NABU is systematically ill: corruption and raiding by detectives cast doubt on the expediency of its existence

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, established as a symbol of cleansing the state system from corruption, is increasingly mentioned not in reports on exposing top corrupt officials (ministers, deputies, or heads of state bodies), but in scandals related to pressure on business, manipulation of criminal proceedings, outright corrupt abuses, and attempts at raiding. One of the most illustrative examples was the case of businessman Oleksiy Fedorychev, owner of two largest terminals in the Pivdennyi port, whom detectives have been pursuing for over 10 years, writes UNN.

Fedorychev's case – an investigation by order?

In fact, for 10 years, detectives have failed to serve a notice of suspicion to the owner of the TIS-Zerno and TIS-Mindobryva terminals or to choose a pre-trial restraint for him, as they could not gather any convincing evidence.

That is why regular attempts to seize property, although they end in failure every time, it is NABU's investigative actions that have caused the blocking of the activities of enterprises that provide jobs for Ukrainians, pay taxes to the budget, and participate in ensuring food security.

Experts interviewed by UNN indicate that such a long duration of the investigation may indicate that the case against Fedorychev is custom-made and detectives may have a financial interest in it.

A clear indication that this criminal proceeding is a business dispute involving law enforcement anti-corruption officers is the decision of the court of the Principality of Monaco, where the businessman has long resided. Monaco judges refused to serve a notice of suspicion to Oleksiy Fedorychev, stating that his case is a commercial dispute, not a criminal one.

"...the information contained in the requests does not allow to determine the nature of the case as criminal, which enables the competent authorities of the Principality of Monaco to conclude: the essence of the case largely concerns facts that underlie a dispute of a purely economic nature," the decision stated.

Similar opinions were held by the judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court, who saw no grounds for seizing property or choosing a pre-trial restraint for Fedorychev. Moreover, they even refused to extend the terms of the pre-trial investigation after they expired.

However, the ingenuity of NABU detectives is striking. Instead of accepting defeat and admitting that the case was custom-made, they formally transferred it for investigation to the National Police. Upon joining the investigative group, the first thing NABU officers did was to force their colleagues in the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv to push through a decision to extend the investigation period for another year.

Having not received what they wanted in the HACC regarding investigative actions, detectives are now trying to obtain the necessary decisions in the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv. Thus, everything indicates that NABU is overly interested in the terminals in the Pivdennyi port. And lawyers emphasize that the case has all the signs of a raider intervention in business, carried out under the guise of fighting corruption among top officials.

Corruption within the anti-corruption body

Corruption scandals within NABU itself only confirm the words of experts. One of the recent cases is the suspicion of treason against detective Ruslan Magamedrasulov, who, together with his father, a Russian citizen, according to the investigation, was involved in cannabis trafficking with Dagestan.

In addition, he is suspected of abuse of influence for illegal tax manipulations of Ukrainian enterprises totaling 30 million hryvnias, for which he was to receive 900 thousand hryvnias. The NABU detective was supposed to influence the bodies of the State Tax Service of Ukraine to make illegal decisions regarding the exclusion of about ten companies from the list of risky ones. This is clear evidence of corruption in NABU.

Another egregious case is a criminal proceeding that gave a career boost to a NABU detective in "Ukrzaliznytsia." This refers to former detective Taras Likunov, who investigated a case concerning "Ukrzaliznytsia," and then took a position in this company after the dismissal of the person involved in the criminal proceeding. That is, in this way, the detective actually "freed up" a place for himself, which, according to experts, is a direct violation of the law "On Preventing Corruption" and a conflict of interest.

It is impossible not to mention another high-profile case in this context. Former First Deputy Director of NABU Gizo Uglava is suspected of disclosing pre-trial investigation data. After leaving the Anti-Corruption Bureau, he complained about the bias and partiality of NABU detectives, and stated that the conclusions in the case against him regarding information leaks from the bureau had long been made "without trial and investigation."

In addition, Uglava filed a statement with the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption regarding the possible violation of anti-corruption legislation by the head of the bureau, Semen Kryvonos, and became a whistleblower. According to him, NAPC has started monitoring and control regarding the possible violation of anti-corruption legislation by the NABU director.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Everyone has already forgotten that former NABU director Artem Sytnyk was on the register of corrupt officials, and detectives are constantly clashing with other law enforcement agencies and even fought with the police.

Experts interviewed by UNN point to the selectivity of the Anti-Corruption Bureau's detectives, as well as their inefficiency. In particular, over 10 years of the body's existence, there has been a minimal number of top officials brought to justice for corruption. In fact, for every detective, there is one conviction that has entered into force.

They also note that NABU detectives often investigate criminal cases for years that should have been completed in the shortest possible time.

Audit and control. How to increase NABU's effectiveness

"NABU has unprecedented independence, compared to other law enforcement agencies, and therefore they are obliged to justify the trust of the people and prove it with their effective work," believes Volodymyr Vatras, head of the subcommittee on the organization and activities of the bar, legal aid bodies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Committee on Legal Policy.

Deputies interviewed by UNN believe that the issue of conducting an independent external audit of NABU, as well as a qualification assessment of detectives, has long been overdue.

"The whole problem is that we have created a monopoly on the fight against corruption, but this monopoly is so independent that the state of Ukraine has absolutely no influence on it. Neither on its effectiveness, nor on anything else. And the state of Ukraine itself is actually forbidden to fight corruption. And the state of Ukraine is not actually responsible for the state of corruption that exists today in our state," noted Anatoliy Burmich, a member of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy.

The MP is convinced: if NABU's monopoly on the fight against corruption is not eliminated, the level of corruption in Ukraine will not decrease. According to Burmich, other law enforcement agencies, including the police and the SBU, should also be involved in the fight against corruption. This will ensure a competitive process between law enforcement officers and increase their effectiveness.

After all, according to lawyers, today the body that is called to expose corruption in the highest echelons of power has descended to pressure on business, raiding, and opening criminal proceedings by order.

This situation was caused by NABU's lack of control, believes political technologist Oleh Pasternak.

"Any law enforcement type institution must be under certain procedural control. Therefore, excuse me, when there was an idea to subordinate NABU to the Prosecutor General's Office and to polish some accountability issues, to normalize them in accordance with European practice, a huge outcry arose in Ukraine, a campaign to protect NABU and criticize the authorities for this decision. But its idea, its grounds for this were absolutely reasonable. Now we will simply be sorting things out, when the attention of society, international players, and the authorities is drawn to other law enforcement officers, to NABU's activities, and it turns out that there are huge, large-scale violations, there are questions about the activities of these bodies, etc.," he noted.

Proceedings like the case against Fedorychev are not isolated incidents, but a systemic problem. NABU detectives often initiate high-profile cases without proper evidence, drag out investigations to create an "information background" or pressure the defendants, and ultimately courts close criminal cases due to lack of evidence.

Obviously, such "anti-corruption shows" have real consequences - businesses lose the ability to operate normally, investment confidence falls, defendants in fabricated cases lose their reputation, and the state ceases to be a reliable partner in the international arena.

Liquidation of the Polish anti-corruption bureau - a signal for Ukraine

The Polish government decided to liquidate the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA) from May 1, 2026, due to loss of trust, politicization, and inefficiency of this body. Its functions will be transferred to other law enforcement agencies. Justice Minister Adam Bodnar explained that the CBA, created as a symbol of "zero tolerance" for bribery, itself became part of the political system it was supposed to control and fight corruption.

The situation with the Polish anti-corruption body may be a signal for Ukraine, where NABU is increasingly involved in scandals, and international partners increasingly remind the authorities that the level of corruption in Ukraine remains high.

According to a survey by the Razumkov Center from March 26, 2025, distrust of NABU, SAPO, and HACC reached approximately 62-73% for these institutions. This means that the standard of "anti-corruption symbol," which NABU is often presented as, no longer works as it used to.

Given that Ukrainian anti-corruption bodies have almost completely lost public trust and there are serious questions about their effectiveness, they may repeat the fate of the Polish anti-corruption bureau.

The Polish experience demonstrates: when the "fight against corruption" turns into a struggle between the anti-corruption officers themselves, and law enforcement officers called to fight corruption become part of it - the system is doomed. For the Ukrainian authorities, this is a signal to act - to conduct an external audit of NABU's work, strengthen control, restore transparency and justice, and restore trust in the body.

One of the first steps towards restoring trust could be a revision of NABU's criminal cases for signs of custom-made orders, pressure on business, and the involvement of detectives in attempted raiding.