HACC remands senior National Police official Tsenov in custody, sets bail at UAH 15M

The High Anti-Corruption Court ordered senior National Police official Tsenov held for 60 days. The detention runs until January 3, 2027, inclusive. The judge also set bail at UAH 15 million. This means Tsenov remains in custody unless the required bail is posted or the measure changes.

The ruling followed a prosecution request in a case linked to Operation Carthage. The defense opposed the request. It called the proposed bail excessive and asked for house arrest instead. If detention was ordered, the lawyer asked for bail of about 300 subsistence minimums, or UAH 998,400.

The decision matters because it sets both immediate custody and a financial alternative. Bail would not end the case or clear Tsenov. It would trigger reporting duties, travel limits, communication restrictions, document surrender, and electronic monitoring while proceedings continue.

The High Anti-Corruption Court, or HACC, is Ukraine’s specialized judicial forum for high-level corruption cases. Its work includes deciding important procedural questions, such as whether a suspect should remain free, stay under house arrest, or be detained before trial. Those decisions protect the investigation while respecting court oversight.

In this case, HACC considered the prosecution’s motion concerning Tsenov. The prosecutor sought detention and UAH 15 million bail. Tsenov’s lawyer asked for house arrest or much lower bail. The investigative judge then ruled on that request and imposed detention for 60 days.

The court is involved because the investigation was conducted by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. The article identifies the case as part of Operation Carthage, which concerns alleged bribes involving senior law-enforcement officials and representatives of criminal circles.

The prosecutor identified four people who had so far been formally notified of suspicion in the case. They are SBU officer Serhii Duka, National Police officer Demianchuk, Vitalii Rybalko, and Tsenov. Rybalko was described as a person close to Andrii Osipov and was nicknamed “Boxer.”

The prosecutor also discussed Osipov, who is known by the nickname “Criminal.” Osipov had received an updated suspicion notice the previous day. However, the prosecutor said the motion seeking a preventive measure for Osipov would be filed later, probably the following week, because Osipov was already in custody in another criminal proceeding.

The next procedural steps concern the other suspects. A motion for Rybalko had already been submitted and scheduled for a hearing. Motions concerning Duka and Demianchuk were expected the next day. The article does not state that those hearings had already occurred.

Paying the UAH 15 million bail would not end Tsenov’s legal problems. It would replace detention with a set of court-ordered obligations while the criminal proceedings continue. Bail would therefore secure compliance, not determine whether he is guilty or innocent.

The court said Tsenov would have to report to detectives and the prosecutor whenever requested. He could not leave Kyiv or the Kyiv region without permission. He would also be barred from communicating with another suspect, Andrii Osipov, and several other individuals. These conditions aim to reduce risks to the investigation.

Tsenov would have to surrender his international travel documents for safekeeping. He would also have to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. The article says there were other restrictions as well, but it does not list them. Breaching the obligations could lead to further court action, although the article does not specify the exact consequence.

Operation Carthage is an investigation into an alleged bribery scheme involving senior law-enforcement officials and representatives of criminal circles. The article names NABU and SAPO as the anti-corruption bodies conducting the operation. Suspects include officials linked to the SBU and National Police, as well as people connected to Osipov.

NABU announced that investigators had exposed the scheme and taken procedural measures. SAPO prosecutors brought motions to court and explained the status of the suspects. HACC then acted as the judicial check, deciding whether Tsenov should be detained and how much bail to set. It also will hear other preventive-measure requests.

The law-enforcement agencies are both the setting for the alleged misconduct and part of the response. The article says current senior SBU, National Police, and Prosecutor General’s Office officials were involved. The National Police suspended officers affected by NABU’s measures pending an internal investigation.

The defense is challenging whether the alleged group legally qualifies as a criminal organization. Its lawyer said such an organization must have specific characteristics, with a hierarchical structure being the most important. This argument matters because the legal label can affect how prosecutors describe the alleged conduct and the strength of the suspicion.

The lawyer defined hierarchy as unconditional subordination to the head of the criminal organization. He argued that the correspondence showed no instructions from Osipov to Tsenov and none from Tsenov to Osipov. The defense therefore presented the messages as evidence against a command structure between the two men.

This was an argument about the validity of the suspicion, not a final finding about guilt. The judge nevertheless granted the prosecution’s motion and ordered Tsenov detained, with bail set at UAH 15 million. The article does not report the court’s detailed reasoning on the hierarchy argument or the final outcome of the case.

A preventive measure is a temporary restriction imposed during a criminal case before trial or a final judgment. Its purpose is to help secure the proceedings, for example by ensuring that a suspect appears when required or does not interfere with the investigation. The article gives detention, bail, and house arrest as possible measures.

Tsenov’s detention means he is held while the case develops. Bail offers a conditional release, but it comes with reporting duties, travel limits, communication bans, surrendered documents, and electronic monitoring. House arrest was the defense’s preferred alternative. None of these options decides whether Tsenov committed a crime.

A conviction is different. It is a final court determination of criminal guilt, while punishment is imposed after that determination under criminal law. The article reports only a pretrial ruling on detention and bail. It does not report a trial, conviction, sentence, or final finding against Tsenov.