In its notice of suspicion against General Serhii Duka, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) does not accuse him of any of the crimes depicted in its film: bribery, torture, or drug trafficking. The only charge brought against him concerns participation in a criminal organization involving the abuse of official position.
This was stated by the general’s lawyer, Yurii Sukhov, who analyzed the notice of suspicion.
According to the defense lawyer, the case contains no specific evidence that Duka knowingly joined a criminal organization.
“If Serhii Duka was a member of a criminal organization, what exactly did his criminal activity consist of? After all, he is not accused of any of the crimes shown in the film,” Sukhov said.
He also questioned several episodes on which the suspicion is based, including the case involving cryptocurrency worth approximately $2.4 million that had been seized. The prosecution claims that Duka facilitated the return of these funds. However, the lawyer points out that the seizure of the cryptocurrency was not lifted, and the funds were not returned to anyone.
“Where, then, is the crime? And could this not have been an SBU undercover operation in the first place? This is not a rhetorical question. In any case, the prosecutor was unable to refute it,” the defense lawyer said.
The lawyer also noted that the notice of suspicion contains no specific facts indicating that his client received or offered bribes.
Sukhov further stressed that knowing individuals involved in a case, having telephone conversations with them, or exchanging messages does not prove that a person participated in a criminal organization.
“Did Serhii Duka even know that this criminal organization existed? Did he knowingly become a member of it? Did he understand its criminal purpose and the distribution of roles, and did he intentionally carry out the role assigned to him? I understand that these are difficult questions, but they are essential to criminal proceedings. Otherwise, prosecuting a person is itself a crime,” the lawyer emphasized.
In his view, NABU’s Hollywood-style film presents the accusations as proven guilt before the case has even been considered by a court.
“The high-profile film produced by NABU creates the impression in society that guilt has already been proven before the trial. The person is then placed under a restrictive measure with bail set at millions, and their reputation is destroyed,” Sukhov concluded.