Prosecutor asks court to place SBU general Duka in custody with UAH 100M bail option

Serhii Duka is identified as the First Deputy Head of the SBU's Department for the Protection of National Statehood. A prosecutor asked the court to place him in pretrial detention, while allowing release if he posts UAH 100 million bail. This is a request, not a conviction. The court must decide whether detention is justified and whether bail can manage the risks.

The request follows a tense search at Duka's residence. Prosecutors say armed security personnel pointed weapons and laser sights at NABU officers. They also allege that Duka smashed mobile phones with an axe while the search was underway. The prosecutor said these actions could show a risk of obstructing the investigation.

The case forms part of Operation Carthage, a bribery investigation involving senior officials and criminal-underworld representatives. Another implicated police officer, Oleksandr Demianchuk, was detained without bail. The court's decision on Duka and the prosecutor's recusal motion remained pending in the report.

Pretrial detention is a court-ordered restriction used before a criminal trial. It prevents a suspect from remaining free while investigators work. Bail is money deposited or promised to encourage compliance with court conditions, such as appearing when required. Bail does not mean the suspect has been found guilty, and detention does not establish guilt.

A court can offer bail when it believes custody is not the only way to address risks. Those risks may include fleeing, influencing witnesses, repeating alleged conduct, or obstructing evidence collection. The amount should be meaningful enough to encourage compliance. In Duka's case, the prosecutor requested detention with an alternative of UAH 100 million bail.

The article does not state the court's final decision on Duka's request. It reports that Demianchuk was remanded in custody without bail, while Volodymyr Tsenov received a UAH 15 million bail option. These different decisions show that courts assess each suspect and the alleged risks separately.

The proposed bail for Duka was UAH 100 million. The court set UAH 15 million as the bail option for Volodymyr Tsenov. The difference is UAH 85 million. UAH 100 million is about 6.7 times UAH 15 million. That makes Duka's proposed amount substantially larger in financial terms.

Bail is meant to support compliance with court requirements. A large amount can reflect the prosecutor's view that the alleged risks are serious or that a smaller sum might not be sufficient. Here, prosecutors pointed to alleged armed resistance during a search and the destruction of phones. Those facts were offered as evidence of a possible obstruction risk.

The amount is not a finding of guilt. It is part of a preventive-measure request, and the article does not report the court's final decision on Duka. Tsenov's case shows that suspects in the same broader investigation can receive different detention and bail arrangements.

The confrontation began around 05:30, when NABU detectives arrived at Duka's residence with an investigating judge's search warrant. The prosecutor said Duka and armed members of his personal security detail pointed weapons and laser sights at the officers. The standoff allegedly lasted about two hours and interfered with the search.

During that period, prosecutors say Duka destroyed evidence. The prosecutor specifically described mobile phones smashed with an axe. Earlier, NABU detective chief Oleksandr Abakumov said Duka had threatened detectives with a pistol and damaged equipment with a hammer. These accounts were presented as reasons to argue that Duka could obstruct proceedings.

The prosecutor also called the conduct a deliberate effort to block lawful investigative action. Following an NABU report, the SBI opened a case under Article 345 for resistance to law enforcement officers. The investigation into that resistance was still ongoing, so the allegations remained subject to further fact-finding and court assessment.

NABU is the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. Its detectives carried out the search at Duka's residence and, with SAPO, exposed the alleged bribery scheme in Operation Carthage. SAPO is the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office. The prosecutor in this report sought Duka's detention and bail and presented alleged obstruction as a risk.

The SBI, or State Bureau of Investigation, handles the separate criminal proceedings opened after NABU reported resistance to law enforcement officers. That case concerns the alleged confrontation during the search. The High Anti-Corruption Court, known in the article as the HACC, decides preventive measures in the corruption case. It ordered Volodymyr Tsenov into custody with UAH 15 million bail and held Vitalii Rybalka without bail.

Together, these institutions create separate steps. NABU gathers evidence, SAPO presents the prosecution case, the SBI investigates the alleged resistance, and the court decides detention. The article reports that the pretrial investigation into the resistance was continuing, while Duka's detention request and a judge-recusal motion were still being handled.

Recusal is a request that a judge step aside from a case. It may be raised when a party believes the judge's impartiality, independence, or eligibility could reasonably be questioned. The article does not explain why the prosecutor sought to recuse Duka's judge. Therefore, no specific conflict or concern can be attributed to the prosecutor from this report.

The motion was to be assigned through the automated case-distribution system. In practical terms, that system selects another judge according to established assignment procedures rather than allowing a party to choose the replacement. The new judge would then consider whether the recusal request should be granted.

This can affect the timing and path of the detention hearing. Until the motion is resolved, the original judge's involvement may be limited. The article does not state the outcome of the recusal motion or identify the judge who would hear it. It only reports that assignment and consideration by another judge were expected.

Pretrial proceedings balance effective investigation with individual rights. The presumption of innocence means a suspect is treated as not guilty until conviction. Detention is preventive, not punishment, so prosecutors must identify specific risks and courts must independently assess them. A serious corruption allegation alone should not replace that analysis.

Judicial warrants provide legal authority for intrusive investigative steps such as a search. The prosecutor said NABU officers arrived with an investigating judge's warrant. Evidence must also be preserved rather than destroyed or concealed. The alleged smashing of phones therefore mattered both to the evidence and to the prosecutor's claim that Duka might obstruct the investigation.

These safeguards help courts separate proven facts from allegations. The court must weigh the reported confrontation, the alleged destruction of phones, and other evidence when considering detention or bail. The article reports ongoing proceedings, not a final verdict. The SBI was still investigating the alleged resistance, and Duka's preventive measure had not been finally reported.