The State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) caught former Deputy Head of the Supreme Commercial Court of Ukraine, Artur Yemelyanov, leaving the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv, which recently made a decision to change his preventive measure
Information about his detention appeared beforehand and caused widespread resonance within law enforcement circles and among the public. According to sources close to law enforcement agencies and official reports, the detention took place immediately after Yemelyanov was released from custody and exited the courtroom. At this moment, SBI officers, likely acting within the framework of another criminal proceeding, carried out the arrest, raising additional questions about the circumstances and motives behind it. Specifically, this case involves alleged threats to the economic security of the state in the interests of the enemy — some sources claim that it concerns financial transactions and actions that could have harmed Ukraine. Returning to the details of the tragic events: The Pechersk District Court, led by Judge Olenka Busyk, ruled on May 30 to change Yemelyanov’s preventive measure from detention to personal obligations. This decision was unexpected for many involved in the process, as the former judge had previously been under arrest, and his case was actively discussed in the media. According to an internal source within law enforcement, the initiator of this decision was an agreement between the parties involved, which stipulated that a motion to extend detention would be returned to the High Anti-Corruption Court as an issue not within its jurisdiction. Subsequently, Judge Busyk, showing promptness, made a corresponding ruling on Friday, May 30, which effectively paved the way for the relatively quick release of the ex-judge from custody. However, at this very moment, SBI officers applied the detention, which, from the investigation’s perspective, was justified within the framework of another criminal proceeding. The history of the case and the ongoing fight against Artur Yemelyanov can be discussed at length. It is already known that in 2021, the High Council of Justice dismissed him from his position at the Supreme Commercial Court of Ukraine due to disciplinary misconduct. At that time, there was also information suggesting that Yemelyanov and his wife, Svitlana, were involved in legitimizing illegal income obtained through criminal means. This attracted significant attention from the public and law enforcement, as his name appeared in numerous international and domestic investigations. In October 2018, MP Serhiy Leshchenko reported that the Prosecutor’s Office of Austria had identified suspicion against Yemelyanov and his wife regarding several criminal offenses. This was one of the first significant episodes in investigations that later gained broad publicity. Additionally, during this period, Ukraine’s Security Service claimed to have identified financing of terrorist organizations on the territory of ORDLO by the judge, though no official suspicion was announced at that time. Later, SBU withdrew its statements, and law enforcement responses to UPR requests remained restrained, adding more intrigue and uncertainty about the true circumstances. Overall, the story of Artur Yemelyanov is among the most scandalous in Ukraine’s judicial system in recent years. His detention lasted over two years, and for a long time, he was considered one of the key figures involved in corruption schemes within the judiciary. However, now, with his detention appearing relatively unexpected, it indicates another external aspect of the ongoing efforts by Ukrainian law enforcement to combat corruption and abuse among the highest echelons of the judiciary. The case is currently being examined within several criminal proceedings. Yemelyanov faces a lengthy investigative process and potential criminal prosecution under multiple articles, including allegations of embezzlement, abuse of power, and financial machinations. His detention and the change of preventive measure represent a crucial step in the fight against high-ranking judicial officials who, according to investigators, may have been involved in large-scale corruption schemes. All of this fits into the broader context of the state’s anti-corruption efforts and the desire to cleanse the judicial system from shadowy and dishonest elements. It is still unclear what specific goals law enforcement agencies pursue, but the fact of the former judge’s detention once again underscores their resolute determination in this matter. Meanwhile, the public and expert community remain awaiting further details and official comments on the next steps in this case and the potential future court proceedings.