NABU accused a prosecutor of attempting to hand over a $3.5 million bribe to close a case

Detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), together with the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), exposed a prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General and lawyers for incitement to a bribe in the amount of 3.5 million dollars.

The money was intended to be transferred to SAPO prosecutors and judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) for making a decision to close a criminal proceeding investigated by NABU detectives.

This was reported by the Bureau’s press service.

According to the investigation, in the period from February 10 to September 18, lawyers conspired with the prosecutor and offered the suspect in one of the cases conducted by NABU to resolve the issue of its closure through bribery of SAPO and HACC officials. The perpetrators undertook to act as intermediaries in the transfer of the bribe. Moreover, during this period the amount grew from the initial 2 million to 3.5 million.

The accomplices developed a plan providing for the transfer of money in parts. By the time of exposure, the prosecutor and lawyers had managed to receive 200 thousand dollars from the suspect.

NABU did not specify which case was being referred to.

After the Bureau’s publication, the Office of the Prosecutor General commented negatively on the NABU searches in the bribery case of one of its employees. The department stated that NABU detectives came to a prosecutor who is investigating the case of the arrested NABU detective Ruslan Mahamedrasulov. In total, in the case of the 3.5 million bribe, searches were carried out at two prosecutors: one is suspected of mediating in the transfer of the bribe, and what relation the second has to this case was not indicated. Nothing was seized from him during the search.

“By a strange coincidence, it is precisely at the height of this investigation (regarding Mahamedrasulov — Ed.) that actions begin against the prosecutor, which raise reasonable doubts about their objectivity. This leaves serious questions regarding the true motives of the investigation and the impartiality of its participants,” the Office of the Prosecutor General stated.