Dmitry Sus. How and why did the prosecutor end up in prison?
The Supreme Anti-Corruption Court recently issued a verdict in a once sensational embezzlement case involving Deputy Head of the Prosecutor General’s Office Dmitry Sus, as reported by SR.
Dmitry Sus was once involved in many high-profile cases – he accused ex-deputy prosecutor general Vitaliy Kasko, visited the office of Anton Chernushenko, chairman of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and dealt with the disappearance of Oleg Seminsky, ex-chairman of the board of Neftegazdobycha.
The twilight of his promising career took place in the midst of an interagency struggle between the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Prosecutor General’s Office.
In the spring of 2016, the GPU Department for Investigation of Particularly Important Cases in the Sphere of the Economy started proceedings regarding the presumed demand for a $1 million bribe by NABU head Artem Sytnik.
At the same time, NABU initiated an investigation into the illegal visual surveillance conducted by GPU Department investigators. The head of this Department, Vladimir Gutsulyak, acquired significant assets without evidence of their legality, including land, apartments in Khmelnitsky and Kyiv, and real estate in the Czech Republic and Spain. Allegations were made that the Department head received $1.35 million in improper benefits. Then the deputy head of the Department, Dmitry Sus, came under scrutiny when he was seen driving an AUDI Q7 registered to his grandmother. In April 2017, detectives began investigating the embezzlement and misappropriation of seized property by GPU officials during searches.
The conflict became public in August 2016 when GPU Department representatives discovered a stationary observation post for their employees – a safe house of NABU – and detained two Bureau employees. Deputy Head of the Department Dmitry Sus attempted to conduct a search at NABU in this case. In September 2016, three Department employees, including Sus, were suspended.
On July 26, 2017, Dmitry Sus was arrested at the Boryspil airport as he was about to travel to Turkey for a family vacation. Just a few hours earlier, Sus had posted a photo of the plane on Facebook, and NABU employees acted promptly.
The former investigator was accused of not reporting the use of a car registered to his grandmother and misappropriating someone else’s property through abuse of office – cash and gaming equipment and furniture seized at three addresses in Kyiv, where illegal casinos were allegedly operating:
- On January 16, 2016, during a search at the Tsar restaurant and the Druzhba hotel on Druzhby Narodiv Boulevard, Sus found and seized $9,025, UAH 54,878, and UAH 137,782. Later, the former investigator did not seem to take these funds into account and appropriated them.
- On January 20, 2016, during a search at 97-37 Volodymyrska Street, Sus seized and appropriated another UAH 8,600;
- On 04/15/2016 during a search at a restaurant on Naberezhno-Pecherskaya Doroga, 5, Sus allegedly took possession of a video recorder of unknown make, model, and cost, from which he purportedly removed a hard drive for himself and then used it for covert video recording in his office.
On October 30, 2016, in Kyiv, Sus allegedly sold gambling equipment and other items seized during searches in Bila Tserkva, through an unidentified individual, for $10,000.
The buyer turned out to be businessman Yakubik, who claimed that he met Sus during a house search and then purchased the items to use them in his gambling business in Georgia. He transferred the money to Sus through his assistant and informed the NABU detective about the transaction.
Yakubik stated that the other seized property has not been returned yet. He criticized Soos for selling playground equipment after operating illegal gambling establishments.
The case file includes an official investigation's conclusion that gave a negative assessment of the work of the GPU investigators in the case of illegal casinos.
“The pre-trial investigation was poorly conducted, focusing on searches and seizure of property instead of collecting proper evidence to bring the perpetrators to justice.
From December 2015 to April 2016, investigators and prosecutors submitted over 50 search petitions to the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv.
Based on the rulings of the investigating judges, at least 18 searches were conducted from 01/16/2016 to 04/15/2016 by the Main Investigative Directorate and the Department.
After the searches, Sus or the investigators and prosecutors, at the direction of Sus, transferred the seized property to unknown persons without legal grounds, contracts, or proper verification.“.
During the court session, a witness, who was a prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office of Kyiv, testified about the insufficient material evidence and lack of judicial prospect in one episode of the case regarding illegal gambling business.
Sus, as the head of the pre-trial investigation body, had to organize, check and be responsible for the safety of the seized property and material evidence.
At the meeting, he was asked if he knew about the order of the Prosecutor General, which required prosecutors to check the storage of material evidence twice a year, and the heads of pre-trial investigation bodies to do so once a quarter. Sus replied that he was not familiar with this order and added: “Our employees are divided into desk workers and those who work in the field. I have worked in the field“.
Defendant Dmitry Sus attempted to shift the blame to the senior investigator of the GPU Sergei Pavlovsky, to whom he handed over the case on slot machines in February 2016 and accepted it without comment. The seized money, they say, was kept in a cardboard box in the premises of the Department and disappeared because Pavlovsky did not follow his instructions to transfer them as material evidence to the new body of pre-trial investigation – the State Fiscal Service. Sus frankly stated that Pavlovsky himself allegedly was unclean on his hand and could dispose of property.
Pavlovsky said at the hearing that although Sus appointed him head of the investigation team, he said that he himself would continue the investigation. And therefore, no case materials or valuables were handed over to him. In this proceedings, he conducted only one search, and in others, at the direction of Souss, he only compiled search protocols, that is, Souss carried out an investigative action, and for efficiency and convenience, he wrote down and recorded everything. Souss actually controlled the case, and all the other investigators in the Department, on his instructions, dealt with technical issues, such as preparing petitions for the court, generating certificates, compiling protocols, and so on. When he became a senior investigator in criminal proceedings, he communicated with Sus so that he would transfer all the materials of the case to him, but Sus replied that there was no difference, since he would only formally be a senior investigator. Concerning the material evidence, Sus told him that they were in different places and that he himself would collect them and then hand them over.
In general, it appears from Soos’ testimony that thefts during searches were not uncommon. He himself told the story that at the end of January 2016, he conducted a search at the Premier Palace, and the next day he was called by the Deputy Prosecutor General and gave him a flash drive, where there was a video from this search of a person stealing a tablet and a laptop: “packs it in a suitcase and leaves “. He was told to deal with the situation. On the same day, the director of the Premier Palace arrived in Sousse and promised “not to inflate anything,” but to give the laptop back, because there are important documents there. It turned out that the thief seemed to have been understood by the SBU, which had already managed to sell the laptop. After that, Sus sometimes played the video from this search to the officers and warned the investigators not to repeat this again.
But if the GPU still seemed to be trying to somehow fight against the disappearance of material evidence, it seems that they were perceived more calmly about the trade in them. Soos recalled how they once bought physical evidence from a casino.
During a break for smoking, Gutsulyak contacts me and informs me about a search at the Taras Bulba casino on Nivki. He mentions that someone is willing to pay 20 for the return of some property. He also mentions that the tables in the casino were damaged during the search. I express my opinion that it's not worth paying that much and that it's important to understand the value of things. Gutsulyak tells me to figure it out myself.
The next day, Gutsulyak informs me that the casino owners have reached an agreement with the investigator, and everything is resolved. Sus is surprised and shares a conversation with the investigator Pavlovsky, who apparently mentioned a sum of money under the table. Sus finds the situation amusing and suggests that Pavlovsky should be dismissed, but he ends up being demoted instead.
Sus confesses that they also intended to purchase the confiscated gaming equipment from the hotel and restaurant on Druzhby Narodiv Boulevard.
In mid-April 2016, someone from the SBU informs me that the casino owners are willing to pay a monthly sum to avoid interference and retrieve their belongings. There is a mention of moving someone to another location and an indication of confusion regarding the return of the property. There is also a discussion of protecting the casino owners.
Dmitry Sus asserts that a similar situation occurred in the high-profile case of the kidnapping of the former chairman of the board of Neftegazdobycha, involving the sale of case materials to the suspect Yuriy Yerinyak, also known as Moldavan, who is considered the mastermind behind the kidnapping of Seminsky.
In November 2016, Gutsulyak supposedly sold the Range Rover linked to the Erinyak case. The property of Erinyak, including the Range Rover, was confiscated, and part of the business was invested in the car. The property was later returned through the Pechersk Court, and Gutsulyak seemed pleased with the outcome.
The amounts specified in the indictment documents are not particularly interesting to me. I believe I can earn more through my own skills, such as engaging in cryptocurrency mining after being fired from the GPU. I express that I did not take any of the mentioned sums and did not use them to buy a property for myself.
According to Soos, he didn't focus on casino cases and other investigators took over since mid-February 2016 because he was involved in secret proceedings.These are the cases that the Attorney General, the Deputy and I were aware of. They include Kasko, Sakvarelidze, grant allocation, Saakashvili, Sytnik. They were secret at the time, and no one knew about my actions, not even Gutsulyak.He explained.
Former GPU official Dmitry Sus received 9 years in prison. He was a decommissioned pilot and was involved in high-profile criminal cases, with significant experience and held high positions in the prosecutor’s office.
The judge stated that Dmitry Sus was truly involved in major criminal cases, had extensive experience, and held high positions in the prosecutor’s office.
The judge asked, “How did you earn such trust from your leadership?” He replied.
“I probably gained trust due to my impeccable reputation and the way I handled cases before. Even NABU employees approached individuals to testify and sought evidence from a lawyer. This is an indicator of my credibility, even from those who spent time in pre-trial detention through me.”
The judge asked, “How does your impeccable reputation align with the disappearance of money linked to criminal cases you were responsible for?”
He answered, “When I handed the case over to Pavlovsky, I didn't want the money to go missing. We didn't have a way to file complaints or initiate cases at that time, and we resolved issues differently. I guarantee the money was there before the case was mishandled.”
The judge asked, “Mishandled it?” Sus explained.
– Sell He continued, “Your Honor, what happened?”
The judge asked, “Why did someone decide to mishandle this case?”
He responded, “Maybe Sergei Maryanovich (Pavlovsky) is from a poorer family? Perhaps he was enticed by the money. He was proud of stealing a microwave, and money astonished him because of his low salary.
The judge inquired, “Who enticed Pavlovsky from Khmelnitsky to Kyiv?”
He replied, “I enticed Pavlovsky. I know what I did, and I'm not going to deny it now.”
The judge questioned, “Why didn't you cover all the aspects? With your number of opponents or enemies, you must have known these questions would arise. Did you ever consider reviewing all the cases to anticipate potential inquiries, given your extensive experience as an investigator and professional lawyer?”
“I do not understand, with whom could I have a meeting?” With Pavlovsky, who wanted to “harm” me? There is the idea of a “decommissioned pilot” …
– They often blame “decommissioned pilots” a lot. I think you also understood that. That you need to completely clear yourself from all situations.
– At that time, I could not even imagine that they could ask me about a case that two investigators had already looked into after me … I didn't think that someone would have the audacity to frame me by putting dragonflies in my pocket … I just didn't even consider this possibility, what it could be… This is insignificant compared to what I was investigating… NABU, wherever possible, extensively investigated all my matters.
Dmitry Sus did not confess to his guilt throughout the investigation and trial. According to him, these criminal proceedings were NABU's retaliation, as his department had previously initiated investigations against NABU, particularly the head of the Bureau, Artem Sytnyk.
– I lead a peaceful life and discover that someone wants to kill me. This is the first time I've been in such a situation… Believe me, consider the social circle. I tell anyone: bring 10 thousand, 100 thousand, a million. Do you think they would not have brought 10 thousand dollars? I think they would have brought them if I said I needed them… It's different when you are accompanied by “Alfa,” due to a perceived threat, because somewhere Moldovan and I argued in a court session… And it's different when they lay out a plan for you, deliver it, and instruct you on every detail. Where's the parents’ house, where's something else… It's a little different here. Let them be thieves and criminals a hundred times. But there's also a criminal code where you can't cross, and no one ever touches family. We followed this code. In the Premier Palace, I saved Nedzelsky (ed. Andrey Nedzelsky, Nedelya is a crime boss, a thief in law). They were supposed to throw him off the roof. They took him out and saved his life. Then he also did a favor… I was in India, I was on the train, and they called me from Kyiv. We also had a case involving Morda Lvovsky (Vova Morda – Lviv crime boss). It was already communicated to Morda that we were going to arrest him and shoot him in the yard, and I gave such an order. I found out in India and called Nedzelsky, I said: “Andrey, I'm sorry about this situation. But Morda has already been informed that I must eliminate him. Let's not do it. I'll come, because you are not the first in line who wants me. Let’s sit down and resolve this.” Believe me, there was anything, but not Yakubik with money.
* *
The incident with Grandma’s AudiQ7 was recorded with Soos back in 2021, when the Constitutional Court declared Article 366-1 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional.
The court also acknowledged that the incident involving the acquisition of an unidentified model DVR was baseless. Witnesses questioned stated that Dmitry Sus went to the location of the search, but they did not see him take anything out of the premises. At the same time, the defense provided information about phone records showing that Sus was not present at that address at all that day. The search report or other documents do not mention his presence during this investigative action.
At the same time, the court clarified that this does not exclude the appropriation and use by Sus of the drive from this video recorder for recording and storing audio and video information from surveillance cameras in his office. On top of the video from the casino, the hard drive recorded events from Soos’s office.
All other accusations were found to be proven. The conclusion of the court notes that enrichment at the expense of the property confiscated during the search was a common business practice of an employee of the Prosecutor General’s Office.
In the end, Souss himself said that his colleagues seemed to behave as well. Namely, that another investigator allegedly sold the property for a fiver, and he, being the head, did not verify this fact, did not initiate an official investigation.
Based on the totality of episodes of the former GPU official sentenced to 9 years in prison with confiscation of property. For the purpose of preventive influence, he was banned from holding positions in courts, law enforcement agencies and the bar for 3 years.
Soos was not arrested in the courtroom. He remains at large until the verdict comes into force, having the opportunity to appeal the court’s decision.
Irina Saliy, translation Skeleton.Info
DOSSIER: Vladimir Didukh: bureau of criminal services of Vova Morda. PART 1
