Prosecutor General's Office explained why NABU detective Husarov was released after pleading guilty

On June 4, the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv exempted Viktor Husarov, a detective of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), from criminal liability. Maryana Hayovska, spokesperson for the Prosecutor General's Office, stated in a comment to UNN that the exemption from punishment occurred due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, which is not a rehabilitating circumstance.

Details

On March 13, 2026, the prosecutor filed a motion with the court to exempt the individual from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and the individual's admission of guilt. On June 4, 2026, the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv granted this motion.

The prosecution did not drop the charges in this criminal proceeding. On the contrary, the suspect admitted his guilt in committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Art. 362 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and consented to being exempted from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, which is not a rehabilitating circumstance

She noted that the case was closed by the court not because of the absence of a crime, not because the prosecution dropped the charges, and not because of a failure to prove the fact of unauthorized actions with information.

The court's decision was made due to the expiration of the statute of limitations after the individual admitted his guilt

As part of the investigation, it was established that the suspect transmitted information regarding Ukrainian citizens obtained using Ministry of Internal Affairs databases.

"Given the nature of these actions and the circumstances of the information transfer to his former colleague—a law enforcement officer who left for the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in February 2014—the investigation also checked a version regarding possible high treason. This version was subject to procedural evaluation; however, sufficient evidence of intent to transfer the specified information specifically to a representative of the aggressor state was not established. In this regard, the prosecutor made the legally prescribed decision to close the proceedings in this part.

At the same time, this in no way refutes the established fact of a criminal offense under Part 3 of Art. 362 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is in this part that the individual admitted his guilt," the spokesperson explained the prosecution's position.

Hayovska added that since the incriminated actions were committed in 2012-2015, the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution had expired by the time the investigation was completed. This is an independent ground expressly provided for by Art. 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

What you need to know about the Viktor Husarov case

NABU detective Viktor Husarov became one of three bureau employees detained in July 2025 following large-scale searches by the SBU, SBI, and the Prosecutor General's Office at anti-corruption agencies. He was served with a notice of suspicion for high treason and unauthorized actions with information. The SBU claimed that Husarov allegedly worked for Russian special services, and his handler was Dmytro Ivantsov—a former deputy head of Viktor Yanukovych's security detail.

According to Husarov's wife, Olena, he was detained on July 21 at the entrance to Kyiv from the Boryspil side. Armed SBU officers pulled him out of the car, pinned him to the ground, took his phones, and demanded passwords. She also said that the search warrant was not shown immediately, and after the detention, a search was conducted at the family's home, where phones and cash were seized. Because Husarov worked in the secret NABU unit D-2, he initially could not disclose his place of employment, which created problems during his placement in the pre-trial detention center (SIZO).

Husarov worked for the Ministry of Internal Affairs until 2016, after which he passed the selection for NABU, an SBU security clearance, and received access to state secrets. The investigation believed that since 2012, he had been passing data from the MIA "Armor" database to Ivantsov, and after Ivantsov fled to Crimea, he continued to do so until the end of 2015. The SBU interpreted the transfer of information after March 2014 as high treason, as the investigation believed Husarov should have understood that Ivantsov had defected to Russia.

Husarov himself stated that he met Ivantsov through a current SBU employee and perceived him as a colleague who could be helped within the framework of informal interaction between law enforcement officers. He insisted that he did not know about Ivantsov's flight or his work for Russia until the SBU search in August 2024. After that, according to the defense, Husarov provided gadgets, passwords, and explanations, and passed a polygraph test, while no evidence of a crime was found on his devices.

The SBU claimed there were at least 60 episodes of information transfer. At the same time, the case materials featured five individuals whose data Husarov allegedly transferred in 2015. Among them were former security officials, crime bosses, and people associated with pro-Russian structures. The defense argued that information about them was available in open sources, particularly in the "Myrotvorets" database, and that these people had long been working for Russia, so they could not have been recruited through Husarov.

The investigation also referred to Husarov's correspondence with Ivantsov. However, lawyer Olena Storozhuk said that some of the screenshots were presented without dates or taken out of context. For example, Ivantsov's message about being in Crimea, according to her, was written back in 2012, before the occupation of the peninsula. The defense also denied the version that Husarov received money for the information.

On December 10, the court changed Husarov's preventive measure from detention in SIZO to house arrest. The prosecutor explained this by saying that the check of his possible involvement in an agent network had been completed, and there was no longer a need for a stricter preventive measure. Husarov himself and his lawyers considered the case political and linked it to pressure on NABU.