The High Anti-Corruption Court has imposed a preventive measure on Serhiy Kuts—a defendant in the Carthage case
The High Anti-Corruption Court is considering a pretrial measure for Serhiy Kutsogo—the driver of Serhiy Kropiva, deputy head of the Department of International Cooperation at the Office of the Prosecutor General. The prosecutor is requesting that he be remanded in custody with bail set at 20 million hryvnias, while the defense claims there is no evidence of Kutsy’s involvement in “protecting” fraudulent call centers or accepting bribes.
The High Anti-Corruption Court is considering a pretrial measure for Serhiy Kutsyi—the driver of Serhiy Kropiva, deputy head of the Department of International Cooperation at the Office of the Prosecutor General. The prosecutor is requesting that Kutsyi be held in custody. At the same time, the prosecution is proposing that he be allowed to be released from pretrial detention on bail of 20 million hryvnia.
During the hearing, the prosecutor stated that Kutsyi allegedly carried out Kropiva’s orders on a daily basis and was aware of his activities. “Kutsyi is the person who carried out Kropiva’s orders every day. He was fully aware of his actions,” the prosecutor said. According to the prosecution, there is a risk that Kutsyi could go into hiding to evade the investigation, influence witnesses, or destroy potential evidence.
The prosecutor cited frequent trips abroad
One of the prosecution’s arguments centered on Kutsyi’s trips outside Ukraine. The prosecutor stated that from 2019 to 2026, Kutsyi crossed the border only once. At the same time, in 2026, according to him, there were already 10 such crossings.
The prosecutor also claims that some of Kutsy’s trips coincided with border crossings by Serhiy Kropiva. “From 2019 to 2026, Kutsy crossed the border once, but in 2026 alone, he crossed it 10 times—including on occasions when Kropiva crossed the border,” the prosecutor said. The prosecution also believes that Kutsy was well acquainted with Kropiva’s social circle and was aware of his activities. This, according to the prosecutor, could pose risks to the investigation.
What They’re Saying About the Possible Destruction of Evidence
Separately, the prosecutor discussed conversations that, according to him, may indicate preparations to defend against a potential investigation. Specifically, the conversations concerned cybersecurity and phone security. The prosecution claims that one of the conversations even touched on remotely wiping a phone. “Regarding the destruction of evidence, there is a conversation about detailed security measures, specifically regarding cybersecurity and phone protection. In particular, they discussed remotely wiping a phone,” the prosecutor stated.
The prosecution cites the potential influence on witnesses as another risk. According to the prosecutor, investigators have recordings of conversations in which the preparation of Kuts’s wife and mother was discussed.
What is the driver suspected of?
Investigators link Kutsy to the alias “Kamrad.” He is charged with participation in a criminal organization and the laundering of proceeds obtained through criminal activity. According to investigators, from October 2025 to September 2026, Kutsyi was a member of an organization that operated a network of fraudulent call centers.
Law enforcement believes these call centers defrauded people on a massive scale. At the same time, Kutsyi’s specific role and actions have yet to be established as part of the criminal proceedings. One of the incidents mentioned by the prosecutor involves property in Bukovel.
According to the prosecutor, after Bihus.Info published a report about the prosecutors’ apartments in the “Glacier” complex, Serhiy Kropiva allegedly suggested to Kutsyi that he transfer the property in Bukovel to the driver’s wife. The prosecutor believes this may have been an attempt to legalize the property. Additionally, he stated that Kropiva and Kutsy discussed the possibility of involving the driver’s mother in the group’s activities and registering ownership of the property in her name.
The prosecutor’s office mentions money from call centers
Another important aspect concerns money. The prosecutor stated that Kutsy may have received illicit benefits from the operations of fraudulent call centers. According to him, the investigation has recordings of conversations that allegedly indicate Kutsy’s systematic receipt of funds and their subsequent transfer to other individuals.
The prosecutor also claims that the money may have been subsequently distributed through the accounts of individual entrepreneurs. In other words, investigators view Kutsyi not merely as a driver for an official at the Office of the Prosecutor General, but as a possible participant in a scheme that, according to law enforcement, was linked to the operations of fraudulent call centers and the flow of funds received from them.
The defense denies the charges
Kutsogo’s attorneys disagree with the prosecution’s position. The defense stated that there is no evidence in the case that their client “protected” the fraudulent call centers or received any unlawful benefits from them. Thus, the parties interpret the same evidence differently. The prosecution cites recorded conversations, trips abroad, and other circumstances as evidence of risks and Kutsogo’s possible involvement in a criminal organization. The defense, however, believes that this evidence is insufficient to support such conclusions.
The court must now evaluate the arguments of both sides and decide whether Kutsy needs a pretrial measure in the form of pretrial detention. It is important to note that a mere suspicion does not imply proven guilt. Only the court can make a final determination—based on a full trial—as to whether Kutsyi participated in a criminal organization, received funds from fraudulent call centers, or laundered assets. This is reported by a Suspilne correspondent from the courtroom.
The High Anti-Corruption Court (VAKS) imposed a pretrial detention measure on Yelyzaveta “Muz” Ivakhnenko, who is a suspect in the NABU and SAPO “Carthage” case. The court remanded her in custody with the option to post bail of 20 million hryvnias.
As a reminder, the suspect, Prosecutor Kropiva, oversaw renovations at the Prosecutor General’s residence in Kozin.
Prosecutor General Kravchenko disappeared after the NABU and SAP operation began. According to sources in political circles speaking to UP, Kravchenko drove into the government quarter, after which no one saw him.
Later, Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko was located and stated that he had no connection whatsoever to covering up illegal call centers and had not given any instructions to facilitate their operations.
