Before we talk about the case of Andriy Yermakʼs brother Denys, letʼs briefly recall 2019. In May, Volodymyr Zelensky became president. SBU was then headed by Vasyl Hrytsak, and you worked in the counterintelligence department. What was the situation like in the Service?
A few days before Zelensky’s victory, the heads of SBU came to my department: the head Vasyl Hrytsak, [his deputy Vitaliy] Malikov, and my supervisor, then the head of the counterintelligence department Oleksiy Petrov. They said:
“Roman, your department is the best in SBU, it fulfills the tasks that arose before the Security Service after Russia occupied part of the territories. We as leaders, that is, political figures, will be replaced, but you will stay.”
They thanked me for my work, then lined up the entire personnel — they thanked them too.
Against this background, Zelensky came, he declared that his main task was to fight corruption. But even then, [Ivan] Bakanov began to appear in the SBU. For the first time, at some semi-annual final meeting, back under Hrytsak. Then my colleagues, who held managerial positions, began to tell me that such work [in the territories occupied by Russia] would obviously no longer be needed, and that I should look for a place in some regional administration.
I had an acquaintance named Serhiy, with whom I worked. He said that he was very close friends with Denys Yermak, and was well-versed in Zelenskyʼs campaign headquarters.
Are you talking about Serhiy Shumsky?
Yes. Serhiy was not in the SBU structure, was not an officer, he simply cooperated with me. He told me that the older brother of that Denis — Andriy — is close to Zelensky, that he will be responsible for the reform of the Security Service of Ukraine and personnel issues in the service — this is his first task.
And the second task is to set up a separate channel of communication with Russia not through [Viktor] Medvedchuk, but directly. Serhiy was at the headquarters during these conversations, was familiar with their family, knows their parents, is very close to Denis. This was the first mention of an acquaintance. I was surprised, I said:
"Well, thatʼs good, if they are so disposed, maybe something will finally change."
In his first interview with Denys Bihus, Serhiy Shumsky showed his ID card as a freelance employee of the SBU operational unit.
"Something will finally change"? So you didnʼt like what was happening under the previous government?
I had a story that somewhat changed my attitude towards the government that came after the Revolution of Dignity in 2014. I have a “friend” Ihor Mosiychuk, I crossed paths with him constantly in life. When I was the deputy head of the Poltava Department of SBU, Mosiychuk was tasked with forming a regional party cell of the Radical Party in the Poltava region.
A person came to me — a certain Ihor Kobets — and said that Mosiychuk was collecting money from the future head of the police service and the prosecutorʼs office. Kobets then had a problem with the legalization of a sand quarry, and Mosiychuk offered to solve this issue for UAH 100 000. Kobets said that he was ready to document it. And we did it.
Do you remember, in the Verkhovna Rada they simply showed on the screen how he took money? We documented him. This was the first recording of a deputy taking money since independence.
Sometime later, Lyashko led his party to protest against tariffs, they set up tents under the Cabinet of Ministers. And then this case against Mosiychuk was changed to the fact that this tent camp disappeared. So Mosiychuk avoided responsibility.
And I was also fired because I documented the prosecutor, the head of the [Poltava] regional traffic police, and several of his subordinates who collected money and transferred it to Kyiv. A million hryvnias to Kyiv and a million for himself. The head of the regional SBU was also involved in this matter.
It all happened literally from August to December 2014. I came to [David] Sakvarelidze, showed him the whole scheme, we opened a case, he even took search warrants, we documented everything. I came to SBU, Hrytsakʼs deputy was still [Viktor] Trepak at the time, and Pavlo Demchyna — my acquaintance — was his deputy. I told Pavlo everything, and he went to Trepak. He came back, said that everything was fine — we were working.
But in the end, Trepak dismissed me from my post so that I would not continue to document the head of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. And then I realized that nothing would change in our country, despite the Maidan of 2013. So I was hoping that maybe this time there would be changes.
And against the backdrop of these hopes, Serhiy Shumsky came to you in 2019.
Yes, he said that he organized several meetings for Andriy Yermak with 2еру SBU employees, with the head of internal security [Oleksandr] Sappa. He suggested that I meet with him.
Where and when was the meeting?
It was sometime in late May or early June 2019. We met in a cafe on the corner of Prorizna and Pushkinska Streets (now Yevhena Chykalenko Street). The first time we were alone, and during the second meeting, Denys Yermak was keeping an eye on security — he walked around making sure no one was watching us.
Andriy Yermakʼs younger brother is Denys.
What did you talk about at the first meeting?
Before leaving, I reported the meeting to my supervisor, department head Oleksiy Petrov.
I told Yermak what we were doing. I explained that I had a very young team, but the guys were not spoiled — they never took bribes, but they had double the salary. I think that is why we were so successful and we managed to build an agent network in the occupied territories.
I said that we would help build the service so that it would all work like our department. He listened to me. It was clear that he was interested. I sensed his ambitions then and said that he could count on us.
Did he promise something?
No. I just introduced myself and said, if you really plan to do this, we are at your service. Then after a while Petrov says:
"Look, someone in the Office is saying about you and me that we are corrupt, so meet with Yermak again, explain that we are normal and that we want to change something."
And who told this, do you know? Someone from [Andriy] Bohdanʼs side?
I donʼt think itʼs him. Petrov didnʼt tell me who it was. I didnʼt want to meet because I didnʼt see the point and had already said everything. But Petrov talked me into it.
And you initiated the second meeting also through Serhiy? When was that?
About a week and a half later, maybe 10 days after the first one. Serhiy arranged the meeting. After that, I often met with Denis Yermak.
How did you meet Denys?
At the second meeting with Andriy, he was already there. He and Shumsky got up from the table and said that they would watch so that no one would follow us. I repeated our positions.
Andriy Yermak was already behaving more officially. I directly saw how he was growing. At the first meeting, he shared something with me, talked on an equal footing, even paid the bill. And the second time, he listened to me rather coldly, and we parted ways.
Do you remember how Andriy and Denys Yermak communicated, what kind of relationship they had?
No, they got up and left. But later Serhiy told me, and then Denys too, that the relationship was cold and strained. Denys used to work in business, he had money, but then, as I understand it, he was asked out of there, and he sold his girlfriendʼs fur coat to buy himself a rifle when he went to ATO. And when Denys was shell-shocked and was in the hospital, Andriy did not support him.
Chervinsky says that the relationship between the Yermak brothers was strained. Andriy did not support his brother or help him financially, even when he went to ATO.
lryna Vlasiuk / «Бабель»
What happened after the second meeting?
Literally 4-5 days later, Serhiy came up to me, mumbled something, and then said:
"Roma, I hate to tell you this, but they asked for $10 000 for the meeting."
I say: "Who?"
Well, he says, Denys told me from Andriy. I later found out from another person that in between meetings, Shumsky asked this person:
"What do you think, does Roma have money?"
But I canʼt say for sure when he asked, because thatʼs what they told me.
How did you react to this request?
Serhiy was cooperating with me, so I told him:
“Here’s a recorder, if they really ask for these funds, then I would like you to record it for me, and then we’ll figure it out.”
At the same time, Shumsky was already telling me that Andriy Yermak constantly meets with [Dmitry] Kozak in Vienna, that they are forming a new line of behavior, trying to get in touch with Putin, and that Yermak is bragging that he has a channel to Russia. I gave Serhiy the recorder and asked him or Denis to record it so that I could understand how they were voicing it all.
What did he say to that?
Agreed. But heʼs cunning. I understand that on the one hand he has Yermak, who can appoint everyone to SBU tomorrow, and on the other — me, who...
Didnʼt you find it strange that they asked you for $10 000 for a meeting?
It wasnʼt just strange, I was shocked.
Could this have been Shumskyʼs own initiative?
Shumsky couldnʼt lie to me, so I gave him a dictaphone. Iʼm an operative. And an operative doesnʼt trust anyone or anything. I realized that maybe he wanted to make money with Denys. And at the same time, I understand: money for what — for a position, right?
Although we didnʼt discuss specific positions, and I didnʼt ask for a position for myself. But Serhiy told me that SBU was leaking, that Sappa was coming, saying that he wanted to be the head and asking how much it would cost. And Shumsky says:
"Iʼm listening to all this and Iʼm shocked."
But Shumsky, as they say, is a troubled person. He went home, slept, thought and, as I understand it, decided not to do it.
Sometime around this time, we conducted an operation and detained [Volodymyr] Tsemakh. I still had Andriy Yermakʼs phone at that time, I sent him information, saying that we were continuing to successfully do our work. But he did not respond to my message.
Already then, the leadership in SBU changed. Ruslan Baranetskyi came to the position of deputy head of SBU. I reported to him that we had extradited an important witness to the downing of Boeing MH17, and I saw that he didn’t care. He asked me only about Palych, the head of the “Izolyatsia” torture center, whom we had previously detained. And he asked something even more strange: “What is he telling you?”
And here Serhiy doesn’t write anything down. I decided to go on vacation. And on July 12, Petrov calls me and says that I’m being fired, they’re forcing him to sign a report. He said that he’ll transfer me to another unit, and I just said that, apparently, he’ll be next. He hung up, and literally 4 hours later the guys from GUR called me and invited me to work. I said that I wasn’t ready yet and that I’d think about it.
When I returned from Turkey, I made an appointment with Baranetsky five times — I wanted to find out the reasons for my dismissal, but no one told me anything.
By the way, when Shumsky came to ask for $10 000, I went to Petrov and said that I was ready to detain these people, ready to give them money to put them in prison. He didnʼt allow it.
Perhaps because Petrov and you were in counterintelligence, and she performs other tasks. This matter should rather be handled by the K department.
Yes. But we have a hierarchy, I have to come to my boss, my boss calls the head of department K, he gives me an operative, and I cooperate with him. We are not at the market, we are in a military team, I cannot come to them myself. I was forbidden to do it then. Well, when they forbade it, they said that it was not the time.
And somewhere around this time, Dmytro Shtanko appears?
I had an acquaintance named Volodymyr, and at my request he introduced Shtanko to Shumsky.
When I was fired, I met with Shumsky, I said:
“Serhiy, look, Yermak says that he is fighting corruption, meet with him, tell him to reinstate me or appoint me somewhere, as promised.”
I already understand that it is a completely different story, but I send him to Andriy Yermak to find out. Two days later, Serhiy invited me to a meeting in Obolon and said that it was Yermak who fired me.
I ask: “For what?”
And he says that he fires all the patriots.
Dmytro Shtanko, according to Chervinsky, was ready to expose corruption, while Serhiy Shumsky created it.
And was Shtanko already working with them at that time?
I canʼt remember if heʼs been there or not.
So it turns out that before your vacation and at the time of your dismissal, you asked Shumsky to record Denys Yermak, but he did not.
There was another moment. Before going on vacation, I came to Petrov and with him was Oleksandr Poklad, my deputy at the time. I say that I am ready to document them. Petrov says no.
I say: “Okay, then I will do my job.”
I gave Shumsky a dictaphone so that he could record the meetings where money was discussed. And I say:
“Sanya [Poklad], when Shumsky records the conversation with Denys, call me, I will call you, and you will go to him, take the dictaphone and listen to what is there, because I will be in Turkey at that time.”
And after that I was fired.
Was it filmed because Petrov or Poklad told Andriy Yermak?
No, I don’t think they told. But then I learned that in the spring or summer of 2020, Petrov and Poklad gave evidence to the investigator in the case against Shtanko, that I allegedly organized Denys Yermak’s recordings with him. And Petrov, as I said, was fired after me in August [2019] — he was sent to Kropyvnytskyi.
That is, of those who were in the room at that moment, only Poklad remained in office.
Well, I came back from vacation, met with Shumsky. He said that Yermak had fired me and that he was saying that he would drive all the patriots under the plinth, and if he didnʼt succeed, he would flee to St. Petersburg, where he had an apartment. I was shocked.
And why did you believe Shumsky? He told you recently that the new team wants to change the country for the better, to bring the best people to the top. Besides, Shumsky was part of the scheme — he went around asking people to pay bribes.
I didnʼt believe it... An operative is a person who receives information and checks everything. Thatʼs why I found Shtanko through a certain Vova, I wonʼt mention his last name.
Did this person work in the authorities?
No, but he worked constantly with the “K” participants. It was probably because of him that the recording equipment appeared. I talked to Dmytro and introduced him to Shumsky. It became clear to me that Dmytro was ready [to record Denys Yermak].
So you were the ideologist of this operation and Shtanko actually carried out your commands?
I can neither confirm nor deny this. I introduced Shtanko to Shumsky, and then they told me what was happening there.
You canʼt confirm this because, as an operative, you had no right to organize this operation and wiretapping?
Yes. SBU refused to implement this operation. I did everything I could legally do, my hands were tied.
lryna Vlasiuk / «Бабель»
And after this refusal, you clearly understood that all the records that Shtanko would make would have no legal force.
Yes.
So what was your motivation? At the beginning of the conversation you said how you documented everything in detail, brought evidence to the leaders, so that the cases would then be taken to court, so that the suspects would be arrested. And this time, what was the ultimate goal, if the evidence was illegal?
There were guys from "K" who provided equipment. If there was something real there, we would have implemented it. Shtanko was ready to go public, to say that he brought people to meetings, that he was an intermediary in the scheme.
And what prevented this “K” participant, who gave Shtanko the equipment, from making everything legally correct?
He received these materials and said he would do nothing.
Afraid?
Yes, and then he even took the equipment. And later Serhiy and Dmytro already told me that this was a scheme called an “entry ticket”. That they started running with these appointments through “Energoatom”, to the Odesa ports. Such activity began that we were shocked.
If you listen to the recordings, they constantly talk about promises of appointments, but not about the appointments themselves — no one was ever appointed. And there is no evidence pointing to Andriy Yermak. Why did you decide that this scheme was connected to him, and not just a fraud by your brother? Maybe Shtanko let you listen to recordings that never became public?
Look, Shumsky told me that it was in Andriyʼs presence, that Andriy told him about the "entrance tickets", about this whole story. That is, Iʼm not saying that I was a witness — these are Shumskyʼs words.
Letʼs interrogate him, let him talk about it. I did my job, defending the law. I didnʼt do it for myself. I just wanted it to be recorded, to be somewhere in history, so that we understand who they are and how they shape it all.
Yes, but you know about the complicated relationship between Denys and Andriy Yermak. Denys constantly had problems with money. It is difficult to assume that Andriy entrusted his brother with some important scheme, instructed him to collect quite a small amount of money for such important purposes. It was about five to ten thousand dollars.
There is a moment in one of the recordings when Denys gets a call from his brother, he and Zelensky are in the States somewhere. And Denis says:
“Yes, he said about the entrance ticket.”
That is, it is all confirmed. You have to sit and analyze it. I understand that you canʼt trust this story. But after the recordings surfaced on the Internet, SBU opened a case.
Everyone there violated it — NABU, SBI, and SBU.
And I asked Shumsky, go tell me that I know that Andriy Yermak works for Russia, that he promised to destroy the patriots. That he told me how he went to meetings with [Dmitry] Kozak without any authority. Shumsky told me that he told me all this.
When the recordings got on the Internet, Shumsky and Shtanko were defenseless. They understood that they could be persecuted. I found them a lawyer — Yevhen Solodok, and he accompanied them in this story.
Then I checked through my SBU employee, and he said that Shumsky’s testimony about Yermak was indeed in the case. That’s why I trusted Shumsky.
After the recordings became public, Dmytro Shtanko (left) and Serhiy Shumsky, on Chervinskyʼs advice, began communicating with the media.
But it looks strange: you ask him to write Denis, he refuses. It is because of his refusal that Shtanko appears in the case. But then Shumsky still tells you about the traitor Yermak Sr., goes public and gives evidence against Andriy.
On the other hand, he was put in a situation where he could no longer act differently because he was documented on these recordings. And we know what his role was.
I can understand that Andriy Yermak could have been off topic. That Denys took this $10 000 for himself. But he ran to Andriy and talked to him, met him outside the Office. Andriy gave [Denys] some information. That is, all the signs that Andriy and Denys were acting together were there.
Okay, letʼs not say that it was Andriy Yermak — we havenʼt proven it, because there was no full-fledged investigation. If these recordings hadnʼt appeared on the Internet ahead of time, after Andriy Yermak became the head of the Office, perhaps all those people would have been appointed. We donʼt know. Thatʼs exactly what I was hoping for. But the recordings appeared earlier, and thatʼs where it all stopped.
And how did the recordings become public in the first place?
I donʼt know.
Who could have had physical access to the recordings? Because Shtanko told us in an interview that he didnʼt know who was recording. Someone hung the equipment on him and then took it off. Of course, this doesnʼt seem like the truth.
This is Dmytroʼs position, because the use of such technical means is a violation of the Civil Code.
That is, the flash drive could have been copied by the same Shtanko, could it have been owned by several people?
Yes.
We have information that Ihor Kolomoiskyi may have been involved in the dissemination of this information.
When I was put in prison, in the first month my lawyers came to me and said that there was a proposal from the Presidentʼs Office. There are two points. The first is that you admit that you are guilty of the shelling of planes in Kropyvnytskyi at the airfield, and they give you a suspended sentence. But to fulfill the first condition, you have to say that Kolomoiskyi ordered the recordings. I said that I was ready to say about Kolomoiskyi.
That is, I wanted to say that he was not involved. And I was not ready to even discuss the first condition at all. So both proposals disappeared.
Was Kolomoiskyi not involved in the recording or distribution?
To the record.
And before distribution?
I donʼt know.
According to our information, Kolomoiskyi offered [your head in GUR Vasyl] Burba to buy a flash drive with recordings for a million dollars. We don’t know whether Burba accepted the offer. But the recordings did appear, and they were made public by a random person in Ukrainian politics, like many people on the list of “servants” — the MP from the “Servant of the People” party Geo Leros. As the ideologist of this story, you should know about this too.
I achieved my goal.
Geo Leros, a deputy from the "Servant of the People" party, made the recordings public, and in return filed criminal reports with NABU and SAPO. He was also interrogated by SBU. Leros never said where he got the flash drive.
And what was the goal?
I wanted to document and put Andriy and Denys Yermak in prison. But it turned out differently. You see, they became public. I didnʼt finish.
Werenʼt you curious about how the recordings became public?
I asked both of them [Shumsky and Shtanko]. Everyone was surprised and looked at each other. Volodya was like that too.
The one who introduced you to Shtanko?
Yes, he communicated with the “K” participants and said that they wanted to sell these films. We even quarreled, because he liked the topic with Energoatom, he wanted to appoint someone there through Denys Yermak and Andriy. And he started to break this whole system. He tried to remove Shtanko from the scheme, something like that.
When was the last time you talked to Denys?
When they were recording the recordings, I sometimes met with him. It was as if he wanted to find out why his brother had fired me.
Denys called himself a patriot, and I used contradictions, saying, how is that so? You can ask him. And Denys said that he couldnʼt get to him. They are both swindlers.
And where is Shumsky now?
I met him by chance, it was 2023, I think. He said: "I know you have problems, I can offer you to leave, I have people in the Odesa region, some kind of brigade. I can arrange for you to serve there."
I replied: "Thank you, no need."
Where to go?
Like running away.
lryna Vlasiuk / «Бабель»
When the recordings became public, did Shtanko expect any support from you?
They [Shtanko and Shumsky] asked what they should do. I said: “In order to protect yourself, you have to go public.”
Because in fact, Shtanko worked clearly — he exposed corruption, and Shumsky created it.
When the full-scale invasion began, did Dmytro Shtanko volunteer for the front?
Yes, from the first days he went to the Territorial Defence Forces, but in fact it was a VFTC, they were not properly registered. And when he underwent a medical examination in the summer, SBU opened a case against him, alleging that he was an "evader", and actively supported it all the time, although this is not their functional duties — this should be dealt with by the National Police.
But in the end, he ended up in the 93rd brigade in Bakhmut. Did you communicate with his commander?
I talked to him, I came to see him. He was sent there in August [2022, and I was sent in September]. I planned to be in Pokrovsk. I went to see him to help with the drones that we started making in the Special Operation Forces (SOF), to raise his authority in the unit. And I spent a day with him.
Dmytro Shtanko died on October 5, 2022. He was survived by three children.
What was he doing there?
He was a soldier and had to remain one — this was the counterintelligence requirement for the commander. Because in fact, Dmytro was a lieutenant colonel in the police reserve, which meant appointing him to a position with command functions.
One of his commanders said that Shtanko was brought to the front by a military counterintelligence officer. Shtanko himself told me that he was being pursued by military counterintelligence. A criminal case was opened against him, that he was allegedly a draft evader, and they put a bracelet on him. He has three children. The eldest boy is 18, but he had grounds for a deferment.
However, he did not take advantage of them. Dmytro tried to stay in Kyiv with his family. He tried to talk to the head of the Territorial Recruit Center (TRC). He said that he had problems because of Dmytro, which would end when he returned in a black bag. Dmytro told me that he had written it down, but we never found the recording on his phone, because the phone broke during the explosion.
Dmytro also said that as soon as he arrived at the front line, he had only put down his bag when they told him to go to a position where a mine immediately landed. A comrade nearby was killed. And then he took that position every three days. Then the first concussion, which he suffered on his legs. Then the second.
Military counterintelligence in the SBU structure called the commander every day, monitored what Dmytro was doing and made sure he didnʼt stay in rehabilitation for a long time. And they reported every day where he was and what he was doing.
In 2020, after the publication of the recordings and mutual accusations of those involved in the scandal, several agencies began investigating the case simultaneously. Geo Leros, Dmytro Shtanko, and Serhiy Shumsky filed applications with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andriy Yermak filed applications with SBU and the State Bureau of Investigation. In total, at least five proceedings were registered. According to Babelʼs sources in law enforcement agencies, NABU opened criminal proceedings for abuse of influence. However, SAPO later found no signs of a corruption crime in the case, since no candidates were appointed to important positions. The case was reclassified as fraud and transferred to the National Police, and later, by decision of the Prosecutor Generalʼs Office, to SBU. There, it was merged with proceedings that were already being investigated by SBU — on the illegal receipt of information by a group of individuals and the appropriation of funds for alleged "employment" for leading positions in government bodies. The pre-trial investigation in this case is still ongoing.