At the time of the mass searches, you and the head of the SAP were in London. Did they come as a surprise to you?
In fact, we had information that something was being prepared. Over the past few weeks to a month, we knew that some kind of operation was being prepared. We had information that there might be legislative changes, as well as information about searches and some kind of forceful action. But it certainly came as a surprise, because we couldn't believe that events would unfold in this way; we couldn't imagine that it would happen like this.
But all these events were preceded by a dirty information campaign, which mentioned some of the detectives who had been searched. And about cases involving cryptocurrency, non-declaration, and illegal enrichment. Of course, the cases of treason against one of the heads of departments in the city of Dnipro and another employee came as a separate surprise. This was certainly a complete surprise for us. We did not expect that things would develop in this way.
If you had information about the legislative changes being prepared for a month, did you try to counteract them in any way? And what do you associate this with in general?
As soon as this campaign began, information started coming in, and we informed our international partners about it. We also communicated with individual representatives of civil society about possible attempts to put pressure on the National Anti-Corruption Bureau. In other words, we communicated in a civilised manner.
No measures or individual counteractions can be taken here within the legal framework, except for communication, refutation of certain allegations, or informing partners that a situation such as today's may occur, with the weakening, or in fact destruction, of the anti-corruption infrastructure.
And here it should be emphasised that this was done in a mode of quite serious secrecy. Even yesterday, MPs began to write that something was going to happen with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the SAPO, but everyone saw the final version of the document only after the meeting of the relevant committee, where this amendment was included in the draft law, which was registered on 16 January. In other words, the committee made changes specifically regarding the SAPO and NABU. This was done very secretly, everyone found out at the last minute, but everyone still liked this version very much — as it turns out, everyone in the hall voted unanimously.
According to my information, votes began to be collected yesterday and even a little earlier. That is, the collection of votes began from those who were ready to support something: what — is unknown, but something interesting about NABU and SAPO. Therefore, this operation was carried out in two stages. The first was searches, and the second was changes to the legislation today.
I think that some of the names of those who voted surprised not only civil society, but also you.
We are currently studying this story in more detail. But I want to say that, according to our information, among the MPs who voted, there are those who have the status of suspects in the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
And in fact, by voting for regulations that could potentially be, let's say, interesting to them in terms of mitigating or avoiding — I am speaking theoretically now — responsibility, they acted, in my deep conviction, in conditions of a real conflict of interest.
When you informed your partners about this problem, how did they react? What did they say? They said, let's see: if something happens, then we will make statements. Or something like that?
The communication was along these lines. Some heard and understood more, some less. For ethical reasons, I will not focus now on who could have been better reached. But, to sum up, until yesterday there was no single consolidated position of international partners on this issue.
There were individual statements. For example, the German Foreign Minister, who visited Ukraine. There was a statement on the embassy's website that they support anti-corruption efforts. This is partly the result of our communication that certain things may happen.
There were meetings with individual representatives of embassies and international organisations, where we conveyed this position. But if we talk about a consolidated, joint position, it appeared yesterday (21 July) after the G7 statement, where they clearly outlined the framework that it is very important for them to preserve Ukraine's anti-corruption achievements and that they are quite concerned about what is happening around NABU and SAPO.
You understand that something is starting, things are piling up. Was there an attempt to talk directly to Malyuk, to Ruslan Kravchenko? You know each other. You definitely communicate. Why not call and ask what is actually happening?
Look, separately in this situation, we learned that the Security Service of Ukraine and the Office of the Prosecutor General conducted investigative actions and searches on the day they took place. We did not know for sure who would be implementing such things. We knew that there was a revival, a certain movement in cases related to road accidents.
We knew that the relevant cases were being investigated — everything related to the employees of the bureau and the employees of the prosecutor's office. There was no separate communication on my part about what was happening there or whether you were planning anything. And there was nothing to indicate that these particular agencies would implement what they implemented.
But it was possible to find out something at the parliamentary level.
The parliamentarians did not know. Once again: according to our information, most of the deputies learned about the law after the committee meeting. And even some members of the committee (we were keeping our finger on the pulse, trying to find out what was going on) said that they themselves did not know what was being planned. ‘We know that something is being planned, but we don't know what.’
I would like to remind you that there were a number of bills related to Defence City, and there was an attempt to restrict certain investigative actions against defence companies that would be included in the relevant list. This bill did not take off and was not voted on. The package of bills in Defence City was voted on, but the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code were not. It was removed from the agenda.
At first, we thought that perhaps these were the legislative changes. Then, when it was postponed, there was another information vacuum. This version, which was adopted today, was kept in fairly strict secrecy.
I will repeat myself: according to my information, only today did the majority of MPs see this document — after the meeting of the relevant committee.
I did not mean ordinary MPs who pressed buttons or members of the committee. Moreover, we tried to get a comment from the formal ‘author’ of the bill, Maksym Polyakov — he refused to talk, apparently not understanding what it was all about. But the question could have been asked, for example, to Davyd Arakhamia or someone from the faction's leadership...
Look, Sonya: questions were asked, attempts were made to find out... In my opinion, this was a coordinated story, because there was different information, such as ‘there are no votes’, ‘but that's impossible’, ‘anti-corruption infrastructure is important, no one will influence independence’. That is, communication and feedback took place at this level from various parliamentary factions and individual MPs. No one really believed that such things would happen. That there would be such pressure and that the change in the law would be so serious — the complete deprivation of the procedural independence of the SAPO, effectively subordinating it to the Prosecutor General. We certainly did not expect that it would be implemented in this form.
Although until the last moment there was a risk (according to some information) that an amendment would be made during the procedure itself to completely liquidate the National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Even so.
Why wasn't it included? This solves all the issues.
There is much to discuss here. Perhaps the position of international partners influenced this, and it was decided not to eliminate the anti-corruption infrastructure after all, but to make it more subordinate and significantly dependent. I think this is one of the possible explanations.
Let me remind you that the G7 ambassadors expressed, excuse me for saying so, ‘serious concern.’ And the EU representative in Ukraine, Kateryna Maternova, wrote that military support for Ukraine depends on the preservation of the reforms achieved. The question is not easy, it is sensitive, but it is important: what can partners really do in response to this situation, given that we are still at war? It is unlikely that this will stop the supply of weapons or funding. What specific antidotes are there to this situation as of now?
I want to emphasise clearly: God forbid, despite the importance of anti-corruption infrastructure and anti-corruption efforts, it is a nightmare to imagine that this situation could affect arms supplies. Weapons for our military, for our country, are the most important thing there is. Let's put this at the top of the agenda and make it clear.
Second, how could this affect us? It could certainly affect certain negotiation processes regarding access to the European Union. But I would like to wait for official statements from representatives of the European Union.
I know that certain statements are currently being discussed and prepared, but I certainly cannot communicate on behalf of the international institutions of the European Union and representatives of the European Union. That would be inappropriate on my part. But if they are made, the public will certainly find out about it immediately. I hope that they will be made. And I believe that the communication framework of the consequences and how this may affect relations with the European Union will be announced.
If these are not public statements, they may be written appeals from representatives of international institutions to our authorities asking, for example, not to sign or to veto the relevant law. We have very little time left. We feel and understand that it may be signed in the near future. (The president signed the law a few hours after the interview was recorded. — S.K.).
We are currently monitoring public sentiment, including on social media, and communicating with journalists. A large part of society is quite critical of this bill. We hope, urge and appeal to the president to veto this bill after all, so that we can take a more balanced approach to certain issues.
According to unconfirmed information that emerged during the recording of the interview, the president has already signed the controversial law. If Volodymyr Zelenskyy officially announces the signing, what will be your reaction and actions?
First of all, we need to familiarise ourselves with the text of this bill, because we have not seen the final version, and we need to understand what is in it. Depending on what is written there, we will draw up a plan for how we will respond.
The rule of law and the law are the most important things for us. We will definitely comply with the law, but we will continue to communicate with our partners and society in order to rectify this situation. It is unacceptable that a system that has been created since 2014 in response to public demand after Euromaidan, one of the most important achievements of Maidan, could simply be levelled in one day.
Even if there are individuals in our system who may have been involved in collaborationist activities — let the court determine that. Let the court assess all these things. No one is untouchable, but that is certainly no reason to destroy the independence of anti-corruption bodies, to destroy both institutions (NABU and SAP — S.K.) that they did not create. This parliament did not create this.
In general, these bodies were created not only by parliament, but by Ukrainian society. It was a request from Ukrainian society. Is there anything we need to work on and improve? Of course there is. There is room for improvement, to correct mistakes that we may have made. But the issue now is not about individuals — Kryvonos, Klymenko or anyone else. The question is about the institution that carries out an important mission — ensuring balance so that we don't go off the rails and start stealing wherever we want. That's all.
Because our actions speak for themselves. We are capable of bringing the highest officials of the state to justice. We are capable. We demonstrate this. Yes, society would like to see faster verdicts and faster results. We operate within the legal framework, within the realities that exist, but I can say with certainty that NABU and SAPO are completely independent institutions, effective institutions that are capable of fighting corruption and capable of ensuring this balance. Without this balance, we will end up with a complete corruption disaster. I am deeply convinced of this.
This is not a question of whether you like or dislike any of the leaders. This is a question of a system that has to work. Now this system has been dealt a blow. The system is broken. This is the most important story. When is independence confirmed? When attempts are made to destroy it. So, the answer is that NABU and SAPO are independent institutions capable of investigating high-level corruption. And now this story has been broken. Without any right. Absolutely cynically, to the hooting and hollering in the parliament hall.
I watched this session: everyone was applauding, happy and joyful. I think the people who were most happy were those who are already facing corruption charges in the High Anti-Corruption Court. In my opinion, this is absolutely shameful.
Can the intensification of, let's say, the authorities' fight against NABU and SAPO be linked to specific cases — Chernyshov, Stefanishyna, Mindych's brother, and so on?
I can say that we link this to all cases that are being investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
Over the past two years, we have indeed demonstrated increasing results and brought serious high-ranking officials to justice. Is there a correlation between this bill and our prosecutions? Absolutely, there is. I will repeat myself: dozens of MPs have been suspected by NABU and SAPO of embezzlement under Article 191, abuse of power, abuse of influence, and obtaining undue benefits. And these are not the first or last cases. Everyone understands this. And no one likes it. It is clear that this is a great opportunity to destroy the anti-corruption bodies, protecting yourself from surprises in the form of someone knocking on your door and saying: ‘Good evening. Here is a suspicion of obtaining undue benefits.’
With the start of the Chernyshov case, were there attempts by senior Ukrainian officials to personally talk to Semen Kryvonos, as Usyk would say, ‘don't push the horses,’ to slow down a little? Perhaps then everything would have come to nothing...
I would rather not answer that question right now. I can say in general that the pressure during this case was very serious. And pressure can mean many things. But look, what is important in this case is the result, not what preceded it. The result was achieved in the form of a notice of suspicion. This means that we endured everything, demonstrated our effectiveness and independence, and achieved a result.
Let's be clear, a suspicion is not yet an indictment or a final court decision. That is still a long way off. And it is a competitive process in which evidence from both sides can be presented. All that lies ahead. But the fact that we have reached the stage of announcing suspicion in a specific case against such a high-ranking official shows that our detectives and prosecutors are capable of investigating such cases. And they have all the guarantees of independence to do so. Despite all the obstacles that may be created at the court level.
Did the story with the competition for the head of the Economic Security Bureau speed up events at NABU and SAP?
I think it's all part of a complex picture. You can't look at something separately, in isolation. It's a complex set of things that could have influenced this whole story.
I emphasise once again: we are distinguishing this yesterday's event, which was conducted by the State Bureau of Investigation, the Security Service of Ukraine and the Office of the Prosecutor General. There are cases involving collaboration — let the court deal with them. If that is the case, then purging the institution is normal. Traitors have been exposed in the Security Service of Ukraine, in other law enforcement agencies, and in government agencies. And this has never led to the destruction of the institution or its reboot.
We will prepare separate explanations on some of the cases when we learn more, because there were no rulings, we cannot read the facts or study the grounds for why such a large number of detectives were assigned to certain cases. Therefore, we are currently reviewing all the facts and will prepare our position.
For example, in cases involving traffic accidents, in all cases where they occurred — two in 2021 and one in 2023 — we always conduct an official investigation to determine whether the employee was intoxicated or in an altered state of consciousness, whether he called the police, whether he left the scene, and whether he provided assistance to the victims. So, in all these cases, this is exactly what all participants in these, unfortunately, tragic events did in the first moments of the traffic accident, because, as far as I know, there are injuries of a certain severity. The investigation is looking into all this, and preventive measures are now being chosen for the detectives.
But these cases accumulated, were kept for years, and then suddenly all three were set in motion and on the same day the perpetrators of the traffic accidents were served with notices of suspicion. Such a story raises big questions.
It is questionable, I agree. But if you say that you conducted internal investigations into the cases for 2021 and 2023, and these people are still working, does that mean that your internal investigations did not reveal anything?
The fact is that our internal investigations determine the behaviour of the person involved in the traffic accident.
For example, if a NABU employee was intoxicated or left the scene of the accident, behaved unethically, we would dismiss such an employee immediately. But here the question is that in certain cases it is a violation of traffic rules. And that happens.
And someone asks how many employees of the prosecutor's office are involved in traffic accidents? Or employees of the Security Service, the National Police? There are tens of thousands of people. NABU has no more than 800 people. Imagine how many such cases occur throughout the entire system. Apart from the latest case, where the Prosecutor General personally represented the prosecution in court and insisted on preventive measures, do you think there were no traffic accidents before that? Do they not have any of these cases, does no one drive a car? Well, that's not true.
I am by no means justifying traffic violations. But this is an unintentional crime in this case. The employees were sober, provided first aid, and did not leave the scene of the accident. Let the court decide in the relevant examination whether this traffic accident occurred as a result of traffic violations or, perhaps, due to some other insurmountable circumstances. These are all questions for the investigation. But here, at the same time, notices of suspicion are being served and rather severe preventive measures are being taken. At the same time, we do not see any cases of traffic accidents in other agencies. I have serious doubts that there are no such traffic accidents there. That no one drives there and, unfortunately, gets into similar situations.
The story with Mr. Husarov was somewhat surprising. Specifically, the fact that you and the Security Service of Ukraine investigated suspicions about his possible work for Russia, and the Security Service allegedly gave you a ‘verbal’ answer that everything was fine and he could continue working. What does ‘verbal answer’ mean?
We did not communicate in quite that way.
Firstly, this case is currently being heard in court, a preventive measure has been chosen for this employee, and I will send a letter to the Security Service of Ukraine requesting the materials of the criminal proceedings with evidence of his involvement in collaborationist activities so that I can make a procedural decision based on the results of an internal investigation, if such evidence exists, in order to dismiss this employee. We need to evaluate the situation.
In order to complete the official investigation, which was initiated based on information from the Security Service of Ukraine, among others, that such a situation may have occurred more than a year ago, we need materials. They are currently in criminal proceedings. I think they will provide them; I don't see a problem with that. Then we will study them and make a disciplinary decision within NABU.
Look, no one will defend collaborators, if there are any, but we need to understand and have the relevant documents — a copy of the notice of suspicion, evidence. I think that this is the authority of the investigator who is handling this case, and they will provide everything that is necessary.
There are also quite serious accusations against the head of one of the regional departments of the NABU, Ruslan Mahamedrasulov. But, again, the question is why they have only appeared now, since his relatives could have had contacts with our enemy before.
The historical reality is that we have many citizens who have relatives in the occupied territories and in the territory of the aggressor state. There are citizens who have been forcibly issued passports. And there are high-ranking officials with such relatives, including in law enforcement agencies.
Yes, and there are employees at NABU who have relatives (in the temporarily occupied territories or in Russia — S.K.). There are even employees whose relatives have been forcibly issued passports, which is a huge tragedy, excuse me. We need to correct this with weapons, recapture our territory and restore justice.
But it is very important here that every employee who deals with pre-trial investigations, covert investigative activities and NABU cases in general has access to state secrets. What does this mean? It means that they fill out a special questionnaire, which is forwarded by a special NABU unit to the Security Service of Ukraine, where they provide all the information necessary for verification. And only after a detailed, in-depth verification by the SBU of all these facts, including connections with the aggressor, trips to the territory of the aggressor state during the war, and many other things. And after this verification, appropriate access to state secrets is granted. And all these employees have undergone the appropriate checks.
The question here is why these connections, I am not talking about the Mahamedrasulov case or the Husarov case, because there were searches by detectives (again, there were no court orders, this is still general information), apparently on the basis that they have relatives in the territory of the aggressor state. So, the question is: can the presence of such relatives indicate treason on the part of an employee? That's the first thing. And the second is: how was access to state secrets granted in that case?
This is an appeal to the Security Service of Ukraine, correct?
I want to make it clear that we respect the counterintelligence activities of the Security Service of Ukraine, so that there is no manipulation here. And if their suspicions are relevant and justified, we will also take measures on our part.
But we know the facts, the investigation is still ongoing: there are detectives from different departments, with different backgrounds, with different situations, who, without any official suspicions or warrants, came with searches because they have relatives in that territory and they do not/do maintain communication with them. In that case, we need to decide what we are going to do about this problem as such. And this question is for the high-ranking officials who are dealing with this, having the same situation. But again, we will respectfully watch how it develops.
I hope that now the SBU will provide access to these documents so that we can make our internal decisions.
So that we can finally put an end to the list of accusations that were made yesterday against your employees, I will mention another case — the story of Hennadiy Boholyubov, whose departure was allegedly facilitated by your employees. The official position of the NABU is that the employees did indeed travel to Vienna on the same train as Boholyubov, but they did not cross paths. Did they travel in neighbouring carriages or in neighbouring compartments? Because it would be very strange not to notice Boholyubov in a neighbouring compartment on the Kyiv-Vienna train. Please provide details to avoid speculation. What exactly did they say about this trip?
They were indeed on an official business trip at the invitation (which we published) of the World Bank. This was an official event concerning the return of assets and financial investigations. This group of detectives is in close communication with representatives of the World Bank because they are investigating cases related to financial investigations, including the State Property Fund of Ukraine, where many assets have been transferred abroad. These assets are now being sought, and attempts are being made to seize and return them. These are specialised detectives who have experience in financial investigations and tracing assets abroad, in foreign jurisdictions.
Did they see Boholyubov on the train or not?
They say they did not see Bogolyubov. In particular, the employee who was searched. But let's wait until all the facts are established. A pre-trial investigation is underway. Whatever the Security Service of Ukraine has now, they have published this part, conducted searches to gather evidence, we will be happy to familiarise ourselves with it.
Were all 80 searches conducted without a court order?
All searches were conducted without a court order. All were conducted as urgent. There were no court orders.
How many suspects have been charged? As of the evening of 22 July, have any court decisions been made?
Three suspects have been charged with traffic accidents and two with treason.
As far as I know, five employees have been officially notified of the charges. And at least two have been subject to preventive measures. One is currently being charged with a traffic accident. If they haven't been charged yet, it's all happening very quickly.
As for treason, both have been placed under preventive measures requested by representatives of the Security Service of Ukraine, which is mandatory detention. One NABU employee has been placed under preventive measures in connection with a traffic accident as a personal obligation.
How many communication devices were seized?
The Internal Control Department collects information on the seized equipment, establishes all the circumstances, how much equipment was seized, what kind of equipment, and what physical media. And I am to receive this report in the near future.
80 searches is a lot, a huge number of people were involved in these investigative actions. I would like to remind you that I interrupted my trip to London, arrived here and have been spending literally the whole day communicating and clarifying all the circumstances of what happened.
It was reported that one of your employees had their phone physically seized during a search in order to unlock it. If this is true, do you have any information about whether there has been a leak of information in the cases you are currently investigating or planning to investigate together with the SAPO as a result of yesterday's events?
No, there is no established fact of information leaks at this time. We have no recorded evidence that any materials from pre-trial investigations or covert investigative actions by NABU as a result of these ongoing developments or investigations have become known to the SBU or the Office of the Prosecutor General.
So, the threat that such searches will paralyse the investigation of top officials, as activists have said, has not yet been confirmed?
There is no confirmation at this time, but they have only just conducted these searches, seized the relevant equipment, and we will determine the damage after the fact. I assume that, yes, certain information could theoretically have fallen into the hands of the Security Service of Ukraine.
The Internal Control Department is checking all these things and determining, so to speak, the amount of potential damage that could have been caused. Maybe everything is okay. So it's too early to say anything for sure.
One more clarification regarding the adopted law, based on what we have already seen in the media. What is your assessment of the risks it poses to the agency's work, apart from actual paralysis? What is the threat to witnesses who have cooperated with the investigation? What is the threat to NABU detectives who have been working on certain cases, as they now appear to be unprotected?
There are huge threats, because this bill gives the Prosecutor General the right to request any criminal proceedings from NABU. Previously, pre-trial investigations, the relevant development and documentation of criminal activity, including the involvement of witnesses and whistleblowers, were recorded in our closed system, and these people were protected from any influence.
Now, the Prosecutor General can request criminal proceedings, familiarise himself with the materials of covert investigative actions, so-called wiretaps, understand what is going on, how far we have progressed, and who is cooperating with us. So yes, the risk is enormous. This is precisely one of the biggest risks of this bill.
In addition, the head and prosecutors of the SAP are being stripped of most of their powers. The situation is very threatening.
The last question concerns the future fate of Semen Kryvonos and the personal threats to the head of NABU. You have a long-term contract, for seven years, as far as I remember (Semen Kryvonos became head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in 2023. — S.K.). Is the information that you are also under suspicion true? Perhaps you have unofficial information?
Such information does exist. It is being spread. It is difficult to assess it at this time. If there are suspicions, I am not afraid; we will defend our rights in court. I will consider this to be further pressure on the National Anti-Corruption Bureau. I am fully prepared for this turn of events and will remain with the team until the end. The main task now is to preserve the team as the core value of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and to work to rectify what has happened.
To rectify, to return everything to normal, to return to international commitments. To protect the independence of the bureau.
Look, the Bureau is not about Semen Kryvonos, and the SAP is not about Oleksandr Klymenko. It is about the institution. I will definitely do everything possible to protect this institution. Unfortunately, we have not succeeded in this so far. And it is my personal pain as director that we did not have enough resources to counter this attack, which effectively deprived us of our independence. But I am absolutely convinced that we will not give up, we will fight. This battle is not yet lost. We will restore the independence of NABU and SAPO, because it is not me who needs it. It is the citizens of Ukraine who need it. It is our European integration future that needs it.
Whether it is me or someone else, the institution must remain effective and independent. No matter who likes it or who wants it. Yes, a serious blow has been dealt. It is painful. It is a shock. But we will definitely recover, preserve our team, maintain our pace and continue to expose corruption. We did not give up so easily.
