Persons involved in high-profile criminal cases continue to flee abroad, and it often seems that those who are especially solvent are helped in this or that way by various law enforcement officers.
Somehow this could sum up what periodically happens with high-profile cases in Ukraine. Odarchenko, Dmitruk, Bereza, Arestovich, Bogolyubov, Slobozhenko - this list can be continued, but the essence is the same: when cases against certain people become serious, they manage to escape abroad. And no restrictions due to martial law in Ukraine apply to them.
In this study, journalists from NGL.media talk about the scandalous case of the investigation into the high-profile case of businessman and blogger Alexander Slobozhenko to clearly show that there are no coincidences and the punishment system in Ukraine really works selectively. And what if it seems to you that certain puzzles do not fit together in the case - most likely you don’t think so.
Many questions, few answers
It all started on April 26, 2023. On that day, detectives from the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB) opened criminal proceedings against the young and successful so-called “traffic arbitrator” Alexander Slobozhenko, suspecting him of tax evasion.
The opening of proceedings does not equal proof of guilt, so from now on, BEB detectives, under the supervision of the prosecutor's office, would have to work on the evidence base. They conducted searches in Slobozhenko’s Kiev house, recording the procedure in photographs, as is customary to do in such cases. However, law enforcement officers did not publish any press releases or official reports about the searches, or about the Slobozhenko case in general, until August 16, 2024.
Alexander Slobozhenko, meanwhile, traveled around the world, had fun, gave interviews, where he openly talked about the criminal case and searches, openly mocking the accusations.
It was no laughing matter in the spring of 2024. After the publication of an investigation by UP journalist Mikhail Tkach about the entertainment of a 25-year-old businessman abroad, he disappears from the information space, having previously published an hour-long response to this investigation.
The next important date in this story is August 16, 2024. On this day, the BEB and the Office of the Prosecutor General announced that Slobozhenko had received an official suspicion of tax evasion totaling UAH 213 million. These messages were the first official public information on this case.
In the official telegram channel of the BEB, the message about the presentation of suspicion was illustrated with photographs of Slobozhenko, who, surrounded by BEB detectives, was signing some documents (These photos were published by the BEB only on Facebook and Telegram. They are not on the official websites of the BEB and the Office of the Prosecutor General. But law enforcement agencies often publish more photos on social networks than on official websites).
Serving a suspicion means that the investigation has collected sufficient evidence on the basis of which the court must decide on a preventive measure. Considering the weight of the accusation, after serving the suspicion, Slobozhenko would have to be detained, and the court within the next few days would have to decide on a preventive measure before the final verdict - detention without bail or set the amount of cash bail.
But everything went wrong.
On August 21, less than a week after the suspicion was served, as stated by the BEB and the Office of the Prosecutor General, Alexander Slobozhenko was noticed in Warsaw. The photos published by the UP gave rise to natural questions: how could he go abroad after receiving an official suspicion of a serious economic crime?
Ukrainian law enforcement officers did not publicly mention the Slobozhenko case until September 2, when the Shevchenkovsky District Court of Kyiv adopted a preventive measure in this case - detention without the possibility of bail. On the same day, reporting this court decision, the BEB and the Office of the Prosecutor General, among other things, succinctly mention that Slobozhenko is wanted. At the same time, none of the decisions in the Slobozhenko case, including the selection of a preventive measure for him, for unknown reasons, were published in the Unified State Register of Judicial Decisions, therefore NGL.media received this information through requests to the court, the Economic Security Service and the Office of the Prosecutor General
This only increased suspicions that Slobozhenko was simply allowed to flee the country. It was these suspicions that prompted NGL.media to investigate this situation further. Frankly, the answer turned out to be simpler than journalists imagined.
Lies and manipulation
According to NGL.media, the last time Alexander Slobozhenko crossed the border was in the spring of this year. On March 28, he left by train from Kyiv to Warsaw and never returned to Ukraine. Let's put the puzzle together: the young businessman left Ukraine at the end of March, and received suspicion almost five months later - on August 16. He did not officially cross the border in the direction of Ukraine, but he is suspicious in the photo from the presentation. How the hell did this become possible?
Our first version was that Slobozhenko crossed the border unofficially, like, for example, people's deputy Artem Dmitruk (on August 25, people's deputy from the Servant of the People Artem Dmitruk was informed of suspicion for beating a law enforcement officer, after which it turned out that he had left Ukraine for Moldova still on August 23 outside checkpoints). But he was rejected because it turned out that Slobozhenko was not that bothered.
It turned out that the BEB and the Office of the Prosecutor General simply manipulated public opinion to create the impression that Slobozhenko had personally received suspicion. The day before, on August 15, they actually handed over an official suspicion, but not to him, but to his relative. And public messages about this the next day were illustrated with photographs from the search of Slobozhenko’s apartment last year. These photos had never been published anywhere before, so they were quite naturally perceived as relevant.
Therefore, it seems that for some reason the BEB detectives, and at the same time the Office of the Prosecutor General, are falsifying the facts, manipulating and distorting reality.
“This is not information that should 100% be published”
“In accordance with the law, a person is taken into custody when there is a risk that he will evade the investigation and trial, that is, he may run away. If a person is suspected of committing a serious crime, then when the suspicion is served, the person is either immediately detained or given a petition to select a preventive measure and within three hours, no later than the next day, this petition is considered,” explains lawyer Svetlana Ilnitskaya.
Therefore, perhaps the BEB detectives hoped that Slobozhenko would return to Ukraine before the preventive measure was chosen and they would not have to explain anything? Or was it a special operation to confuse the Russian FSB, which, according to Slobozhenko, is actively hunting him?
NGL.media tried to get a comment from BEB detective Ruslan Kozyura, who filed a petition with the court to select a preventive measure for Slobozhenko, but he refused to communicate without a request to the press service.
However, it turned out that the BEB does not see a problem with suppressing important information and using misleading photos. At least, this conclusion can be drawn from the commentary of the official press secretary of the BEB.
“Regarding the photographs. Our message talked not only about the presentation of suspicion, but also about the fact that previous investigative actions were carried out, such as searches [2023]. That’s why we published these photos for illustration purposes,” BEB press secretary Alena Matveeva explained in a comment to NGL.media. — Regarding the absentee report of suspicion. This is not information that should 100% be published. Press releases are not an official document, where it is necessary to indicate something like the article under which the criminal proceedings are being investigated and other details. If a person wants to know more details, we can explain or provide an answer to the request.”
Instead of conclusions
The criminal case against Alexander Slobozhenko has existed since the spring of 2023, and he was removed from the military register in October 2022. That is, before the announcement of suspicion, he could travel abroad without restrictions. Official suspicion was announced to him in absentia, almost five months after his last departure from Ukraine, when it became clear that he was unlikely to return. Obviously, due to public attention to him after publicity in the media, information about the suspicion was presented manipulatively, without important clarifications and explanations.
The criminal case that the BEB is currently conducting concerns Alexander Slobozhenko and his accountant personally (the Shevchenkovsky District Court of Kyiv took accountant Slobozhenko into custody and on September 2 set the suspect’s bail at UAH 43.4 million). The traffic arbitrage company Traffic Devils is officially owned by other people. Since May 2024, Slobozhenko ceased to be the owner of Traffic Devils LLC in favor of 25-year-old Dnipro resident Dmitry Gnitulenko, and Slobozhenko’s mother Irina Zver was replaced as director by 22-year-old Dnipro resident Daria Vishnevetskaya. During the same period, another Dnipro resident, Vladislav Stepanets, became the owner of another Slobozhenko company, Traffic Devils Agency.
And since the end of last year, Traffic Devils has become a resident of the government program “Diya.City”, whose participants have tax benefits and other assistance from the state. Therefore, it looks like everything will be fine for Slobozhenko and his friends.
Moreover, four years ago a similar case of tax evasion was already opened against Slobozhenko, then it was about almost 55 million UAH. But the case, as we reported earlier, “fell apart” at the stage of the pre-trial investigation and the property seized during the searches was returned to him.
