecution service is currently being decided
The Prosecutor General’s Office, as noted, "will for its part provide the investigation with the necessary assistance and information stipulated by law." "At the same time, equally strict compliance with the law, procedural guarantees and the limits of judicial authorizations must be ensured by all law enforcement agencies," the PGO reported.
"Around midnight, NABU detectives nevertheless carried out investigative actions in the official premises used by the Prosecutor General, the First Deputy Prosecutor General, as well as other PGO employees and structural units. The scale of these investigative actions, their factual justification and the list of materials to which access was obtained require a separate legal assessment," the Prosecutor General’s Office stressed.
As emphasized in the PGO statement, "among the documents accessed during the searches were materials from criminal proceedings concerning possible unlawful actions by close associates linked to the leadership of SAP." "These proceedings were investigated under the procedural supervision of the Prosecutor General’s Office. The SAP leadership was aware of their existence and the course of the investigation," the Prosecutor General’s Office stated.
"In addition, the detectives gained access to materials from another criminal proceeding, including information obtained as part of covert investigative (search) actions concerning the possible unlawful activities of NABU and SAP employees," the PGO reported.
Under these circumstances, the PGO considers it necessary to establish whether the actual scope of the detectives’ access corresponded to the subject matter of the criminal proceedings within which the searches were conducted
The PGO emphasized: "This concerns exclusively the legal assessment of specific procedural actions: which materials were accessed, whether they were examined, copied or seized, and whether they were covered by the respective judicial authorizations."
"Certain questions also arise after analyzing the court rulings that served as the basis for the investigative actions concerning the PGO leadership," the statement says.
Regarding the Prosecutor General
The Prosecutor General’s Office also issued a statement regarding the Prosecutor General.
"The ruling cites individual conversations of an PGO employee concerning everyday matters. These include a mention of ‘dark tiles’ in one of the premises used by the Prosecutor General, as well as a discussion of installing an alarm system and internal sensors. On the basis of these conversations, the materials go on to put forward a theory about a possible connection with funds that, according to the investigators’ assumption, may have been of unlawful origin," the Prosecutor General’s Office stated.
"At the same time, the materials cited in the ruling contain no direct evidence that the Prosecutor General gave any instructions to facilitate the activities of call centers, obstructed their exposure or investigation, warned anyone about planned investigative actions, received funds from such activities or an improper benefit, or paid for repair work, the installation of an alarm system, or any other services using funds of criminal origin," the Prosecutor General's Office emphasized.
The PGO stressed: "The connection between the household conversations cited and possible criminal activity is substantiated in the materials primarily by assumptions. This is also evidenced by the wording used in the ruling: "probably," "possible awareness," "does not rule out," "may be." That is precisely why, in our view, the sufficiency of such data for conducting investigative actions in the official premises of the Prosecutor General requires a separate assessment."
"Another example is Order No. 309, "On Organizing the Activities of Prosecutors in Criminal Proceedings." Prosecutor General's Office: Paragraph 169 of the ruling cites a conversation in which a PGO employee recounts an alleged agreement with the "boss," whom the investigation understands to be the Prosecutor General, concerning amendments to this order. This conversation was also used as one of the arguments substantiating the investigative actions," the statement reads.
"At the same time, the Prosecutor General did not sign any such amendments. They were not adopted and did not enter into force. Thus, this concerns a discussion of a possible managerial decision that was never actually implemented. In our view, this circumstance should also have been taken into account when assessing the sufficiency of the grounds for conducting the search," the PGO noted.
Regarding the First Deputy Prosecutor General
The PGO also published a statement concerning First Deputy Prosecutor General Maria Vdovychenko.
"The conversations cited in the ruling concern the coordination and conduct of investigative actions in criminal proceedings regarding the activities of call centers. In particular, the materials contain the term "implementation," which the court itself links to the possible conduct of searches at call centers. In other words, this concerns a discussion of a law-enforcement operation against individuals whose activities are being examined in criminal proceedings," the statement says.
At the same time, as the PGO noted, "this discussion is subsequently used as one of the elements of the version concerning possible assistance to these same individuals." "Thus, the preparation of investigative actions that are lawful by their legal nature against call centers has effectively been given the opposite criminal-law meaning: it has been used as an argument confirming possible assistance to the activities of the entities against which these investigative actions were being prepared," the Prosecutor General's Office stated.
"The other conversations cited in the ruling concern the need to systematize efforts to counter call centers, concentrate the relevant criminal proceedings within a specialized area, and ensure unified coordination of this work in the regions. In terms of their substance, these are matters of organizing the work of the prosecutor's office and law-enforcement activities. That is why these circumstances should be assessed in their full context and with due regard for the actual managerial and procedural decisions," the PGO explained.
Regarding the PGO employee whose involvement is being examined
"The Prosecutor General's Office does not question NABU's right to examine the property status of a PGO employee, as well as their contacts, possible connections, or other circumstances relevant to the criminal proceedings. All such circumstances must be thoroughly examined in accordance with the procedure established by law. An internal investigation has been launched," the Prosecutor General's Office noted.
The Prosecutor General's position is principled: a person's status as a prosecutor's office employee cannot be a means of avoiding responsibility or a cover for possible criminal activity. At the same time, an investigation concerning a specific official must be conducted within the framework of the relevant criminal proceedings and in compliance with the procedural safeguards established by law
The Office of the Prosecutor General, as stated in the statement, "respects the institutional independence of NABU and SAPO and is interested in professional cooperation among all law enforcement agencies."
Any possible exceeding of the limits of lawful access to materials in criminal proceedings that were unrelated to the subject of the search will be thoroughly examined as part of the criminal proceedings. Each established circumstance will receive an appropriate legal assessment
"The position of the Office of the Prosecutor General is consistent: any facts of possible unlawful activity by prosecution service employees must be investigated without exception. At the same time, all investigative actions, regardless of the agency conducting them, must be carried out exclusively within the limits of the law and the powers granted by the court. This is the same standard for all law enforcement agencies," the statement said.