NABU Hostage? Why the case of SBU General Vitiuk only now became active and looks like revenge

Today, the High Anti-Corruption Court applied a preventive measure to the former head of the SBU cybersecurity department, Illia Vitiuk, in the form of a bail of 9 million hryvnias. He is suspected of illicit enrichment and inaccurate declaration. But the court hearing itself demonstrated that there are a number of questions regarding this case, as well as the position of the prosecution, to which, as it turned out, SAP prosecutors do not always have answers. UNN investigated the situation.

According to the investigation, in December 2023, the suspect purchased an apartment in the capital's Pechersk district for 21.6 million hryvnias (allegedly indicating an understated value in the declaration) and registered it to a family member.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office brought charges against Vitiuk in September 2025, but the investigation itself had been ongoing for almost two years before that.

Why now?

During the court hearing, the defense also asked this question – why did NABU and SAP decide to bring charges now? They also expressed surprise at the lack of real justification for the charges. But, of course, they are lawyers to question evidence that is not in their client's favor.

The Security Service of Ukraine has a more detailed answer to this question.

"According to the SBU, the announcement of suspicion to I. Vitiuk by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office is revenge from NABU and SAP for the Security Service of Ukraine effectively counteracting Russian influence on state bodies and exposing several Bureau employees committing crimes.

The suspicion to I. Vitiuk was announced precisely after the high-profile arrests of Bureau representatives, although the relevant criminal proceeding was opened almost a year and a half ago. During this time, NABU and SAP employees could not collect convincing evidence that would confirm the illicit enrichment and inaccurate declaration imputed to I. Vitiuk," the official statement of the Security Service reads.

They also recalled Vitiuk's activities in the Security Service, which were related to repelling Russian attacks and conducting special operations in cyberspace. He also established work against enemy sabotage groups.

In this context, a logical question arises - has the activation of the accusation against Vitiuk now become a response to the Security Service's detention of NABU employee Ruslan Magomedrasulov on suspicion of trading with the Russian Federation? And does this not indicate playing along with the enemy, in particular, by the leadership of NABU and SAP, because Vitiuk is not an ordinary figure and it is unlikely that the issue of bringing him to justice was decided at the level of ordinary investigators and prosecutors? And was such a decision agreed with international partners, as anti-corruption bodies usually do, or is it their own initiative?

Arguments of the parties

Today's court hearing began with a motion from Vitiuk and his defense to postpone the session. They stated that they do not consider the case to be within NABU's jurisdiction, and therefore the HACC should not hear it. The lawyer argued that at the time his wife purchased the elite apartment, Vitiuk was not yet a general (he was a colonel then), and therefore did not fall under the Bureau's jurisdiction.

Prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office Vitaliy Kravets, however, noted that Vitiuk submitted the corrected declaration already in the rank of brigadier general. Ultimately, the HACC judge denied this motion.

Next was the prosecutor's speech. He read out the correspondence between Vitiuk's wife, Yulia, and a realtor regarding the apartment, which the Vitiuks allegedly eventually purchased for UAH 21.4 million. In turn, the defense in its speech noted that the prosecution overlooked the fact that the realtor herself indicated in the correspondence that at that time the market value of a square meter of such housing was about two thousand dollars, and not three or even more, as the prosecution claims.

The lawyer also drew attention to the fact that in the correspondence between Vitiuk's wife and the realtor, Vitiuk himself is mentioned only once - supposedly, they need to consult about the apartment.

"Your Honor, until now I sincerely believed that if a husband consults with his wife, or a wife with her husband, about an apartment, discusses something, then this is not a criminally punishable act. No other mentions of Illia Anatoliiovych (...) The realtor in the correspondence states that the market at that time was about 2 thousand dollars per square meter, and not three and so on, as the prosecution believes," the lawyer pointed out.

In his speech, the prosecutor nullified the conclusion of the NAPC, which, while monitoring the lifestyle of the Vitiuk family, found no violations. The prosecution explains such positive conclusions by Vitiuk's influence, and a similar explanation applies to the conclusion of the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise, which, according to the prosecutor, also underestimated the value of the apartment under Vitiuk's influence. Such influence of the accused himself was very surprising.

I am touched by my influence – everything that is not in favor of the prosecution – it's all my influence. And all expert institutions are under my influence, and the NAPC is under my influence, all witnesses are under my influence… I am convinced that thanks to the changes our country has undergone, and which we have fought for, especially in the last ten years, such a thing is no longer possible today.

It is noteworthy that the KNDISE expertise in question was ordered by the investigation, and as it turned out, the defense was only able to obtain it through the court. Was it not because it was not in favor of the prosecution?

In total, there are five expert examinations in the case: four of which are in Vitiuk's favor (one, as already mentioned, was ordered by the prosecution) and one against him.

The latter expertise requires special attention. During the session, Vitiuk's lawyer, Oleksandr Olenskyi, analyzed it in considerable detail. He pointed out that this single expertise, which the prosecution relies on, is practically the only justification for the charges brought. Within the framework of this expertise, the market value of the purchased apartment was assessed. In it, a private forensic expert concluded that the apartment costs more than UAH 18 million (let us recall that the prosecution insists on an even larger amount). At the same time, this conclusion does not correspond to the methodology for property valuation, in particular, the value of the apartment was compared with the declared value of similar apartments in advertisements, and not with the value at which such apartments were actually sold. In addition, the expert compares apartments of different areas and with a different number of rooms, and accordingly, with a different cost per square meter. Also, the expert includes in the list of comparable apartments the one that is the object of his assessment and the declared value for it in the advertisement – which also contradicts the methodology. The defense submitted to the court the conclusion of independent forensic experts who evaluated the expertise provided by the prosecution (they reviewed it "blindly", not knowing what case or what persons were involved). This review of the expertise also points out errors in the assessment and questions its validity. In addition, the defense received further expert opinions from state forensic experts, which confirm that the real market value of the apartment is plus or minus UAH 12 million. Let us recall that in his declaration, Vitiuk indicated that the apartment was purchased for UAH 12.8 million.

And here you might be outraged – after all, the amount of UAH 12.8 million is also considerable. Yes. And where did the money come from? Both the prosecution and the defense indicate that Vitiuk's wife earned the money. But they interpret this differently. While the former believe that she conducted fictitious economic activity, the latter provide evidence that Yulia Vitiuk indeed provided consulting services, had agreements with clients, and employed staff. In addition, the defense provided the court with two independent economic expert opinions, which, among other things, examined the issue of fictitious financial and economic activity and confirmed that the activity was carried out. Also, within the framework of one of these expert opinions, the prosecution's argument that funds somehow related to "Ukrzaliznytsia" allegedly flowed into the account of Vitiuk's wife's sole proprietorship was refuted.

The prosecution also stated that Yulia Vitiuk provided legal and consulting services without having the appropriate legal education.

In response, the defense, lawyer Oleksandr Olenskyi, stated that "to register as a sole proprietor, higher education is not required."

Let's analyze all sole proprietorships in Ukraine. Do we need higher education to register a sole proprietorship? Obviously not. She provided consulting services and had a lawyer on staff and engaged lawyers who provided services.

The defense also stated that the prosecution did not provide evidence to prove the fictitiousness of Vitiuk's financial and economic activity, and most of the interviewed witnesses clearly confirmed that services were provided to them.

"The prosecution believes that some contracts or some financial and economic activity have signs of fictitiousness. But in the motion for the application of a preventive measure and in the part of the suspicion, specificity is completely absent: the exact time is not established, the exact place is not established.

And the assumptions, versions put forward by the prosecution regarding the fact of acquaintance, conspiracy, intent, awareness of Ms. Vitiuk in committing any criminal offenses or circumstances – it is not confirmed by anything at all.

That is, if we believe the prosecutor's words, if we lack justification in something, then this casts doubt on the very existence of an event, facts, or documents. And then we cast doubt on the existence of a reasonable suspicion," the lawyer believes.

Another point in the accusation that the defense rejected was that Vitiuk allegedly visited Thailand during the full-scale war. Moreover, they emphasized that Vitiuk, having the opportunity to go abroad, did not do so, even knowing that an investigation was underway against him, as he was aware of the consequences of such actions, given his position at the time.

Finally, after hearing the arguments of the parties, the court partially granted the prosecutors' motion, setting bail at UAH 9 million instead of UAH 42 million (which, by the way, was not explained by the prosecution) and imposing a number of obligations on Vitiuk.

In particular, the suspect is obliged to: appear when summoned by the detective, prosecutor, and court; report changes of residence and work; not leave Ukraine without permission; refrain from communicating with other suspects and witnesses in the case; surrender his foreign passport.

Obligations are imposed until November 4, 2025.

Undisguised attack

"NABU continues to attack people and structures that fight the enemy. This week, they distinguished themselves with an openly hostile attack. They served a suspicion notice to one of the country's main 'cyber' figures, Brigadier General of the SBU Illia Vitiuk, who organized massive cyberattacks on Russian networks and is hunted by Russian special services. The suspicion against Vitiuk, by all indications, looks like a kind of 'retaliation' from NABU against the SBU for the Service detaining NABU detective Magamedrasulov for cooperation with Russia and another NABU employee, Viktor Husarov, who was exposed for transferring secret information to the Russian Federation," political expert Taras Zahorodnii wrote recently.

He emphasized that instead of assisting the Service in protecting state interests, NABU Director Kryvonos decided to involve the Bureau in revenge against the SBU.

An even worse scenario, the expert is convinced, would be if NABU's suspicion against Vitiuk is an element of bargaining. He elaborated, saying, "You back down on Magamedrasulov and Husarov, and we won't touch your 'cyber' guy."

"If this turns out to be true, then such actions by the NABU leadership significantly undermine the state's sovereignty. If it is found and proven that NABU pursued its own motives and the interests of Russian special services, 'catching up' with the SBU brigadier general, then those who gave the order for Vitiuk's suspicion may follow their subordinates. Only this time under Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – 'state treason'," Zahorodnii noted.

Overall, in his opinion, such actions are further confirmation that NABU and SAP have turned into a real branch of the FSB in Ukraine.

"The Bureau works against the interests of the state and society, hiding behind 'fighting corruption,' which in reality does not exist," the expert believes.

Whatever conclusions turn out to be true – the situation looks bad. Whether it's playing along with the enemy or revenge against another state structure – none of this amounts to protecting state interests. And the scenario of possible revenge also sends disheartening signals to our partners: we are unable to avoid using state structures for private purposes even when it comes to those bodies that should serve as a safeguard against this.