Ukraine has witnessed another clash between law enforcement agencies.
On Monday, the Security Service (SBU) arrested several National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) employees after conducting mass searches. At the same time, inspections by the SBU of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) may have unlawfully gained access to secret information relating to NABU’s investigative activities – an accusation the SBU denies.
Investigators from the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) additionally and unexpectedly issued suspicion notices to three NABU employees with respect to cases from years ago. These actions are viewed by some sections of Ukrainian civil society as an assault by the state’s “old” institutions on the recently constituted anti-corruption bodies.
Russian traces
Reports began to emerge early on Monday morning as the SBU reported that, together with the Prosecutor General’s Office, it had uncovered business dealings in Russia by Ruslan Mahamedrasulov, responsible for the coordination of NABU activities in two frontline regions – Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts.
According to the case materials published by the SBU, a NABU official allegedly acted as an intermediary in the sale of industrial hemp – a form of cannabis – to Russia, an operation allegedly run by his father. Mahamedrasulov’s mother actively supports Russian aggression in private conversations and on pro-Kremlin social media, according to the SBU.
In addition, the SBU said Fedir Khrystenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament and a former member of the Party of Regions who currently represents the Opposition Platform for Life and Peace and holds the record for absenteeism in parliamentary sessions, was a suspect in applying illegal influence on NABU. He is currently abroad.
According to the investigation, Khrystenko is now closely connected with some NABU leadership, including Mahamedrasulov, with whom he attended Donetsk University, and has Russian contacts. NABU criminal case materials were found during searches of contacts linked to Khrystenko. These included documents on covert surveillance of suspects and personal details of NABU detectives, which indicated Russian influence and systemic information leaks from the bureau.
The SBU carried out up to 70 searches of 15 NABU staff members, drawing criticism from the bureau as the searches coincided with the absence of the heads of both NABU and SAPO who were out of the country.
As a result of their searches, the SBU said it had detained a NABU employee suspected of being a direct agent of Russia who was working for the enemy and transmitting sensitive information to a former bodyguard of fugitive former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
The DBR charged three NABU employees for involvement in traffic accidents in 2021 and 2023.
In response to the incidents, NABU’s press service said: “The searches cover at least 15 NABU employees. According to available information, investigative actions are being conducted without court orders. The main reasons cited are traffic accidents involving specific individuals.”
“However, some employees are being accused of possible ties to the aggressor country. These facts are not interrelated. In parallel, an unscheduled inspection of the state secret protection regime was initiated by the SBU. It concerns NABU employees who have access to state secrets and conduct covert investigative actions. As a result of this inspection, the SBU may receive information about current and planned NABU and SAPO operational and investigative activities. Disclosure of this information may derail ongoing investigations.”
Later, the SBU rejected allegations that it had accessed any of NABU’s classified information.
What’s the problem with all of this?
Accusations claiming individual officials of working for Russia are serious if substantiated – yet only one of them has been charged with treason.
Mass searches of 15 NABU employees could be justified by such cases. However, the fact that they coincided with a classified information inspection at SAPO and with the issuance of suspicions in old cases – in which it is claimed the suspects had cooperated with investigators and had not evaded justice – led many activists and the media to conclude that these “old school” law enforcement agencies were attacking NABU to gain control over or dismantle Ukraine’s only independent anti-corruption body.
These suspicions are particularly relevant since NABU recently launched criminal investigations against several high-ranking officials, the latest being Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov – reportedly the husband of the president’s goddaughter, according to journalist Yuriy Nikolov – and was also preparing a case against Justice Minister Olha Stefanishyna. Both Chernyshov and Stefanishyna lost their posts following President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government reshuffle earlier this month.
Many media and civil society representatives see the actions of the SBU and DBR – viewed to be part of the presidential power vertical – as revenge against NABU for prosecuting top officials. The relationship was uneasy from the start: it faced pressure from the Prosecutor General’s Office, which raided its headquarters and even detained NABU officers – who were later released after a scandal.
Pro-government Telegram channels and bloggers frequently accuse NABU of being “ineffective” – claiming they have jailed few corrupt officials or returned little in the way of stolen money to the state. NABU supporters, however, argue that anti-corruption cases are complex, with months of investigation and years-long court proceedings, and that suspects often exploit legal loopholes and receive bail.
Many of those accused by NABU enjoy strong political backing. For instance, former Deputy Prime Minister Chernyshov brought a letter to his bail hearing from the then-Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal asking not to arrest him, claiming his presence was vital to the government’s work.
The fire was further fueled by the contest for the head of the Economic Security Bureau (BEB). NABU detective Oleksandr Tsyvinsky won, but the government simply refused to appoint him – even though the selection commission had unanimously decided not to restart the contest and pushed to confirm its result.
Now civil society views the power vertical’s law enforcement activity as an attempt to limit the independence of anti-corruption officials.
“Each loud statement about ‘sensational raids’ I meet with cautious but rational skepticism... Unfortunately, law enforcement today is not about justice. It’s about political expediency. The inconvenience NABU causes the authorities has already led to ‘reforms’ being rolled back amid applause,” said Anastasia Shuba, a member of the anti-corruption council at the Ministry of Defense.
She added: “So I view these raids critically. Especially when carried out without court orders. Yes, if it is proven that a NABU employee committed a crime, there should be accountability. No position gives immunity. But the campaign to discredit NABU has been ongoing for months. And now it’s escalated.”
According to anti-corruption activist and investigator Martyna Bohuslavets, what’s happening is a “power grab” over NABU and SAPO.
“What happened today is all about ensuring that certain friends of Zelensky don’t end up behind bars. Because NABU and SAPO are getting close to them. Just imagine – the President’s Office, through the SBU, gained access to 658 NABU criminal cases today. Under the pretext of exposing 1 or 2 detectives, traffic accidents, and hemp – which itself requires more clarification – Bankova [the President’s Office] orchestrated a show with 70 raids without court orders. The President’s Office essentially now has access to all wiretaps, surveillance, and secret operations involving their friends, relatives, and business partners,” Bohuslavets stated.
According to her, activists are already discussing what happened with international partners.
Ukraine’s political opposition also criticized law enforcement actions, emphasizing that people with Russian ties in government aren’t being targeted as actively as those in independent institutions.
“People with questionable ties have unfortunately been present in all state bodies for decades. But it has become particularly glaring in recent years. Now, in Parliament, ‘Servant of the People’ have de facto formed a coalition with traitors, despite the presence of shady figures in their own ranks. Yet we never see raids on their offices. Instead, we see attacks on whistleblowers – journalists, activists – and now NABU itself, which still responds to crimes and is independent. Not to mention the SAPO raids and access to NABU’s special operations!” former Deputy Prime Minister and Petro Poroshenko’s party member Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze wrote.
Her colleague Oleksiy Honcharenko, writing on Facebook, pointed out that the charges against NABU staff appeared only after the charges were laid against Chernyshov.
“Could NABU staff have collaborated with Russia? Possibly. But the SBU’s interest in NABU only emerged after the Chernyshov case. Remember when the former Unity Minister didn’t want to return to Ukraine? At that time, the President’s Office pressured NABU to withdraw the suspicion. But they proceeded anyway. And now, in response – charges against NABU staff. Zelensky has long been trying to destroy NABU’s independence. And now he’s very close.”
Many questioned the SBU’s statements about Mahamedrasulov’s parents and the suspected Russian agent in NABU, especially since the SBU is supposed to vet law enforcement candidates before appointment.
However, there were some alternative versions. Blogger Volodymyr Bondarenko noted that Khrystenko, accused by the SBU of working for Russia and influencing NABU, is connected to NABU detective team leader Oleksandr Skomarov.
“The Skomarov family was taken abroad at the beginning of the war by Khrystenko’s personal driver and assistant in his Land Rover. Khrystenko also left at that time and never returned to Ukraine. Considering his property in Moscow, he’s likely there or in the occupied Donbas,” the blogger said. He added that Skomarov led the Chernyshov case and was the main competitor of Oleksandr Tsyvinsky in the contest for EEB chief; an example, in his opinion, an example of internal infighting.
The SBU denies any political motivation and insists that everything is being done legally. It also denies accessing NABU and SAPO’s secret information or conducting unauthorized covert actions.
However, the tone in the SBU’s official statements was noticeably hostile. For example, when SAPO warned about SBU possibly gaining access to investigative secrets, the response was:
“Statements about possible disclosure by SBU representatives of covert investigative activities conducted by NABU and SAPO are unfounded and manipulative.”
What next?
Several scenarios are possible. Kyiv Post sources in law enforcement say that NABU and SAPO have enough resources to respond, and that the SBU may not have actually accessed covert operation data. If so, a fragile equilibrium could be restored between the agencies.
However, others fear that the government may intensify pressure on anti-corruption institutions, a threat against their independence.
Activist Vitaliy Shabunin, who himself is facing a questionable criminal case after exposing major corruption among authorities, believes the attack on NABU and SAPO is part of growing authoritarianism – for which he blames Zelensky – and that attacks on the independent media will follow.
Meanwhile, investment banker Serhiy Fursa says this is an attempt to cover up the refusal to appoint Oleksandr Tsyvinsky as head of the BEB – staged precisely when needed.
“50% probability that this is a covert operation to derail the BEB appointment. Because there’s a letter about the Russian threat posed by the winner who is from NABU which ‘has a whole network of Russian agents.’ So it’s correct not to let a NABU detective head the BEB… Of course, some NABU detectives may be corrupt. They may even be selling hemp to the enemy. Terrible. But did we just find out about this now? Is there really a network? Or were the kompromat folders opened to meet a political demand?” Fursa said.