LUTSK, September 17 — A fraud investigation in western Ukraine has turned into a political firestorm, after a lawmaker told parliament that the call center at its center operated roughly 50 meters from the regional police headquarters and about 150 meters from the regional prosecutor’s office. MP Ihor Huz made the statement from the podium of the Verkhovna Rada on September 15.
He called for the dismissal of the head of Volyn police, Oleh Slipchuk, and the head of the regional prosecutor’s office, Maksym Rohovenko, and urged the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine to examine possible connections between officials and the activities of call centers.
Two versions of the same raid
The National Police initially reported the liquidation of a fraudulent call center that could have employed about 60 operators. According to that first version, the office could have generated around $500,000 per month. Searches turned up a significant number of phones, computer equipment, and about $30,000 in cash.
Then the wording changed. In the edited police report, “liquidated a fraudulent call center” became “prevented the operation of a fraudulent call center.” The operators were no longer described as calling potential victims but as only planning to call.
The mention of a possible monthly income of $500,000 also disappeared. The URL of the old publication remained unchanged and still contains the wording about the liquidated call center with an income of about $500,000. Rohovenko pushed back hard.
The head of the Volyn Regional Prosecutor’s Office stated that during his tenure no such call center operated in the region. “Not a single day, not a single second, not a single minute has any call center operated on the territory of Volyn,” Rohovenko said.
According to him, law enforcement officers acted preemptively and did not allow the fraudulent office to begin operations. But even in the new version of the National Police report, wording remains that looks quite different. Law enforcement officers say they are identifying individuals “involved in the operation” of the call center, and are also searching for victims “of its activities.”
Questions that still need answers
So two versions of the same story exist. The prosecutor’s office says the call center did not operate “for a single second,” while the police report still contains references to those involved in its work and possible victims. Another point that requires answers is why an office with dozens of workstations, a large amount of equipment, and a potential turnover claimed by law enforcement could operate literally a few dozen meters from the regional police department and 150 meters from the prosecutor’s office.
That is exactly what Huz drew attention to in the Verkhovna Rada. He also linked the story to the materials of the “Carthage” case and called on NABU to investigate possible connections between the exposed office, the heads of Volyn law enforcement agencies, and other figures.
The claims of “protection” are the subject of statements and investigation, not an established fact. According to information from “Vykrvavach,” the possible resignation of officials linked to the alleged protection of the exposed call center and other similar groups is now being discussed. The main mystery remains.
If the call center “not a single second” operated, why did the initial police version mention its liquidation, operators, potential income of $500,000 per month, and victims? And who will ultimately explain which version is official — the one initially published by the police, or the one that began to be voiced later after public questions to the leadership of Volyn law enforcement?
Watch for NABU’s response to Huz’s request, and for whether the calls to dismiss Slipchuk and Rohovenko translate into formal action.
