You're reading: SBU interrogates Medvedchuk on ‘Medvedchuk-Surkov tapes’

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has interrogated MP Viktor Medvedchuk on the facts contained in the recently published conversations between Medvedchuk and former aide to the President of Russia Vladislav Surkov, fifth President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko was summoned for interrogation on the same occasion twice, but did not come, the press service of the SBU told Interfax-Ukraine.

“On March 9, 2021, the SBU investigators interrogated citizen of Ukraine Medvedchuk V.V. The questions of the investigators concerned, among other things, the facts that appear in the so-called ‘Medvedchuk-Surkov tapes’ previously made public in the media,” the press service said. The SBU also added: “As part of the criminal proceedings related to the above tapes, Poroshenko was summoned for interrogation twice. But he did not appear for interrogation twice.”

Earlier, a source from the agency reported on the interrogation of Medvedchuk on March 9 as part of the investigation of a criminal case on treason related to the “Medvedchuk-Surkov tapes.”

“At the same time on Tuesday, the fifth president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, was summoned to the SBU investigators, but he did not arrive,” the agency’s interlocutor added.

As reported, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky on Feb. 2 put into effect the NSDC decision, which actually blocked the activities of three TV channels – 112 Ukraine, NewsOne and ZIK, which are associated with one of the leaders of the Opposition Platform – For Life party Medvedchuk.

Later, one of the internet publications published a recording of an alleged conversation between former aide to the President of Russia Surkov and Medvedchuk, who in 2014 discussed the supply of electricity to the occupied Crimea and the exchange of prisoners in Donbas.

Then the SBU press center reported: “These records are carefully studied by the investigative and operational departments of the SBU regarding the presence of signs of a criminal offense in the actions of the interlocutors.”