Thread by @trajaykay

🇺🇦💠Employees of the NABU and SAP have announced suspicion against Brigadier General of the Security Service of Ukraine I. Vityuk.
The SBU perceives these actions as a response to the justified detention by the Service of several employees of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau

at the end of July this year.
 
Recall that recently the SBU exposed one of the heads of the interregional departments of NABU for trading with the Russian Federation (Art. 111-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), and another Bureau employee was detained for state treason

and passing information to the Russian Federation (Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
 
According to the SBU, the announcement of suspicion against I. Vityuk by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office is revenge by

NABU and SAP for the fact that the Security Service of Ukraine effectively counters Russian influence on state bodies and exposed several Bureau employees committing crimes.
 
The suspicion against I. Vityuk was announced precisely after the high-profile detentions of

Bureau representatives, although the relevant criminal proceedings were opened almost a year and a half ago. During this time, NABU and SAP employees were unable to gather convincing evidence confirming illegal enrichment and false declaration attributed to I. Vityuk.

In particular, the reason for opening the criminal proceedings was the presence of an apartment in his family, allegedly purchased at an undervalued price with funds supposedly not obtained legally. At the same time, the investigation ignored:
• conclusions of many expert

examinations that refuted the purchase of the property at an undervalued price, including those initiated by NABU itself;
• the conclusion of the NACP, which after thorough checks found no signs of illegal enrichment in I. Vityuk's family;
• the entrepreneurial activity of I.

Vityuk's wife and her receipt of legal and declared income, with which the family housing was purchased (confirmed by numerous state expert examinations);
• testimonies of numerous witnesses who, despite pressure from the investigation, refute the prosecution's version.

We also note separately that I. Vityuk has made an important contribution to the defense of the country from the first days of the full-scale Russian invasion.
 
In particular, under his leadership, the Cybersecurity Department (DKIB) of the SBU repelled thousands of cyberattacks

on Ukrainian communication systems, energy, and housing and communal services infrastructure. Dozens of complex counteroffensive operations in cyberspace were conducted.
 
Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Brigadier General I. Vityuk has defended

Kyiv and led one of the operational combat groups engaged in liberating Kyiv region from occupiers. Also, during 2024-2025, he was part of operational combat groups rotating in the combat zones of Sumy, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, and Donetsk regions.

He took direct part in the Kursk operation.
 
Under I. Vityuk's leadership, a combat unit based on DKIB was created. Today, sniper groups and units operate there, destroying not only enemy personnel and equipment with drones but also their electronic warfare and electronic

reconnaissance means.
 
With the participation of Illia Vityuk, work was established on documenting and neutralizing enemy sabotage and reconnaissance groups, countering IPSO, collecting and analyzing intelligence data. A Telegram bot "" was also developedt.me/stop_russian_w…

through which Ukrainian fighters received real-time information about enemy troop movements. This allowed the Defense Forces to destroy hundreds of enemy equipment units, a large number of enemy personnel, and several Russian generals.

Considering all of the above, there are all grounds to speak of selective justice by NABU and SAP towards the SBU employee

On its part, in those criminal proceedings concerning NABU employees, the Security Service of Ukraine will continue to operate exclusively within the legal

framework, relying on a solid evidentiary base and legal norms.
 
We emphasize separately – belonging to any state, law enforcement, security, or anti-corruption structure does not grant any indulgences and is not a reason to avoid responsibility.