A former SBU colonel was tried for collaborating with Russia during the occupation of Kherson

Former SBU Colonel Gennadiy Semiletov is accused of collaborating with Russian intelligence agencies during the occupation of Kherson. He denied the charges and claimed that the evidence against him had been fabricated.

This was reported by the International Institute for Human Rights (IIHR).

According to investigators, between April and October 2022, Semiletov recruited former Ukrainian law enforcement officers to work in the so-called State Security Service of the Kherson Region, established by the occupying authorities. He allegedly passed information to the Russians about former employees of Ukrainian law enforcement agencies and persuaded them to cooperate.

The case has been pending before the Khadzhibey District Court of Odesa since May 2023. The former SBU officer has been in custody since December 2022.

The prosecution cites the testimony of several witnesses who claimed that Semiletov offered them positions in the occupation authorities, passed on their contact information to the Russians, and persuaded them to cooperate with the occupiers. One of the witnesses also said she saw him in the company of Russian military personnel.

During a search of the former colonel’s home, law enforcement officers seized documents from the so-called “occupation security service,” lists of former Ukrainian law enforcement officers, and a cell phone. According to forensic analysis, deleted Viber messages exchanged with Russian military personnel were recovered from the device’s memory.

Semiletov claimed that the seized documents lacked the required details and that the phone did not belong to him. He also stated that law enforcement officers might have planted evidence during the search. According to him, the case against him could have been fabricated due to long-standing conflicts with former colleagues.

In court, the man explained that he had worked for the SBU for nearly 25 years, including 15 years in leadership positions, and resigned in 2010. During the occupation, he said, he stayed at home and cared for his wife.

The defense requested an additional computer forensic examination of the phone to verify whether someone else’s correspondence had been transferred to it. The attorneys also requested an inspection of the defendant’s car. The court rejected both motions. Next, the court must decide whether to conclude the trial investigation and proceed to closing arguments.

Анна Літман