Vitalii Shabunin, Ukraine’s top anti-corruption activist and head of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, has been charged in a controversial criminal case. The State Bureau of Investigation has accused him of evasion of military service and misuse of a vehicle intended for the military, sparking a public outcry and allegations of political persecution, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty writes. 

According to investigators, Shabunin allegedly “systematically evaded” military service during martial law and illegally used a vehicle imported as humanitarian aid for the Armed Forces, including for personal travel in Kyiv. They claim the vehicle was never officially registered for military use.

He has been charged under two articles of the Ukrainian Criminal Code:

• Part 4, Article 409 — evasion of military service under martial law
• Part 2, Article 190 — large-scale fraud

The maximum penalty is up to 10 years in prison. 

Shabunin’s response

The activist has denied all allegations and called the case politically motivated. He published a photo of his military ID issued on 25 February 2022, the day after Russia’s full-scale invasion began.

He says he served on the front lines with Ukraine’s Armed Forces from the first days of the war, first near Kyiv, then in eastern Ukraine. After combat duty, he joined the Ministry of Defense to work on logistics reform and digital projects, including the Delta situational awareness system, according to the BBC.

In February 2025, he was transferred to a border guard unit in Kharkiv Oblast, a move he links to retaliation for his outspoken criticism of the government.

Civil society reacts: “An attack on free speech and democracy”

More than 50 non-governmental organizations, human rights groups, and civic organizations have appealed to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko, and the State Bureau of Investigation’s Head, Oleksii Sukhachov, demanding that the investigation be dropped.

In their joint statement, they warned that the case is either a sign of gross incompetence or deliberate pressure on a government critic. Shabunin continued his anti-corruption work while in uniform, publicly opposing the sabotage of reforms and poor governance and defending the independence of Ukraine’s anti-graft institutions, Deutsche Welle reports.

Olena Shcherban, deputy director of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, has called the case an attempt to destroy an organization that has fought for transparency for years. It could also be a broader crackdown on independent activists, a dangerous precedent for democracy under martial law.

Ukrainian authorities charged prominent anti-corruption activist Vitaliy Shabunin with military service evasion on 11 July, prompting widespread condemnation from civil society groups who view the prosecution as political retaliation.

The charges involve $5,400 in alleged improper military salary payments while Shabunin was on official assignments to civilian institutions. Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov, facing corruption charges worth millions, remains in office and participates in international conferences—highlighting what critics call selective prosecution.

True to form, Shabunin didn’t mince words in his response.

“Using the war, Volodymyr Zelensky is taking the first but confident steps toward corrupt authoritarianism,” he wrote in his first public statement after the searches, accusing the president of weaponizing criminal proceedings to “catch, intimidate, and show everyone by example that, if he wants, he can do anything to anyone.”

A flawed but dedicated reformer

Shabunin is a polarizing figure who has drawn substantial criticism even from reform advocates.

A Texty.org.ua editorial argued that the anti-corruption movement led by groups like Shabunin’s has prioritized creating “new punitive bodies” over addressing systemic causes of corruption, generating “a witch hunt [that] deflated the reformist passion.”

Yet, Ukrainian civil society is remarkably united in defending the nonconforming, vocal activist.

Prominent civil society leader Olga Aivazovska, chair of the election monitoring organization OPORA, decried Shabunin’s prosecution as “obvious revenge.”

“Vitaliy often focused on individuals, and this did not solve the problems of the system, but it is individuals who decide to take revenge,” she explained. “Selective justice is evil, because it will not contain even a gram of justice.”

Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms have supporters as well

Why post-Euromaidan anti-corruption reform in Ukraine is still a success

Since co-founding the Anti-Corruption Action Center (ANTAC) in 2012, Shabunin has become one of Ukraine’s most polarizing anti-corruption figures.

Critics describe his methods as “too categorical and emotionally harsh,” the editorial board of Dzerkalo Tyzhnia acknowledged. He admitted to physically attacking a pro-government blogger in 2017, and his house was set on fire in 2020 in an apparent arson attack.

Shabunin’s confrontational methods have made him and his organization the target of smear campaigns: in 2017, a film aired in parliament accused ANTAC of embezzling funds, and in 2016, the Prosecutor General’s Office opened a probe against the NGO for alleged embezzlement of US Embassy funds—closed after the embassy issued an official statement.

When Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Shabunin voluntarily enlisted on 25 February 2022. He participated in Kyiv’s defense and later served in territorial defense units across multiple regions.

What is Shabunin accused of?

The State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) formally charged Shabunin with two crimes: systematically evading military service under martial law and large-scale fraud. The total alleged damages: UAH 224,000, roughly $5,400.

Notably, while the bureau’s press release mentions allegations about illegal vehicle use, the Anti-Corruption Action Center notes this accusation doesn’t appear in the formal charges—only in the public statement, apparently to create a more damaging impression.

But did Shabunin actually do anything wrong? According to ANTAC, the charges hold zero water.

1. The accusation of evading military service is “absurd, ANTAC says: Shabunin always followed the instructions of his military unit.

In September 2022-February 2023, when the unit was stationed near Kyiv, he was seconded to the National Agency for Anti-Corruption Prevention, ANTAC wrote. There, he played a key role in establishing Ukraine’s prized Delta operational awareness system, which irritated some gain-seeking generals, said anti-corruption journalist Yuriy Nikolov. As well, he worked on other anti-corruption measures, ANTAC said.

ANTAC claims that the DBR pressured Shabunin’s commander to falsely testify against the anti-corruption activist, pointing to a coordinated intimidation campaign.

2. The DBR accusation that Shabunin fraudulently obtained “combat bonuses” while in Kyiv is equally absurd, according to ANTAC.

He received the regular 20,000 UAH serviceman’s salary and the extra UAH 30,000 that all soldiers received at the time ($1,200/month), not any “combat bonuses,” ANTAC says.

Incredibly, the sum that he is accused of illegally gaining (UAH 224,000) includes the UAH 40,000 in taxes that Shabunin never even saw, ANTAC adds.

When $5,400 matters more than millions

Compare this to cases the same bureau ignores. Deputy Prime Minister Chernyshov faces charges involving millions in state damages, yet remains in his government position. The High Anti-Corruption Court refused to remove him from office on 2 July.

Even more telling is the case of Oleh Tatarov, deputy chief of the Presidential Office. Charged by anti-corruption investigators in 2020 with bribery, his case was systematically obstructed and quietly closed in April 2022.

Tatarov continues wielding significant influence over law enforcement—the same agencies now pursuing Shabunin.

Most tellingly, the State Bureau of Investigation—created specifically to investigate high officials, judges, and law enforcement—is pursuing a civil society activist for minor violations while ignoring the very officials it was designed to target.

The procedural violations were equally telling. According to the Anti-Corruption Action Center, investigators conducted searches at Shabunin’s home and military unit without court orders, seized his phone without a warrant, and confiscated personal devices belonging to his wife and children.

Ukrainska Pravda, one of Ukraine’s largest independent outlets, revealed the extent of presidential involvement: President Zelensky personally raised Shabunin’s case at high-level military meetings, while officers were ordered to photograph the activist daily and send the images to the Presidential Office.

Questions from the trenches

The most damning assessment comes from an unexpected source: the front lines themselves. Yehor Firsov, a former Ukrainian MP who left parliament to serve in the army, posted a stark warning on social media.

“We are fighting not for a president or ‘parliamentary majority,’ we are fighting to preserve democracy and freedom—which is precisely why Putin attacked Ukraine,” Firsov wrote.

“And if there is less democracy and freedom in the country […] what should we suffer or die for? For the officials who resort to repression to prevent criticism of their power?”

His words capture what makes the Shabunin case so dangerous. Ukrainian soldiers volunteered to defend democratic values, not to preserve a system where critics face prosecution while corrupt officials enjoy impunity.

“The Shabunin case showed that every serviceman today is vulnerable if they have the courage to criticize the authorities,” Firsov continued. “‘Find the person, and there will always be an article in the Criminal Code for them.'”

“You can be a supporter of Vitaliy Shabunin, you can criticize him—this is what freedom and democracy are all about. But right now, it looks like outright political persecution, which may turn into a system tomorrow,” Firsov added.

Civil society responds

Remarkably, even former President Poroshenko—under whom Shabunin faced charges in 2017—condemned the current prosecution. “I see the searches of Vitaliy as something much bigger – a manifestation of the authorities’ full-scale offensive,” Poroshenko wrote, expressing gratitude for Shabunin’s role in establishing anti-corruption infrastructure during his presidency.

VoxUkraine editor Natalija Shapoval described the Shabunin charges as “crossing the red line,” noting this marks the first time during the war that criminal cases have targeted prominent anti-corruption figures.

Even the Texty.org.ua editors who had criticized anti-corruption approaches joined the condemnation, recognizing the Shabunin case as representing “the worst practices of Yanukovych’s time,” harking back to Ukraine’s pro-Russian president ousted in the Euromaidan revolution of 2014.

International silence, domestic consequences

Perhaps most troubling is the international response, or lack thereof.

According to the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia editorial, the government’s authoritarian turn stems partly from changing international dynamics:

“Today, when neither civil society nor the media feel clear support from the United States anymore, because Donald Trump’s team is completely indifferent to the values that used to be the cornerstone, the government in Ukraine has finally allowed itself to be itself.”

The Shabunin prosecution fits within a troubling sequence of events. In June, the government cancelled the results of a transparent competition for the head of the Bureau of Economic Security after the winning candidate wasn’t controlled by the Presidential Office.

“This is not about BEB and not about Shabunin,” the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia editorial concluded. “This is about the long-standing, deeply hidden desire of several corrupt and unprofessional authorities to deal with those they could not destroy before, only because of existing external support.”

The choice ahead

Ukraine’s international partners built their support on the premise that they’re backing a democracy fighting for survival. If that democracy is eroding from within—using wartime as cover for suppressing dissent—the foundation of Western backing becomes questionable.

For Shabunin himself, some technical violations may be real, and his confrontational methods have earned him enemies across Ukraine’s political spectrum. But technical violations exist for everyone—as Firsov noted, “there will always be an article in the Criminal Code” for anyone authorities want to target.

The question isn’t whether Shabunin followed every bureaucratic rule perfectly, or whether his methods were always appropriate. The question is whether Ukraine will use those rules selectively to silence critics while ignoring far more serious violations by allies.

The Shabunin case tests whether those principles will survive the war that was meant to defend them.

As the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia editorial warned: “While Russia is gnawing away at our villages, the authorities are gnawing away at rights and freedoms throughout the rest of the country—and therefore at Ukraine’s prospects of being other than Russia.”