The Office of the Prosecutor General commented on overnight searches, emphasizing the importance of separating two main issues being discussed in the context of the case.
"First – verification of the possible involvement of one of the PGO employees in illegal activities related to the operation of fraudulent call centers. Second – searches conducted overnight in the offices of the Prosecutor General, the First Deputy Prosecutor General, and other PGO employees, during which NABU detectives gained access to materials of other criminal proceedings," reads a statement released by the press service of the Office of the Prosecutor General.
It is emphasized that regarding the first issue, the position of the Prosecutor General is unambiguous.
"Using the position, status of a prosecutor's office employee, or official capabilities to cover up or facilitate any criminal activity is unacceptable and will be punished by law-established liability. Regarding the PGO employee featured in the NABU investigation, the issue of his dismissal from the prosecution authorities is currently being decided. The Office of the Prosecutor General, for its part, will provide the investigation with necessary assistance and information provided by law," the statement highlights.
The Office of the Prosecutor General does not question NABU's right to verify property status regarding the employee, contacts, possible connections, or other circumstances relevant to the criminal proceeding.
"All such circumstances must be thoroughly checked in accordance with the procedure established by law. An internal investigation has been initiated," the prosecutor's office added.
At the same time, the statement notes that the investigation regarding a specific official must be carried out within the relevant criminal proceeding and in compliance with procedural guarantees established by law.
"The Office of the Prosecutor General respects the institutional independence of NABU and SAPO and is interested in professional interaction between all law enforcement agencies. Possible exceeding of the limits of legal access to materials of criminal proceedings that were not related to the subject of the search will be thoroughly checked within the criminal proceeding. Every established circumstance will receive a proper legal evaluation," prosecutors stressed.
Along with that, the prosecutor's office clarified, the same strict compliance with the law, procedural guarantees, and boundaries of judicial authorizations must be ensured by all law enforcement agencies.
"Around midnight, NABU detectives nevertheless conducted investigative actions in the offices used by the Prosecutor General, the First Deputy Prosecutor General, as well as other employees and structural units of the PGO. 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 Office of the Prosecutor General considers.
Thus, among the documents to which access was obtained during the searches were materials of criminal proceedings regarding possible illegal actions of close individuals associated with the SAPO leadership. This proceeding was investigated under the procedural guidance of the Office of the Prosecutor General. The SAPO leadership was aware of its existence and the course of the investigation.
In addition, detectives gained access to materials of another criminal proceeding, in particular information obtained within the framework of conducting covert investigative (search) actions regarding possible illegal activities of NABU and SAPO employees.
"Under such circumstances, the PGO considers it necessary to establish whether the actual volume of access by detectives corresponded to the subject of the criminal proceeding within which the searches were conducted. This concerns exclusively the legal assessment of specific procedural actions: which materials were accessed, whether they were inspected, copied, or seized, and whether they were covered by relevant judicial permits," prosecutors state.
The Office of the Prosecutor General also stated that questions arose after analyzing court rulings justifying investigative actions regarding the leadership of the agency.
"The ruling cites separate conversations of a PGO employee concerning everyday domestic matters. Among them is a mention of 'dark tiles' in one of the premises used by the Prosecutor General, as well as a discussion on installing an alarm system and internal sensors. Based on these conversations, the materials further advance a version regarding a possible connection with funds that, as assumed by the investigation, could have an illegal origin. At the same time, the materials cited in the ruling contain no direct data that the Prosecutor General gave any instructions to facilitate the operation of call centers, obstructed their exposure or investigation, warned anyone about planned investigative actions, received funds from such activities or undue benefits, or paid for renovation works, alarm installation, or any other services using funds of criminal origin," the Prosecutor General's Office emphasizes, stressing that the connection between the cited everyday conversations and possible criminal activity in the materials is justified mostly by assumptions.
In addition, point 169 of the ruling cites a conversation in which a PGO employee allegedly recounts an agreement with the "chief"—by whom the investigation understands the Prosecutor General—regarding amendments to Order No. 309 "On the Organization of Prosecutors' Activities in Criminal Proceedings."
"This conversation was also used as one of the arguments in justifying investigative actions. At the same time, the Prosecutor General signed no such changes. They were not adopted and did not enter into force. Thus, this concerns a discussion of a possible managerial decision that was not actually implemented. In our opinion, this circumstance should also have been taken into account when assessing the sufficiency of grounds for conducting a search," the statement stresses.
Furthermore, the term "implementation" appears in the materials, which the court itself links to the possible conduct of searches in call centers—meaning a discussion regarding the execution of a law enforcement operation against persons whose activities are being verified in criminal proceedings.
"At the same time, this discussion is subsequently used as one of the elements of the version regarding possible assistance to these very persons. Thus, the preparation of legally valid investigative actions against call centers was actually given the opposite criminal-legal meaning: it was used as an argument confirming possible facilitation of the activities of targets against which these investigative actions were being prepared," the statement emphasizes.
Similarly, the Office of the Prosecutor General comments on other conversations cited in the ruling, emphasizing that they concern the need to systematize countermeasures against call centers, concentrate relevant criminal proceedings in a specialized direction, and ensure unified coordination of this work in the regions.
"In content, this is a matter of organizing the work of the prosecutor's office and law enforcement activities. That is why these circumstances should be evaluated in full context and taking into account actual managerial and procedural decisions," the Office explained.
As reported, NABU and SAPO announced the exposure of a criminal organization whose participants systematically received undue benefits from fraudulent call centers and laundered millions in assets. The organizer of the scheme turned out to be one of the heads of structural units of the Office of the Prosecutor General. According to the investigation, the PGO official created and led the criminal organization in mid-2025. He involved both active employees of prosecution authorities and unofficial individuals close to him in the illegal activity.
A day earlier, SAPO reported conducting a joint special operation with NABU to expose a criminal organization involved in covering up the operations of fraudulent call centers.
The Office of the Prosecutor General announced its intention to assist anti-corruption authorities in investigating the case, in which the possible involvement of one of the agency's employees had just been uncovered, and announced his suspension from official duties for the duration of the pre-trial investigation.
The agency reported that over the past 12 months, the activities of about 340 fraudulent call centers and more than 5,000 operator stations had been halted, over 1,050 searches conducted, and Ukrainian prosecutors had participated in the work of 37 international joint investigation teams coordinated by Eurojust and supported by Europol.
