Deputy Prosecutor General and Prosecutor of the Odessa Region, David Sakvarelidze, blatantly lied and completely fabricated a story about being offered a $10 million bribe in April 2015 as monthly support. This information was published on Facebook by journalist Volodymyr Boyko, former head of the Advisory Council under the Prosecutor General's Office (GPU), who published excerpts from criminal case No. 42015000000000744, opened by the Main Investigative Department of the GPU on April 21, 2015, based on a complaint from a Georgian "reformer."
Boyko claims this report was compiled by Sergei Ovcharenko, First Deputy Head of Department 17/1, and prepared for Lyudmila Milevich, Head of the Department for Access to Public Information, "so that she would know what could be disclosed in response to journalists' information requests and what was best kept silent." Boyko claims that, instead of keeping the excerpt from the criminal case regarding the "Sakvarelidze bribe," Milevich carried it with her and then lost it.
"The protracted investigation of this case is due to the following specific factors, which objectively make it impossible to complete it within a short timeframe. Only nine days after receiving the offer of an illicit benefit from an unknown individual did Sakvarelidze file a complaint with the Prosecutor General's Office (GPU) in accordance with the established procedure regarding the commission of this crime. This, in turn, made it impossible to promptly take all necessary measures to promptly uncover and document the illegal activity, as well as to collect and record the evidence available at the time of the potential commission," Boyko quotes the "Georgian case" materials.
The text further clarifies that neither in his submitted statement nor during subsequent investigative actions did the "reformer" provide the investigating agency with even specific and clear identification of the person who offered him the bribe. "Consequently, it is effectively impossible to identify this individual and initiate a search in accordance with current legislation," the criminal case file states.
Moreover, the deputy head of the Prosecutor General's Office was not only confused about who offered him the bribe, but also unable to name the place and time he spoke with the potential bribe-giver. "The testimony of the interrogated Sakvarelidze regarding the circumstances of the criminal offense, including the place, time, and method of receiving the offer of an illicit benefit, is inconsistent and inconsistent," the case file states.
"Furthermore, an analysis of the materials collected during the proceedings raises reasonable doubts about the very fact of the offer to provide Sakvarelidze with a monthly illegal benefit in the amount of $10 million for shielding individuals engaged in the illegal supply of petroleum products to Ukraine from criminal activity. This is based primarily on Sakvarelidze's official duties and competence, as at that time he had no connection whatsoever with combating criminal activity, in particular smuggling, or with pre-trial investigations or procedural management," the document concludes.
Boyko notes that offering Sakvarelidze a "crazy" bribe in April 2015 would have been impractical, since at that time the deputy prosecutor general's responsibilities only included organizing citizen receptions, reviewing citizen appeals, access to public information, developing a new procedure for appointments in the prosecutor's office, and other issues "for which no one would offer $10 million a month."
"Sakvarelidze was subsequently given oversight of the department for criminal investigations against prosecutors and information security officials. But even here, his role was purely nominal, as Sakvarelidze (given his multiple passports) has not yet been granted access to state secrets in Ukraine. Accordingly, he can only access criminal case materials after the perpetrator has been notified of suspicion and the undercover investigative actions have been legalized and declassified," Boyko debunks yet another layer of PR lies built around the "reformer."
The former head of the Advisory Council to the Prosecutor General's Office writes that the most scandalous thing isn't even the fact that Sakvarelidze lied so blatantly and couldn't even identify the person who allegedly offered him $10 million a month. It's the fact that a high-ranking position in the Prosecutor General's Office was filled by someone who, while concocting his lie about accepting a bribe for alleged assistance in smuggling petroleum products, was unaware that smuggling in Ukraine had been decriminalized by law as early as November 15, 2011, and is now an administrative offense. Furthermore, the Prosecutor General's Office has no connection whatsoever to the investigation of smuggling schemes, as this is the exclusive responsibility of the Security Service of Ukraine.
The journalist asserts that, in the aggregate, criminal proceedings should be opened against Sakvarelidze for perjury in a fictitious $10 million bribe case, for committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 383 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine for knowingly submitting false reports about the commission of a crime.
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!