Ukraine’s parliament votes to gut anti-corruption agencies amid Russian spy scandal (UPDATED)
Ukraine’s parliament has passed a bill that could drastically weaken the country’s main anti-corruption institutions—the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). The legislation transfers control over their investigations to the Prosecutor General, a move critics say will erase nearly a decade of institutional progress.
The vote comes amid escalating tensions. On 21 July, Ukrainian authorities conducted over 70 searches targeting NABU employees, citing alleged links to Russian intelligence and illegal cross-border activity. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Prosecutor General’s Office allege some detectives may have betrayed the state.
The charges are serious—treason, corruption, and illicit trade with Russia—but anti-corruption watchdogs, opposition lawmakers, and G7 envoys see a different pattern: a potential campaign to dismantle independent oversight, just as these agencies investigate officials close to the president.
Here’s what’s happening—and why it matters.

SBU’s case against NABU
The most serious allegation involves Viktor Husarov, a NABU employee arrested without bail until at least 20 September. He is suspected of state treason and unauthorized handling of classified information. According to the SBU, Husarov allegedly transferred sensitive data about Ukrainian law enforcement personnel to Russian intelligence.

The SBU has also named Ruslan Magamedrasulov, another NABU detective, as a suspect in a separate case. He is accused of aiding his Russian father in smuggling hemp to Dagestan, concealing his father’s citizenship, and sharing confidential information with Fedir Khrystenko, a fugitive former Ukrainian MP allegedly linked to Russia’s FSB.
Authorities allege that Khrystenko ran a covert influence network inside NABU and exploited internal connections to assist businesspeople in fleeing Ukraine.

More than 70 NABU employees were raided. Some cases reportedly stemmed from minor issues, such as past traffic incidents. NABU claims many searches were conducted without court-approved warrants. The SBU maintains that Ukrainian law permits urgent investigative actions without prior judicial approval in cases involving treason or national security.
“We must let the SBU present evidence in court,” former SBU deputy head Victor Yahun told Svoboda.Live. “Anyone can point to Russia. What matters is whether the accused were acting on official orders from Russian intelligence.”
What’s in the law: The hidden amendments that reshape oversight
Draft law No. 12414 originally dealt with procedures for missing persons. But last-minute amendments quietly added sweeping changes to Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure.
According to MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak, these hidden clauses would:
- Subordinate SAPO prosecutors to the Prosecutor General, not the SAPO head
- Allow the Prosecutor General to reassign NABU cases
- Remove the legal ban on stripping NABU of its investigations
- Let the Prosecutor General close cases unilaterally, even those involving top officials
- Require NABU’s director to get the Prosecutor General’s permission to claim jurisdiction
Expert view: Power shift behind the law
Political analyst Ihor Chalenko argues that the real impact of the bill lies not in its wartime provisions—but in how it reconfigures authority across Ukraine’s law enforcement system.
The law places the Prosecutor General at the top of the investigative hierarchy, granting sweeping powers to demand case files, reassign investigations—regardless of jurisdiction—and resolve all inter-agency disputes.
“The Prosecutor General now holds all the key levers—deciding jurisdictional disputes, transferring cases between agencies, and selecting which prosecutors lead investigations,” Chalenko told Euromaidan Press.
For NABU, this means expanded powers but increased dependence. Detectives can take over cases from other bodies, but only with approval from the Prosecutor General. They may also investigate their own staff, excluding top leadership.
SAPO’s autonomy narrows further. The Prosecutor General now appoints case supervisors, including at senior levels, and can override prosecutorial decisions, even in politically sensitive cases involving MPs or ministers.
“This isn’t just a technical wartime fix,” Chalenko said. “It’s a lasting centralization of authority over Ukraine’s law enforcement system—including its anti-corruption agencies.”

A system already under pressure
Ukraine’s anti-corruption architecture includes more than just NABU and SAPO. Institutions like the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI), and the Bureau of Economic Security (BES) also play roles—often with overlapping mandates and varying political insulation.
But NABU and SAPO have received the most international backing due to their statutory independence. And while widely seen as reform milestones, their effectiveness remains a point of debate.
In nearly a decade of operation, only a few high-profile officials have ended up behind bars. Critics argue the system is too expensive and ineffectual; others counter that its mere existence offers a fragile check on elite impunity.
Even skeptics of NABU’s performance caution against dismantling it during wartime. Political commentator Yuriy Bohdanov described the bureau as “a structurally flawed and strategically useless institution that does nothing to address systemic corruption.” But, he added: “Taking it down like this is outright harmful.”

NABU and SAPO push back
NABU and SAPO say the law would cripple their independence and make them subordinate to a politically appointed office.
Director Semen Kryvonos returned early from a UK visit to respond to the raids.
“The head of SAPO would become a nominal figure, and NABU would lose its independence, effectively becoming a subdivision of the Prosecutor General’s Office,” NABU and SAPO wrote in a joint statement.
Kryvonos has urged President Zelenskyy not to sign the bill into law, warning that the move could permanently undermine independent anti-corruption investigations.

Civil society responds
The Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC) described the mass searches in NABU as “a continuation of pressure and an attempt to destroy independent institutions.”
They highlighted ongoing probes into Oleksiy Chernyshov, the former Deputy Prime Minister, and Volodymyr Myndich, a business partner of Zelenskyy. One of Myndich’s relatives was recently arrested by NABU.
“This is the dismantling of independent anti-corruption institutions to prevent them from creating problems by investigating corruption involving the president’s inner circle,” the Anti-Corruption Action Center said.
Civil society groups warn that Ukraine’s credibility—and continued Western support—could be at risk.

International reaction
The G7 Ambassadors voiced unease, stating:
“We are closely following developments at NABU. We met with its leadership and have serious concerns.”
1/2 The G7 is closely following today’s developments at NABU, including the investigation of several NABU employees for alleged crimes. We met today with NABU, have serious concerns and intend to discuss these developments with government leaders.
— G7AmbReformUA (@G7AmbReformUA) July 21, 2025
Billions in Western aid and Ukraine’s EU aspirations are closely tied to anti-corruption performance. Undermining independent agencies could jeopardize both.
Inside the SBU’s counterclaims
The SBU doubled down, revealing they seized classified NABU materials—including surveillance logs and personnel files—from Khrystenko’s home. They also accused former detective Timur Arshavin of fleeing Ukraine illegally.
Meanwhile, a senior SBU official was himself charged by NABU with demanding a $300,000 bribe to protect a suspect from prosecution. The officer and two partners allegedly accepted $72,000 before charges were filed.
These revelations further complicate the narrative: is this justice—or selective targeting?

The bigger picture
MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak and several investigative journalists argue this is part of a broader pattern.
“NABU got too close to the president’s circle,” Zhelezniak told RFE/RL. “Now they’re being punished.”
With elections suspended, political opposition subdued, and oversight bodies weakened, critics fear power is becoming dangerously centralized.

Why it matters
Ukraine is fighting a full-scale war, with elections suspended and power increasingly concentrated in the Presidential Office. In this climate, maintaining genuine checks and balances is already difficult.
Addressing national security threats is urgent—but weakening anti-corruption institutions in the process raises deeper concerns about Ukraine’s democratic future.
NABU and SAPO are far from perfect, yet for many in civil society, they remain the last guardrails against high-level impunity. Dismantling them now could erase what limited accountability still exists.
The choices ahead will determine whether Ukraine preserves space for independent oversight—or allows wartime urgency to justify the quiet consolidation of unchecked power.