The SSU, together with the Prosecutor General’s Office and the SBI, has collected new evidence of anti-Ukrainian activities of MP Nestor Shufrych, who is already suspected of high treason.

According to the investigation, Shufrych set up a scheme to finance russian occupation troops in the temporarily occupied Crimea.

The Ukrainian MP paid money to the russian guard for paramilitary protection of his luxury real estate on the peninsula. In just 3 months of 2016, a company under his control paid the occupiers over half a million russian rubles for these services.

The property is an unfinished health resort with a total area of over 4,500 square metres, located by the sea in Simeiz.

The 1.5 hectare plot is part of a recreational area and borders Medvedchuk’s dacha.

The property was purchased from companies beneficially owned by Oksana Marchenko, Medvedchuk’s wife.

The agreement was signed by a company where Shufrych’s personal lawyer is the executive director.

Subsequently, the suspects concluded a contract with the national guard of russia for the protection of the site in Crimea, under which hundreds of thousands of russian rubles were transferred to the occupiers’ accounts every month.

In addition, the Shufrych-controlled company regularly financed russia’s budget by paying taxes and fees.

During the searches of the company offices and the suspects’ homes in Kyiv, the SSU found documents, seals and other material evidence of the crime.

SSU and SBI investigators served Nestor Shufrych and his lawyer notices of suspicion under Article 110-2.3 of the CCU (financing actions committed with the purpose of forceful change or overthrow of constitutional order or seizure of state power, change of boundaries of the territory or state border of Ukraine).

The investigation is ongoing to establish all the circumstances of the crimes and bring the involved to justice.

According to Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine, a person is presumed innocent of a crime and may not be subjected to criminal punishment until their guilt is proven in line with the procedure defined by law and established by a relevant court’s verdict.