OGP Eliminated the Post Held by 'Cartage' Case Figure Sergey Kropyva: What Is Known About the Structural Changes in the Prosecutor's Office

The Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine has carried out structural changes, under which the position of Deputy Head of the Department of International Cooperation was eliminated. This was the post held by Sergey Kropyva — a figure in the high-profile 'Cartage' case, which involved the unmasking of a criminal organization that had been "protecting" a network of fraudulent call centers. The Office of the Prosecutor General announced this in a comment to RBC-Ukraine, emphasizing that the reorganization of the department was carried out by an order of the acting Prosecutor General.

Structural Reorganization and Disciplinary Proceedings

According to the Office of the Prosecutor General, the elimination of the post is not an isolated personnel decision but fits into a broader context of disciplinary proceedings. The agency noted that a complaint regarding Kropyva's actions is under review by the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors. It is this commission that must decide on the application of a disciplinary sanction, the possible consequences of which include Kropyva's dismissal from the prosecutor's office. Thus, even if the formal post has been abolished, the question of the official's own status remains open until the commission issues its decision.

Chronology of the 'Cartage' Case: From Unmasking to Appeal

As a reminder, on September 4 the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) announced the unmasking of a criminal organization directly within the Office of the Prosecutor General. According to the investigation, a group of individuals inside the agency had been providing a "cover" for a network of fraudulent call centers. On the same day, Sergey Kropyva, Deputy Head of the Department of International Cooperation of the OPG, was detained. On September 6, the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) selected a preventive measure in the form of detention, with the possibility of posting bail in the amount of 120 million hryvnias. On September 16, the Appellate Chamber of the HACC rejected the defense's appeal, and Kropyva remains in custody with the alternative of posting bail in the previously determined amount.

Wave of Personnel Losses in the Prosecutor's Office

The scandal surrounding the 'Cartage' case was not limited to Kropyva alone. Against the backdrop of the unmasking, three more prosecutors lost their positions: First Deputy Prosecutor General Maryia Vdovychenko, as well as two officials of the Cherkasy Regional Prosecutor's Office. The totality of these personnel decisions indicates that the leadership of the Office of the Prosecutor General is carrying out a large-scale purge within the agency, attempting to distance itself from the unmasked criminal structure and demonstrate to the public its resolve to fight it.

Contradictory Data

At the same time, the information space contains a contradictory assessment of the situation. A number of publications, in particular inforesist.org, published materials with headlines indicating that Kropyva "still remains in his post at the OPG" against the backdrop of the 'Cartage' operation. This may be explained by a time lag between the actual detention of the official and the formal processing of his removal or the elimination of the position. Meanwhile, RBC-Ukraine, Censor.net and Parlament.ua unanimously confirm that the position of Deputy Head of the Department of International Cooperation was eliminated by an order of the acting Prosecutor General. The discrepancy in versions is likely due to the fact that some sources recorded the situation at the stage of the detention, while others — after the structural decision had been made. The exact date on which the reorganization order took effect is not disclosed in open sources.

Context and Prospects

The elimination of the post held by a figure in a criminal case is a standard tool that allows an agency to avoid directly dismissing a specific individual until the disciplinary or criminal process is completed. In Kropyva's case, this decision has a dual character: on the one hand, it formally relieves him of his official duties; on the other, it does not rule out the possibility that, following the review of the case by the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission, he will be dismissed from the prosecutor's office on disciplinary grounds. For the Office of the Prosecutor General, which is going through one of the most high-profile scandals in recent years, such steps are an attempt to restore trust in the institution of the prosecutor's office and to show that intra-agency corruption is pursued without exception.