This interview with a British detective reveals the results of an independent three-month investigation into the politically charged case of Ukrainian scholar Dr. Oleg Maltsev. The detective exposes serious legal violations, corruption within the SBU’s Department of Military Counterintelligence (DVKR), and the manipulation of public trust during wartime. Presented during the 58th session of the UN Human Rights Council, the findings raise critical questions about the legitimacy of the case and hint at a broader network of orchestrators still operating in the shadows.
We have previously published several reports on the high-profile criminal case against Ukrainian scholar Dr. Oleg Maltsev. Recently, we had the opportunity to interview a British detective who returned from Ukraine after conducting a three-month independent investigation into the case.
At the end of March, during the 58th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, a report by Christine Mirre (European Coordination for Freedom of Conscience) was presented. The data in Mirre’s report points to the illegality of the criminal proceedings against Dr. Maltsev. Moreover, the report names those allegedly responsible for orchestrating the case, specifically highlighting Yevhen Voloshenyuk, an officer of the SBU’s Department of Military Counterintelligence (DVKR).
Sarah Smith: You spent more than three months in Ukraine. What are your impressions? Were you satisfied with the outcome of your work?
J.M.: Impressions? It felt like being plunged into a filthy, stinking swamp. I knew corruption was an issue in Ukraine—especially during this brutal war against Putin’s barbaric army—but I hadn’t realized just how deep it runs.
The case against Dr. Maltsev is riddled with blatant violations of Ukrainian law—by both the investigative bodies and the prosecution. We had to dig deep to identify the perpetrators.
It turns out that several officers from the SBU’s DVKR were behind the massive fraud involved in this case. During wartime, law enforcement agencies are generally afforded a presumption of trust. These DVKR officers exploited that trust to mislead prosecutors and investigators.
Greed, ignorance of the law, and a blind belief in their own impunity ultimately led them into a dead end. The money they received for this paid operation won’t restore their reputation, nor will it bring them happiness. What they’ve done is disgraceful—and they will be held accountable for it. I have no doubt about that.
Sarah Smith: As far as I know, your team included both European detectives and one Ukrainian expert. How would you evaluate your teamwork?
J.M.: I think we did an excellent job. Our communication was seamless, our understanding was mutual, and we were full of drive. Our Ukrainian colleague proved himself to be highly competent and dedicated.
I was also genuinely glad to meet real insiders—officers who spoke openly about what they knew and provided invaluable information regarding the DVKR officials involved in the case.
As a criminologist, it was particularly interesting for me to visit Ukraine during wartime. It’s an extraordinary country, full of potential and populated by incredibly strong and courageous people.
Sarah Smith: Before the interview, you mentioned that one of the DVKR officers was promoted, possibly as a result of the Maltsev case?
J.M.: I heard that one of the DVKR officers was promoted from major to lieutenant colonel specifically because of the Maltsev case. I suspect the case was presented to SBU leadership as a major success. But it’s a Pyrrhic victory at best.
The countdown has begun. I have no doubt that all DVKR officers involved in orchestrating this fabricated case will be dismissed—at the very least. Though honestly, prison would be more fitting.
Believe me, public reckoning is something Britain and France have long traditions of. In this situation, a few corrupt DVKR officials would be a small sacrifice, but one significant enough to demonstrate justice and fairness to Ukrainian society.
Sarah Smith: Were you involved in bringing the Maltsev case to the attention of the United Nations?
J.M.: I wouldn’t say it was my personal achievement, though we did forward the Detective Report to the UN through our channels. I believe it’s far too early to close the book on this case. I’m confident we’ll be returning to Ukraine soon—the clients behind this operation have not yet been officially identified. But we know for certain it was a group. We’re just waiting for the formal invitation. We’d be glad to continue—and more importantly, to conclude—this case and bring it to its rightful end.
Sarah Smith: One of your conditions for this interview was anonymity. Why is that?
J.M.: I prefer to remain anonymous in this investigation for one simple reason: I have a responsibility to protect the insiders who trusted us and with whom we conducted hours of private interviews. Releasing any personal data about me or my colleagues could expose them to danger or discredit them.
It’s a very sensitive matter, and my top priority is the safety of our sources. Above all, I must remain a professional. That’s something I learned many years ago—and something I strive to pass on to the next generation of investigators.