High treason or provocation: debate on ex-intelligence officer's case concluded in Mykolaiv

The debate in the case of former intelligence officer Eduard Shevchenko, accused of high treason, has ended in Mykolaiv. The prosecution claims proven guilt, while the defense insists on a lack of evidence and possible falsification of the case.

This was reported by the Media Initiative.

The prosecutor's office claimed that Shevchenko was involved in several episodes of cooperation with Russian special services. In particular, it is about the transfer of intelligence information back in 2018 through FSB agent Igor Maloga. According to the investigation, the accused reported information about the activities of the Ukrainian military, in particular, the arrival of a British ship in Odesa and the participation of Ukrainian units in its protection.

A separate block of the indictment concerns events after the start of the full-scale Russian invasion. The prosecutor stated that in 2022, Shevchenko allegedly maintained contact with representatives of Russian special services via messengers and transmitted information about the consequences of the shelling of Ochakiv. Also, according to the investigation, he could have been involved in an attempt to recruit the mayor for further cooperation with Russia.

In addition, law enforcement officers charge the defendant with illegal possession of a Simonov carbine, which, according to them, was not properly registered. This weapon was seized during a search in January 2023.

Based on the evidence collected, the prosecution asks the court to sentence Eduard Shevchenko to 15 years in prison with confiscation of property. At the same time, the prosecutor noted that he takes into account the defendant's combat experience, his awards and health, so he does not insist on life imprisonment.

At the same time, the defense categorically denies all charges. The defendant's lawyer stated that none of the evidence presented proves the fact of high treason. According to him, the prosecution is based mainly on assumptions, dubious correspondence and materials whose origin has not been properly confirmed.

The defense counsel also drew attention to possible procedural violations during the investigation. In particular, it is about access to the defendant's phone without a lawyer, the inconsistency of the IMEI code of the device in the case file and the questionable circumstances of the seizure of weapons during the search. In his opinion, this may indicate the inadmissibility of some evidence in court.

Shevchenko himself also insisted on his innocence in his last speech. He stated that he had never agreed to cooperate with the Russian special services, and the contacts he was charged with could have been a provocation. The defendant emphasized that he stayed in Ochakiv during the war, helped defend the city and supported the Ukrainian military.

He also emphasized that some of the evidence, including correspondence, could have been falsified or obtained in violation of the procedure. Shevchenko also drew attention to the contradictions in the case file and the lack of clear evidence of his involvement in the transfer of classified information.

At the time of Russia's full-scale invasion, the defendant worked in the Ochakiv City Council, where he was in charge of security and video surveillance. According to the SBU, he was a Russian agent with the pseudonym "Master," who collected information about the situation in Ochakiv and passed it on to the Russians.

Recently, the mayor of Ochakiv, Serhiy Bychkov, was interrogated in court and spoke about his contacts with Shevchenko during the period when he was performing the mission.

Анна Бальчінос