Kyiv is facing one of its biggest domestic political challenges since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Following the unprecedented “Midas” operation, Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies have accused senior officials in the energy sector of running a large-scale illegal enrichment and money-laundering scheme. The investigation may also implicate Tymur Mindich, a close associate of President Volodymyr Zelensky and co-owner of the comedy studio Kvartal 95. The case marks another attempt by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) to defend its independence and restore international support. Since Donald Trump took office, the United States has lost interest in Ukraine’s anti-corruption efforts, leaving the European Union to take the lead.
In November, NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) announced that they had uncovered a large-scale, high-level embezzlement scheme in the country’s energy sector. According to the investigators, it was orchestrated by business executive Timur Mindich, a longtime friend of Zelensky and co-owner of Kvartal 95, the production company Zelensky founded with two other associates in 2003.
Anti-corruption officials allege that Mindich’s trusted associates received illicit payments from counterparties engaged in transactions with Energoatom, Ukraine’s largest producer of electricity and the operator of all functioning nuclear power plants in the country. SAPO believes they siphoned off 10–15% of contract values and funneled the money through an underground financial center allegedly set up by financier Oleksandr Tsukerman, an associate of Mindich’s. Investigators say roughly $100 million passed through this channel. The scheme traces back to the 2000s and is linked to former lawmaker Andriy Derkach, who fled to Russia in 2022.
Mindich’s trusted associates siphoned off 10–15% of contract values and funneled the money through an underground financial center
The NABU operation, known as “Midas,” is likely the most high-profile investigation it has pursued since being founded in the wake of Ukraine’s 2014 Revolution of Dignity. The probe lasted 15 months and involved surveillance and covert meetings with members of the network. The scandal that followed after NABU’s findings became public triggered widespread criticism of the Zelensky government and led to the resignations of Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko and Energy Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk. Amid the political fallout, several lawmakers — including members of the ruling party — called for the dismissal of presidential chief of staff Andriy Yermak. Credible allegations suggest that Yermak participated in the corruption scheme, taking part under the code name “Ali Baba.” On Nov. 28, Zelensky announced that he had accepted Yermak’s resignation.
NABU Director Semen Kryvonos accused other law enforcement agencies of knowing about corruption in the energy sector but failing to act. “I can tell you with full authority that every law enforcement body currently operating in Ukraine had some information about this mess that was going on, and not one of them did anything about it,” he said.
Moreover, law enforcement bodies controlled by the Office of the President may have monitored NABU employees in order to gather information about potential risks in cases involving people close to the president. That suspicion stems from the fact that one of the defendants in the Energoatom case was found in a safe house with information about Kryvonos and other NABU staff, including Chief Detective Directorate head Oleksandr Abakumov, who oversaw the “Midas” operation. In addition, after Ukraine’s anti-corruption organs caught the Zelensky-aligned head of the country’s Supreme Court taking a multi-million dollar bribe in 2023, the prosecutor working the case was demoted. That investigation appeared to have come as a surprise to the leadership of NABU and SAP, who took steps afterwards to shield the president from the potential fallout.
Kryvonos also said the suspects used the Safe City system — a municipal video-monitoring program designed to detect violations and trigger automatic responses — to illegally track the movements of NABU service vehicles. “I think we will establish exactly who monitored and tracked our vehicles. According to our information, this group — and this will still be verified by investigators — used the support or services of certain representatives of law enforcement agencies,” he said. In addition, according to reporting by Ukrainska Pravda, NABU and SAPO began receiving threats of “retaliation” immediately after searches at Mindich’s properties on Nov. 10.
NABU and SAPO began receiving threats of “retaliation” immediately after searches at Mindich’s properties
Zelensky responded with general statements, saying he supported the NABU and SAPO investigation without naming any individuals. “In the energy sector, in every sector, everyone who built these schemes must receive a clear procedural response. There must be verdicts, and officials must work with NABU and law enforcement agencies as required to achieve results,” he said. Zelensky acknowledged that efforts to eradicate corruption from Ukraine have been insufficient, and he announced a “reset” of major state-owned energy enterprises.
Ukraine has launched a comprehensive audit of its largest state-owned companies, including in the energy and defense sectors. The review covers Naftogaz, Ukroboronprom, Ukrzaliznytsia, and Ukrhydroenergo. Zelensky said the results will be shared with key international partners.
For now, NABU has held off on releasing new information about the “Midas” operation, citing issues “related to martial law.” At the same time, sources say the charges against Mindich may form part of a larger criminal case. According to The Economist, anti-corruption agencies now plan to shift their focus to the defense sector — one of the country’s largest and most opaque. Prosecutors have already suggested that Zelensky’s former business partner may have influenced National Security and Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov, who previously served as defense minister.
Ukraine’s adversaries have used the corruption scandal as a justification for reducing aid. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, known for his pro-Kremlin stance, said Brussels “must stop sending the money of the European people to Ukraine!” Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, who has ties to the Russian FSB’s Fifth Service, similarly argued that additional assistance to Kyiv would not help end the war. “I would not want the money of Italian workers and pensioners to be used to fuel further corruption,” Salvini said.
Overall, however, the Ukrainian anti-corruption operation generated a wave of support across Europe. The European Commission said the sweeping NABU and SAPO investigation shows that Ukraine’s are functioning. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas called the scandal “extremely unfortunate” but nonetheless backed Ukraine. “They are acting very forcefully. There is no room for corruption, especially now. I mean, it is literally the people's money that should go to the front lines. I think what is very important [is] that they really proceed with this very fast and take it very seriously,” she said.
Ambassadors from the G7 nations welcomed Zelensky’s willingness to support an independent NABU investigation into possible corruption in the energy sector, calling it essential for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Berlin would insist on a thorough investigation in Kyiv but would not scale back its support.
Ukraine currently has four anti-corruption bodies: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), and the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). All were created between 2014 and 2019 after the Revolution of Dignity. After former president Viktor Yanukovych fled the country, Ukraine’s international partners insisted that the administration of new president Petro Poroshenko take on corruption, making the demand a key condition for Ukraine’s visa liberalization agreement with the EU.
NABU and SAPO were created with strong support from the United States and the European Union, which provided Ukraine with financial and technical aid to launch them. Western experts trained detectives, and international partners continue to provide tens of millions of hryvnias in technical assistance each year. By October 2025, NABU had received more than 39 million hryvnias (just under $1 million) from the United States and EU countries.
NABU was to serve as an independent investigative body for high-level corruption cases. SAPO would act as the prosecutorial authority. NACP became responsible for prevention and oversight. And the HACC was created to adjudicate such cases. To ensure transparency and civilian oversight, a Public Control Council was established at NABU. All NABU employees except for the deputy directors are officially appointed through open competitions, even if questions have been raised about the transparency of these processes.
NABU conducts only pretrial investigations. It sends its case files to SAPO, which now operates as a separate branch of the Prosecutor General’s Office. However, until March 2024, the head of SAPO reported directly to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, meaning SAPO’s leadership was accountable to him in its work.
Only after the European Commission and IMF demanded greater independence for SAPO — threatening the curtailment of financial assistance — did the Verkhovna Rada pass a law granting SAPO’s chief the status of deputy prosecutor general while allowing the office to function with more autonomy.
Cases then go to the HACC. The court operates separately from the broader judicial system, and its judges are selected through a competitive process involving international experts. Still, when it comes to preventing corruption, responsibility lies primarily with NACP. That agency monitors asset declarations of public officials, compares them to their lifestyles, and conducts anti-corruption reviews of government decisions. Until 2019, the agency operated as a collegial body with multiple members making decisions jointly. That model was later abolished due to inefficiency and persistent deadlock.
From the moment NABU and SAPO were created, authorities in Kyiv repeatedly tried to limit their influence and weaken their independence. In 2016, then-President Petro Poroshenko and members of his party introduced a bill that would have given the Prosecutor General full control over the sitting head of SAPO and over the future appointment process.
After negative reactions from the United States and the EU, the bill was withdrawn from parliament and never returned. It is worth noting that several associates of Poroshenko, as well as entities personally linked to him, figured in early investigations by the newly established anti-corruption bodies.
From the moment NABU and SAPO were created, authorities in Kyiv repeatedly tried to limit their influence and weaken their independence
With Donald Trump’s return to power in the United States, the pressure that had pushed Ukrainian authorities to maintain the independence of NABU and SAPO eased. In the summer of 2025, the Verkhovna Rada moved to curb the anti-corruption organs’ powers and transfer greater control to the prosecutor general. Zelensky ultimately signed the bill, triggering large-scale protests under the slogan “Hands off NABU.” Demonstrations took place in Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, Dnipro, and even Sumy, despite ongoing shelling.
“Europeans must take the lead now. They are Ukraine’s main donors and can ensure anti-corruption commitments are upheld,” Klymenko said at the time.
At that moment, the agencies were investigating allegations involving 31 sitting lawmakers and 40 former members of parliament, including several from Zelensky’s ruling “Servant of the People” party. NABU and SAPO had also brought corruption charges against two former deputy prime ministers, a deputy chief of the presidential office, and the head of the Supreme Court.
The formal justification for passing the law that would have weakened NABU and SAPO’s independence was the need to “cleanse” anti-corruption agencies of alleged Russian influence. A day before lawmakers voted on the bill, NABU staff were subjected to 70 searches. Several detectives were detained and accused, among other things, of working for Russia.
Among those detained was Ruslan Mahamedrasulov, head of one of NABU’s regional investigative departments, who was later revealed to have overseen Operation Midas. According to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Prosecutor General’s Office, Mahamedrasulov maintained contacts with Russia and allegedly negotiated with Russian representatives to sell industrial hemp.
On July 21, ambassadors to Kyiv from the G7 countries issued a joint statement expressing “serious concerns” over the reduced independence of the anti-corruption agencies. European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos harshly criticized the Ukrainian government during closed-door talks with Deputy Prime Minister Taras Kachka, calling the dismantling of anti-corruption institutions a “red line” for the EU and warning that it would have serious consequences for Ukraine’s accession talks.
The European Union also suspended all payments to Ukraine, according to the outlet Ekonomichna Pravda, which cited four sources in the Ukrainian government, diplomatic circles, and parliament. The freeze affected the EU’s share of the ERA Loans program — up to $20 billion Kyiv expected to receive by the end of 2025. Loans from the EBRD and EIB were also put on hold.
Under this pressure, Zelensky signed a new law restoring a number of autonomy guarantees for the anti-corruption agencies and removing the most problematic provisions. But several elements of the legislation still worry observers. The law requires NABU staff to undergo polygraph tests every two years to determine whether they have “acted in favor of the aggressor state,” although the reliability of such tests is widely questioned. In addition, detectives will be vetted by the SBU, but the mechanism for those checks is not defined, raising concerns about unpredictable implementation.
Reversing the July laws did not fully resolve the problem, and “excessive pressure on anti-corruption bodies remains a matter of concern,” according to the European Commission’s annual enlargement report. Still, European officials were encouraged by how quickly NABU and SAPO regained their independence following strong reactions from international actors and Ukrainian civil society.
The repeal of the July laws did not resolve the problem and did not stop the pressure on the anti-corruption agencies
NABU itself says Operation Midas would not have been possible without the public protests in July against limiting the agencies’ powers, and the operation may have helped shift public attitudes, as many saw that anti-corruption agencies were capable of pursuing major investigations. NABU officials believe the government is unlikely to significantly obstruct the bureau’s work as long as it feels pressure from Western partners and public support for anti-corruption efforts.