BBC: There are inconsistencies in the cases of SBU traitors Kulinich and Naumov. The latter is still not suspected of treason

Author:
Kostia Andreikovets
Date:

The former head of the Main Directorate of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) in Crimea Oleh Kulinich does not appear in the case of the occupation and surrender of the Kherson region to the Russians, the former head of the internal security department of SBU Andriy Naumov does not appear in the case of treason, and the ex-head of SBU Ivan Bakanov has not yet been questioned by investigators.

This is stated in the article "BBC Ukraine".

In Kulinichʼs case files, other SBU employees and his subordinates appear as witnesses. Not a single employee, whose appointments Kulinich lobbied for, appears in the case. The law enforcement officers probably failed to gather evidence of Kulinichʼs involvement in the occupation of southern Ukraine. In a year, he never became a figure in this investigation, the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) told reporters.

Sources of journalists in law enforcement agencies say that this case involves only military personnel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, whose competence was demining and demining of bridges.

As for Naumov, who is currently in a pre-trial detention center in Serbia, where he is being tried for money laundering, SBI reported that Naumov does not appear in Kulinichʼs treason case — he is not suspected of treason, even though President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly called Naumov a traitor on March 31, 2022 and stripped him of the rank of brigadier general.

SBI also stated that the investigative bureau did not communicate with Naumov in Serbia, and the investigation did not find evidence of Naumovʼs involvement in cooperation with Russia for a year. Law enforcement sources called the version about the traitor hasty, and his real crimes were purely economic.

Investigators have doubts that the call sign "Hunter" ["Okhotnik"] from Kulinichʼs conversations with pro-Russian politician Volodymyr Sivkovych is the call sign of Naumov himself.

Kulinichʼs lawyers are convinced that the case against him, which is already in court, "falls apart, because all the evidence is formed exclusively on the records of telephone conversations, the origin of which is unknown."

The investigators reported that the conversations between Kulinich and Sivkovych, on which the case is based, were written by Sivkovich himself — allegedly for an easier report to the Russian special services. A spy in FSB managed to get hold of the conversation. Kulinichʼs defense states something completely different — that in the materials, the investigators indicated a flash drive with audio found during searches as part of the investigation of a completely different case. SBU considers the records themselves to be authentic.

As for the former head of SBU Ivan Bakanov, the special service notes that Kulinich communicated with him even before he was appointed head of the Crimean Administration on October 21, 2020 and had influence on Bakanov. BBC sources say that they rarely talked and not about SBU.

Bakanov, obviously, could shed light on Kulinichʼs activities, but he was never questioned.