Prosecutors Confirm GPS Jamming in Dragalevtsi but Fail to Locate Jamming Device
In Sofia’s Dragalevtsi neighborhood, an active investigation into global positioning system interference on August 21 has revealed a stark contradiction between state operational findings and recovered physical evidence, as prosecutors confirm that signal disruption occurred but no dedicated jamming hardware has been found.
Operational Discoveries Versus Physical Evidence
State security operations launched in the late afternoon of August 21, after authorities detected active disruption of radio and satellite frequencies in the capital suburb. Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office spokesperson Alexandra Stefana outlined the timeline of the initial intervention. According to Stefana, operational teams established that signal suppression was indeed taking place in the vicinity of Dragalevtsi. By 9:00 PM that same evening, the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office formally opened a pre-trial proceeding for a criminal offense carrying a maximum prison sentence of up to five years.
Yet subsequent searches of the targeted locations yielded a surprising gap in physical evidence. While law enforcement teams from the State Agency for National Security (DANS), the police, and the Communications Regulation Commission descended upon properties near the Kelari restaurant—a venue linked in public reports to businessman Razmig Chakaryan, known as Ami—they recovered no functional electronic jamming devices. Authorities instead seized generators, cables, accumulator batteries, and mounting brackets devoid of any electronic components. According to preliminary assessments from technical experts, none of the collected items can be definitively classified as a signal jamming apparatus.
Diverging Official Claims and Legal Limitations
The prosecutor’s clarification directly addresses conflicting statements previously circulated by senior state officials. Interior Minister Ivan Demerdzhiev had asserted publicly that a powerful jamming unit was discovered inside a vehicle associated with the property owners. Rumen Radev also discussed the police raids targeting properties used by Chakaryan.
However, prosecutors drew a sharp administrative boundary between the undeniable technical proof of interference and the absence of the physical machine itself. Prosecutor Stefana explained that the legal qualification of the offense under current statutes limits investigators’ tactical options. Because the suspected crime does not cross the statutory threshold for severe offenses, authorities are legally barred from deploying specialized intelligence-gathering methods, such as intercepting specific traffic data or utilizing specialized surveillance operations. This evidentiary hurdle complicates efforts to map out how the interference was executed or whether the equipment was quietly removed before the police perimeter was established.
Next Steps in the Dragalevtsi Inquiry
The investigation now hinges on five distinct technical expertises ordered by the supervising prosecutor, alongside a comprehensive round of witness interrogations. Prosecutors confirmed that all individuals publicly linked to the case, including Razmig Chakaryan, are slated for formal questioning as the state attempts to bridge the gap between verified frequency interference and the missing hardware.
As state bodies sift through contradictory physical clues and technical logs, the inquiry serves as a stern reminder of the evidentiary hurdles facing modern technological crimes.