"I see neither efficiency nor professionalism" – Serhiy Vlasenko harshly criticized NABU and SAPO

Anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine are increasingly operating not as law enforcement officers, but as PR agents – whose main goal is a loud media buzz rather than the detection and prevention of corruption. This assessment of the work of NABU and SAPO was given by Serhiy Vlasenko, a Member of Parliament of Ukraine and Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Temporary Commission of Inquiry into possible facts of corruption or corruption-related offenses in law enforcement agencies. He also questioned the independence of NABU and SAPO. Read the UNN article to find out in whose interests, in his opinion, the anti-corruption bodies might be working.

Operation "Midas," the high-profile "NABU tapes," dozens of searches, multi-million dollar bails, and a large-scale information campaign have become one of the most resonant anti-corruption stories in Ukraine in recent years. NABU announced the exposure of a large-scale scheme in the energy sector involving businessmen, top managers of Energoatom, and former high-ranking officials.

The main figure in the case was businessman and co-owner of "Kvartal 95" Timur Mindich, who, according to the investigation, had the code name "Karlsson." The law enforcement officers themselves stated that they documented his corrupt activities for about nine months using covert investigative actions and wiretapping. However, instead of quickly stopping the scheme, the law enforcement officers seemingly allowed it to grow to the scale of a multi-million dollar corruption story, according to MP and Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada TCI Serhiy Vlasenko.

According to statements from NABU and SAPO, they wiretapped Mindich for about 9 months. Why? Well, if you established that there is a violation of the law, you listened to him. Why didn't they stop him earlier? Were they waiting for Mindich to steal 100 million? Did they need a big number? Billions, trillions... They needed a big number to show their effectiveness, to say, we uncovered a criminal group, we have 100 billion hryvnias. Or maybe they should have stopped this criminal activity? Immediately? After the first conversation? If you need to, record a second conversation, okay. And they would have stolen not 100 billion, but 2 million. And there would be no need to look for how to return those 100 billion later. They, excuse me, won't return a damn thing, these impotent NABU-ites. They won't return it,

However, the problem lies not only in the "Midas" case but also in a general trend where law enforcement officers work for the "media" instead of high-quality evidence collection and rapid termination of crimes.

I am concerned that NABU is replacing its professional work with PR, and HACC, excuse me for using such a slang word, is ready to "swallow" it all. This is what concerns me. I see neither efficiency nor professionalism in them. They work in the PR plane. 90% of their activity is directed at the media,

The MP also questioned the real independence of anti-corruption bodies. In his opinion, both the long foreign business trips of the heads of NABU detectives and information about the contacts of anti-corruption officials with representatives of foreign embassies raise questions.

Corruption must be fought, but I don't believe in independent anti-corruption bodies. Can someone explain to me why the head of the NABU detective group has been in the United States for a month? I'm not against him having an official business trip, but what is he doing there? And can we find out why our anti-corruption law enforcement agencies—and many media outlets have written about this, it's not news—why do they run to report to embassies? Can we find out, are these independent bodies?

However, the main question is whether the Ukrainian anti-corruption system is capable in principle of effectively fighting corruption, and whether NABU and SAPO have enough skills for productive work? 

After all, if detectives document possible corrupt activities for months but do not stop them immediately, the fight against corruption begins to look not like a mechanism for protecting state interests, but like a series of loud media campaigns. In such a model, the main results are press conferences, "tapes," and resonant headlines, while the issues of real recovery of funds to the state, sentences for corrupt officials, and minimization of losses fade into the background.

And if society increasingly perceives the anti-corruption system as an element of a political or information show, the consequence could be a loss of trust not only in individual bodies but in the very idea of anti-corruption reform in Ukraine.

As a reminder

Former prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office Stanislav Bronevytskyi also criticizes the activities and effectiveness of NABU and SAPO. According to him, despite high-profile public special operations, non-transparent practices, information leaks, and informal communications with outsiders persist within the anti-corruption system.

Bronevytskyi claims that part of the information about NABU and SAPO special operations regularly enters the public space even before detectives and prosecutors have time to review it. In his opinion, this is a systemic practice that turns the activities of anti-corruption bodies into an element of a media show.

The former prosecutor also stated the existence of informal contacts between representatives of anti-corruption bodies and public figures. According to him, certain representatives of NABU and SAPO participate in closed meetings, international trips, and informal discussions of "reforms" and draft laws involving outsiders and international structures.

Separately, he criticized the effectiveness of the anti-corruption system, emphasizing that a significant portion of high-profile investigations are accompanied by large-scale information campaigns for years, but much less frequently end in court sentences and the real return of funds to the state.