Ukraine’s anti-corruption crackdown: How NABU and SAPO were targeted and what’s at stake

What do NABU and SAPO do?

The NABU was established after the 2014 Revolution of Dignity as an independent agency to combat corruption in the highest echelons of power. It investigates former presidents, parliamentarians, government officials, judges, prosecutors, and National Bank leadership. NABU also handles cases involving large sums of money.

The Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) was created as an autonomous unit within the Office of the Prosecutor General, working in tandem with NABU. Since 2024, it has operated as a separate public law entity. In short, NABU conducts pre-trial investigations, while SAPO oversees these investigations and represents the state in court.

Both institutions were established to fight high-level corruption in Ukraine at the insistence of international partners. Notably, SAPO’s creation in 2015 was a condition for Ukraine’s visa liberalization with the EU.

How independent are these agencies?

NABU reports to the government, which approves the anti-graft strategy, and has a Public Control Council to ensure transparency and civilian oversight. The heads of both bodies are elected by commissions that include, among others, independent international experts.

The cornerstones of NABU and SAPO’s independence are freedom from political influence (the prosecutor general cannot interfere in investigations) and exclusive jurisdiction (other agencies cannot investigate cases assigned to NABU by law).

What are the allegations against anti-corruption officials?

On July 21, 2025, news feeds were flooded with reports from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU): NABU employees were accused of grave crimes—treason, illegal trade with Russia, and corrupt acts benefiting oligarchs. Some NABU staff were charged publicly.

Among those detained was Ruslan Mahamedrasulov, head of NABU’s interregional detective units. The SBU alleges he helped his father (a Russian passport holder) sell industrial hemp to Dagestan. Mahamedrasulov’s mother, who lives in Kyiv, reportedly receives a pension from the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic” and posts pro-Russian comments on social media.

The SBU is investigating Mahamedrasulov for possible ties to Russian special services, claiming he had “close contacts” with fugitive MP Fedir Khrystenko from the banned Opposition Platform—For Life party, allegedly recruited by Russia’s FSB long ago.

According to the SBU, Khrystenko is the linchpin in a scheme suggesting Russian influence over NABU. He reportedly maintained ties with a “supervisor” in the “DPR” while knowing Mahamedrasulov from their time at Donetsk University.

Additionally, the SBU claims that in 2022, the wife of another NABU employee, Oleksandr Skomarov, head of a detective unit, crossed the border in a car belonging to Khrystenko’s wife.

In Kyiv, Viktor Husarov, an employee of NABU’s elite, secretive D-2 unit, was detained on charges of spying for Russian intelligence.

He is now in custody, with a hearing for Mahamedrasulov scheduled soon.

A coordinated attack?

Following the detention of two subordinates, NABU Director Semen Kryvonos stated he respects the SBU’s counterintelligence efforts but views the mass searches as “preparation” for what happened on July 22, 2025: the Verkhovna Rada voted to effectively dismantle NABU and SAPO’s independence.

Here’s the sequence of events. The SBU conducted over 70 searches across Ukraine, targeting Mahamedrasulov and Husarov. NABU reported that SBU agents arrived without court warrants.

Simultaneously, the SBU initiated an unscheduled inspection of NABU’s state secrecy protocols during a time when NABU and SAPO leadership were on an official foreign trip. This coincided with a routine inspection by the State Service of Special Communications, covering NABU’s technical infrastructure.

SAPO insists the SBU was legally required to provide advance notice of the inspection. They also complained that SBU agents gained access to information about all covert and operational measures and special operations conducted by NABU and SAPO.

The SBU denies this, asserting it can conduct urgent investigative actions without court warrants if there’s a risk of information leaks or interference in operations related to Russian collaboration.

Additionally, the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) reopened cases involving traffic accidents by three NABU employees from years ago.

Kryvonos demands evidence for each accusation, arguing that even if individual employees are guilty, these “cases cannot justify dismantling anti-corruption agencies.” He added that NABU has explanations for some allegations.

For instance, NABU refuted claims that its detectives helped Ukrainian businessman and Ihor Kolomoisky’s partner, Hennadiy Boholyubov, flee abroad. The SBU alleged two NABU employees accompanied Boholyubov across the border, traveling in an adjacent train compartment “for cover.” NABU clarified that its detectives were on a business trip to Vienna and had no connection to aiding Boholyubov’s escape.

Retaliation for Mindich?

On the morning of July 22, 2025, the Rada’s law enforcement committee approved amendments to a bill set for its second reading. The bill, unrelated to NABU or SAPO, addressed investigations of missing persons. Unexpectedly, amendments were added that effectively strip NABU and SAPO of their independence.

Vitaliy Shabunin, head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, published the full text of the proposed amendments. The key changes grant the prosecutor general authority to:

• Effectively control SAPO and reassign its prosecutors’ duties to others;
• Issue binding written instructions to NABU and demand case materials;
• Reassign requested cases to any prosecutors;
• Transfer investigations under NABU’s jurisdiction to other agencies.

The Verkhovna Rada passed the bill with these amendments by 263 votes, with 185 from Servant of the People, plus votes from Platform for Life and Peace, Batkivshchyna, Restoration of Ukraine, and For the Future.

NABU and SAPO interpret this as the destruction of their institutional independence.

“What was built as a demand of Euromaidan, as a demand of society, was destroyed today, including by representatives of the former Party of Regions in parliament and individuals under NABU and SAPO investigations. This creates a threat to Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations,” said NABU Director Kryvonos.

Before the vote, opposition MPs used fiery rhetoric to dissuade colleagues from supporting the initiative, calling Zelenskyy a “dictator” and comparing his rule to North Korea. They quickly pointed to Timur Mindich, co-owner of Zelenskyy’s former Kvartal 95 studio and reportedly close to the President’s Office, as the motive. MPs Oleksii Honcharenko and Yaroslav Zheleznyak claimed Mindich was slated to receive NABU charges. Kryvonos neither confirmed nor denied this, stating NABU only announces charges after they’re issued.

Meanwhile, former Deputy Defense Minister Vitaliy Deynega suggested the pressure stems from NABU and SAPO investigating state drone procurement at inflated prices, calling it “a bigger story than even building stadiums for Euro 2012.”

“Various sources indicate that a significant number of current and former high-ranking officials are involved in drones. Yet this is a sphere tied to our survival. That doesn’t stop some from skimming off the top while glancing around cautiously,” Deynega wrote.

The NABU saga has drawn international attention: G7 ambassadors expressed concern over the investigations, and parliamentarians emphasize that independent anti-graft bodies are key to Ukraine’s Western support.

“I have plenty of questions about [the anti-corruption] system. But when it becomes Zelenskyy’s personal tool, everyone will feel it. We get funds under the Ukraine Facility because we have an independent anti-corruption infrastructure. We got visa-free travel because of it,” MP Oleksii Honcharenko said from the Rada’s podium.

Parallels with Yanukovych

All eyes are now on President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was urgently sent the approved amendments for his signature. Activists are already sharing social media images of Zelenskyy alongside Viktor Yanukovych, who sought to usurp power in Ukraine.

“I long resisted comparing Zelenskyy’s rule to Yanukovych’s. I said only those who forgot what it was really like under Yanukovych would make such comparisons. But this July, orchestrated by Bankova, is pure Yanukovych vibes.

What happened in the Rada today is akin to refusing to sign the EU Association Agreement. It’s utterly incompatible with our European integration roadmap. This is blatant sabotage and another betrayal of our European partners,” wrote journalist Danylo Mokryk.

NABU and SAPO leaders urged Zelenskyy not to sign the bill, warning it would mean “the end of independent anti-corruption work.”