In June 2025, when corruption investigators reached President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inner circle, his team responded with a systematic operation to eliminate Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure.

They deployed parliamentary manipulation, information warfare through Telegram channels, and legal machinations—the full authoritarian toolkit perfected across the post-Soviet space—all to subordinate two key anti-corruption institutions to the presidentially-appointed prosecutor general through a hastily-passed law on 22 July.

The operation was sophisticated, coordinated, and executed with surgical precision. What Zelenskyy’s team didn’t anticipate was that Ukrainian society had evolved beyond their understanding.

Detailed investigations by Ukrainska Pravda and Texty.org.ua reveal how the operation unfolded—and how Ukrainian civil society and European partners forced a complete retreat that exposed post-Soviet patronage reflexes colliding with European democratic standards.

When investigators reached Zelenskyy’s actual family

By June 2025, corruption investigators had crossed a line that post-Soviet leaders consider sacred: they reached Zelenskyy’s actual inner circle.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) charged Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov with organizing a land scheme that cost the state over $24 million.

Chernyshov wasn’t just another minister.

During Ukraine’s strict COVID lockdown in 2021, when gatherings were banned, Zelenskyy invited only a handful of intimates to celebrate his birthday. Chernyshov was the sole government official present.

Investigators were also preparing charges against Tymur Mindich, Zelenskyy’s business partner from Kvartal 95, the comedy studio where the current Ukrainian president gained his popularity—and a ticket to power. When pressure intensified, MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak reported that Mindich fled Ukraine and “will likely not return in the near future.”

As anti-corruption expert Olena Shcherban told the Kyiv Independent: “NABU and SAPO [Special Anti-Corrupution Prosecutor’s Office] have actually reached the immediate circle of the president’s ‘family.'” She predicted the Presidential Office would attack the institutions rather than abandon the minister.

She was right. When your survival network gets threatened, you protect the network.

The orchestrators revealed

Ukrainska Pravda’s investigation shows who planned the operation. The key figures were:

• Andriy Yermak (Head of Presidential Office);
• newly appointed Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko;
• and lawyer Dmytro Borzykh—a former military prosecutor positioned as the new behind-the-scenes fixer with histories of manipulating court systems.

Here’s what made the operation cynical: Kravchenko’s appointment coincided precisely with Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov fleeing abroad to avoid corruption charges. The investigation reports that Kravchenko’s final meeting with presidential leadership occurred when Chernyshov “was already abroad and not going to return.”

One law enforcement source told Ukrainska Pravda the instruction was clear: “do everything possible to destroy the influence of NABU and SAPO.” But the plan required parliamentary votes—and that’s where the real manipulation began.

The machinery of power consolidation

The operation deployed multiple tools that aspiring authoritarians use to capture institutions:

• Parliamentary manipulation: On 22 July, deputies were told they were coming to vote on an important appeal to the US Congress about recognizing Russia as a terrorist state. Many had foreign trips canceled. Only when they arrived did faction leaders reveal the “main” vote would come after—a “marker” vote that was “principled for the president.” As one MP told Ukrainska Pravda: “People really had no idea what they would vote for. They said, ‘Why do you need the text?! Vote, it’s important.'” Parliament had roughly one hour to review amendments that fundamentally transformed corruption oversight.
• Buying loyalty through legal deals: MP Robert Horvat from the “Dovira” group had reached a plea agreement with SAPO in his land theft case. But after Kravchenko’s appointment, he refused to sign, telling prosecutors “Klymenko [head of SAPO] will soon be sacked.” Horvat voted both for the anti-corruption law and for Kravchenko’s appointment, along with nine colleagues from his group.
• Manufactured security crisis: On 21 July, SBU conducted 70 searches targeting 15 NABU employees, claiming Russian infiltration. The star villain was Ruslan Magamedrasulov, accused of selling hemp to Dagestan and contacting “FSB agents.” The timing was theatrical—exactly one day before the crucial vote. NABU noted most searches concerned traffic accidents, but Telegram channels immediately called NABU a “branch of the FSB” and photoshopped Russian flags onto its logo.
• Civil society intimidation: Parallel raids targeted anti-corruption activist Vitaliy Shabunin in the run-up to the law. The message was clear: supporting independent oversight brings consequences.
• Information warfare through Telegram: Texty.org.ua’s investigation tracked 246 coordinated posts across 24 popular channels from 5 June to 23 July, revealing a sophisticated influence operation that weaponized Ukraine’s most powerful information medium.

The comedy studio’s systematic capture

This wasn’t just about protecting two friends. After Zelenskyy’s 2019 victory, over 30 former Kvartal 95 employees moved into government positions—what Ukrainian analysts call a “comedy studio government.”

Take Chernyshov himself. In December 2024, Ukraine created the Ministry of National Unity specifically to give him a prominent role.

The new ministry’s purpose remained deliberately vague—supposedly engaging with Ukrainian diaspora abroad, but critics noted this duplicated existing Foreign Ministry functions. Even some ruling party deputies refused to endorse Chernyshov’s nomination due to “lack of clarity regarding the ministry’s purpose.”

Seven months later, after Chernyshov’s corruption charges, the ministry was quietly merged with the Ministry of Social Policy—effectively eliminating it. A ministry created for one man, disbanded when that man became a liability.

But Chernyshov wasn’t appointed for competence—he was appointed for loyalty. He belonged to Zelensky’s intimate circle, invited to birthday celebrations during wartime restrictions. When you staff government based on personal relationships rather than merit, you create a state that can’t tolerate oversight.

The cynical gamble on European integration

What makes the July operation particularly cynical is the timing. European Pravda reveals that Brussels had secretly scheduled 18 July to open Ukraine’s first EU negotiating cluster, bypassing Hungarian obstruction entirely. Zelenskyy knew about these plans—he’d been personally involved in discussions with Danish officials since late June.

But instead of supporting this diplomatic breakthrough, Ukraine systematically undermined its reform credentials. The EU response was swift: Brussels froze $5.5 billion in aid programs, including loans backed by frozen Russian assets. As one European official noted: “Ukraine has done the dirty work instead of Viktor Orbán.”

Explore further

The EU is withholding billions from Ukraine and honestly, it’s kinda fair

The Soviet shadow: why personal loyalty trumps law

What happened next follows patterns that Cambridge academic Alena Ledeneva spent decades documenting in post-Soviet informal networks.

During the Soviet era, personal networks weren’t just convenient—they were survival tools. Ledeneva’s research on blat (the Soviet system of personal favors) shows how people learned to rely on informal connections because formal institutions were instruments of arbitrary repression.

When the law serves power rather than justice, personal loyalty becomes rational defense.

But the cruel irony is that this survival strategy becomes democratic poison when institutions actually start working. What protected people under totalitarianism destroys accountability under democracy.

Zelensky’s response perfectly illustrates this post-Soviet reflex. Instead of accepting that even his inner circle must follow the law, his team moved to eliminate the institutions enforcing accountability.

The mentality that personal loyalty creates immunity from prosecution—that being part of the president’s “family” places you above the law—represents exactly the thinking that helped people survive Soviet totalitarianism.

Ukraine had seen this before. Viktor Yanukovych, the fugitive pro-Russian authoritarian president used identical methods during his presidency.

His prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka called himself “a member of President Viktor Yanukovych’s team” and led the crackdown on protesters against the torpedoing of EU integration in 2013-2014, abusing state power to keep Yanukovych in power. His office pursued the politically motivated prosecution of Yulia Tymoshenko, charging her with abuse of power for a 2009 gas contract.

Both men fled to Russia during the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution.

When civil society said no

Ukrainian democracy had evolved since Yanukovych’s time in ways that proved deeper than anyone expected. Mass demonstrations erupted within hours—the largest protests since Russia’s invasion. Instead of riot police (“cosmonauts” in Ukrainian slang), authorities deployed “police of dialogue.” The contrast with Yanukovych’s Berkut units couldn’t have been starker.

Perhaps most telling was the demographic: teenagers and young adults leading chants and organizing through social media.

Ukraine’s response followed patterns that political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel documented in their World Values Survey research: successful democratic transitions correspond with societies shifting from “survival values” (emphasizing economic security and low tolerance) to “self-expression values” (prioritizing individual freedom, tolerance, and political participation).

When Zelensky’s team tried to preserve Soviet-style “family immunity,” Ukrainians chose institutional accountability over patronage protection.

European pressure reinforced Ukrainian resistance. On 31 July, parliament voted 331-0 to restore anti-corruption agency independence.

Explore further

They came. They cussed. They won.

The test and the warning

This was Ukraine’s first major test of whether it had outgrown the post-Soviet patronage trap. Zelensky’s team tried to replicate the loyalty-first system that had dominated Ukrainian politics for decades. When independent institutions threatened their inner circle, they deployed the full authoritarian toolkit.

However, Ukrainian civil society matured during three decades of independence and intensified during three years of war. When citizens recognized the Yanukovych pattern, they defended democratic accountability.

The victory comes with warnings. The machinery for institutional capture remains in place. Just weeks after the crisis, Zelenskyy appointed Yuliia Svyrydenko as Prime Minister—widely viewed as closely aligned with Yermak. As former President Petro Poroshenko noted: “Replacing Shmyhal, who was ‘Yermak in a shirt,’ with Svyrydenko, who will be ‘Yermak in a skirt,’ changes nothing.”

It is telling that in her first major western interview, which ran on the same day as the Rada gutted NABU and SAPO, Svyrydenko played down Ukrainian corruption, alleging that the problem is overstated. The pool of anonymous pro-Zelenskyy Telegram channels pushed this quote extensively while protests flooded four cities.

More substantially, her government has refused to appoint Oleksandr Tsyvinsky as head of the Bureau of Economic Security, despite his selection by an independent commission and backing from the IMF. The refusal continues the same pattern of blocking oversight appointments that triggered the July crisis.

Most concerning, the team that orchestrated this operation—Yermak, Kravchenko, and their networks—remain in position. They’ve learned from this failure and may attempt more subtle approaches next time.

A bitter irony is involved. Zelenskyy built his political career playing a fictional president fighting corrupt officials in his TV show “Servant of the People.” Six years into real power, when investigators reached his actual inner circle—not fictional corrupt officials but his birthday party guests and business partners—he chose loyalty over law. This is precisely why independent oversight exists: power corrupts even those who start as anti-corruption outsiders.

The comedy studio presidency may still view independent oversight as existential threat. But Ukrainian civil society has shown it’s stronger than the survival networks trying to capture it. That’s the foundation democracies are built on.

An earlier version of this article mistakenly said that Svyrydenko’s only comment on the crisis was the corruption in Ukraine is overstated

Germany has called for continued anti-corruption reforms following Ukraine’s parliament approval of law №13533, designed to restore independence to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).

The German Foreign Ministry described the parliamentary vote as “a positive and necessary step on the path to restoring lost trust.” However, Berlin emphasized that more work remains ahead.

“Now it is necessary to continue reforms in the sphere of fighting corruption,” the German Foreign Ministry reported.

On 31 July, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s Parliament) supported the presidential bill №13533 on restoring the independence of NABU and SAPO. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed the document shortly after its parliamentary passage.

The move represents a reversal from events, when on the evening of 22 July Zelenskyy signed a law that limited the independence of the anti-corruption institutions NABU and SAPO.

That decision prompted thousands of people to participate in protest rallies in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities.

Western politicians also pressured Ukraine to strengthen its institutional framework for combating corruption, particularly as the country continues to receive substantial Western financial and military support.

Following the approved law which reportedly restores the independence of anti-corruption agencies, the European Union has confirmed it has no plans to freeze funding for Ukraine, addressing speculation about potential financial consequences tied to the anti-corruption legislation.

Ukraine’s Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, voted to restore the independence of its main anti-corruption bodies — the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) — by passing presidential draft law No. 13533.

The bill passed with 331 votes and was immediately signed in the chamber by Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

For a week leading up to the vote, thousands of Ukrainians across Kyiv, Lviv, Dnipro and Odesa took to the streets — demanding the reversal of controversial changes even under martial law restrictions on public gatherings. It became the largest wave of protests since Russia’s full‑scale invasion.

Although the effectiveness of these anti-corruption bodies has often been questioned, the earlier law that weakened them was widely condemned at home and abroad as authoritarian and unacceptable, concentrating power in the President’s Office and threatening Ukraine’s reform commitments.

“This is a guarantee of the proper independent functioning of our state’s anti-corruption bodies and all law enforcement agencies. This is the right decision,” Zelenskyy wrote on Telegram.

Mass protests force a U-turn

The debate in the chamber was heated, with shouting, accusations, and visible anger.

MPs insisted that the Speaker and President sign the new law immediately, without delay, to quickly cancel the controversial changes adopted a week earlier.

Outside Parliament, in Mariinskyi Park, protesters gathered to listen to the live broadcast of the vote. When the result was announced, they cheered and shouted: “Power belongs to the people!”

Despite martial law restrictions on public gatherings, police did not disperse the rallies that took place in several Ukrainian cities, and the authorities seemed unprepared for such large‑scale resistance to the new law.

For the first time since the start of Russia’s full‑scale invasion, the session of the Verkhovna Rada was broadcast live on the Rada TV channel — a move widely seen as a concession to public pressure and a demand for transparency.

International pressure grows

After the vote, European Commission spokesperson Guillaume Mercier confirmed that the EU has no plans to freeze financial aid for Ukraine.

EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos welcomed the move but noted on X:

“Today’s law restores key safeguards, but challenges remain. The EU supports the Ukrainian citizens’ demands for reform.”

Brussels emphasized that Ukraine must continue to strengthen reforms as part of its EU accession process.

What triggered the crisis

In July, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) arrested a NABU detective on charges of spying for Russia, alleging that classified information had been passed to Russian intelligence. Critics said these arrests were used as a pretext to attack and weaken independent anti-corruption agencies.

Anti‑corruption activists further accused President Zelenskyy of retaliating against NABU and SAPO because they had investigated figures close to him, including former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov and businessman Timur Mindich, a long‑time associate and former partner in Zelenskyy’s media company Kvartal 95.

Soon after, on 22 July, Parliament passed law No. 12414, originally about missing persons. At the last minute, MPs added amendments that made NABU and SAPO dependent on the Prosecutor General, granting that office the power to seize cases, close investigations, and weaken the agencies’ independence.

The move provoked protests and drew sharp criticism from the US and EU. Despite the backlash, Zelenskyy signed the law the same day.

Reversal under pressure

A week later, under public pressure, threats to cut foreign funding, and continuing protests, Zelenskyy introduced draft law No. 13533, restoring NABU and SAPO’s full powers.

The bill was fast-tracked and adopted in full on 31 July.

Harsh words in Parliament

Before the vote, former Speaker Dmytro Razumkov criticized his colleagues:

“Aren’t you tired of eating excrement in this chamber and feeding it to people??!”

Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze of the opposition party European Solidarity said Parliament is “run like a collective farm from the President’s Office.”

Yulia Tymoshenko, leader of Batkivshchyna, opposed the bill and claimed Ukraine is under “external control.” Meanwhile, Dmytro Kostiuk, a member of the presidential party Servant of the People, announced he was leaving the faction because of the previous controversial vote.

Other members of Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party admitted mistakes and even held up protest-style posters inside the chamber.

The episode also highlighted the growing centralization of power in the President’s Office in Kyiv. With elections suspended due to the war with Russia, Parliament is widely seen as following instructions from the presidential administration rather than acting as an independent branch of government.

What the new law changes

The new law cancels the 22 July amendments and returns NABU and SAPO to full independence.
It adds one condition: NABU staff with access to state secrets must pass a polygraph, carried out by NABU’s own internal control unit rather than the SBU.

According to NABU, more than 200 such tests were already conducted in 2024. NABU and SAPO said they took part in drafting the new law, are satisfied with its provisions, and strongly supported its swift adoption.

Criticism of NABU and SAPO

Ukraine’s anti‑corruption system includes NABU, SAPO, the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) and the High Anti‑Corruption Court (HACC).

Despite significant funding and Western support, their effectiveness remains debated. Critics point out that these bodies are costly, operate in a grey constitutional area, lack independent audits, and have brought few senior officials to justice in almost ten years.

Supporters argue that these problems cannot be solved by a single, quickly adopted law, but require long‑term reforms, stronger oversight and real political independence.

The creation of these institutions was one of the EU’s key conditions for granting Ukraine a visa‑free regime and a requirement for Western financial aid. Western partners helped launch and fund them after concluding that Ukraine’s “old” police and prosecution services had failed to eradicate top‑level corruption.

RFE/RL reports that the luxury life of customs official has triggered protests after an investigation revealed villas, cars and expensive foreign schooling that far exceed his declared income. The Schemes investigative unit of RFE/RL examined the finances of 44-year-old Anatolii Komar, head of the Ukrainian Customs Service department that manages duties on energy imports and exports.

Luxury life of customs official draws anger

RFE/RL says Komar’s family has access to luxury real estate, elite foreign education and high-end cars while his official monthly income is about $2,000. His wife Maria declares about $8,000 per month as a tour guide and online course provider, but this sum still cannot cover the expenses shown.

Social media posts reveal their daughter graduating in 2023 from the Pascal English School in Nicosia, Cyprus, with fees close to $30,000 per year. Other posts show her traveling to Venice, Montreux, Dublin and Albania. This year, she appears to be enrolled at King’s College London, where tuition for non-UK students is nearly $35,000 annually.

Mansion near Kyiv and cash from relatives

According to the report, the family does not live in the Kyiv apartment officially registered to Komar in 2021. Instead, they live in an apartment bought by Maria’s father, Serhii Hladkov. Hladkov also built a 450-square-meter house with a pool and staff quarters in February 2025 in the village of Vyshenky near Kyiv. Experts interviewed by RFE/RL valued the property at more than $1 million.

Hladkov and his wife, Lidia, both retired from modestly paid state jobs, later declared self-employment earnings of about $400,000 and $180,000 respectively. Despite this, they have purchased several properties and gifted almost $120,000 to the family. Hladkov told RFE/RL that he had earned the money and then ended the conversation.

The luxury Mercedes and a “wealthy godfather”

Komar has been driving a Mercedes S-class since 2021. He told RFE/RL that the car is rented by his wife and refused to disclose the price. RFE/RL reports that rental companies estimate the cost at $6,000 per month. The vehicle is registered to the Primorskiy Energy Generating Company, which declared only about $14,000 in three years of car rental income, a figure far below market value. The company’s director, Roman Vorobel, refused to answer detailed questions and said he would consult a lawyer.

Conflict of interest questions over VM Groupe

RFE/RL also found that Komar is president of an amateur soccer club in his hometown of Rokyta. The team is sponsored by VM Groupe, an importer of petroleum products that is under investigation by law enforcement for large-scale tax evasion and by the SBU for importing Russian raw materials.

Ukraine faces a potential funding shortfall of $10-15 billion next year as the country struggles to meet reform commitments demanded by international lenders while maintaining intensive defense spending, according to a Reuters analysis.

The government currently directs most state revenues toward military operations, relying on foreign aid totaling $139 billion since Russia’s February 2022 invasion to cover social and humanitarian expenses, state data shows.

Central Bank Governor Andriy Pyshnyi revealed that only one-third of the $65 billion required for 2026-2027 has been secured, with negotiations continuing for the remainder. A survey of eight economists by the Centre for Economic Studies in Kyiv indicates Ukraine will need between $39 billion and $58 billion in external financing for 2025 alone.

“A key challenge for the government now is to look for $10-15 billion in addition to that volume of aid which partners have already pledged for 2026,” ICU investment house stated in a research note, according to Reuters.

The funding gap has widened after Ukraine missed several reform targets agreed with lenders, including judicial appointments and anti-corruption leadership positions. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to tighten control over the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office sparked the largest wartime street protests and drew sharp criticism from European allies.

Zelenskyy subsequently reversed course, submitting new legislation to parliament to restore institutional independence. The draft bill was scheduled for a vote on 31 July.

The parliamentary committee on law enforcement unanimously supported President Zelenskyy’s draft law №13533 on restoring the powers of the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), according to MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak.

The committee approved the document without any amendments to the originally registered text, Zheleznyak said. The draft law received 19 votes in favor, with no opposition or abstentions recorded.

“Tomorrow (July 31 — ed.) this decision will be put to a vote in the Rada hall. Immediately in two readings. Everything will be fine — there are more than enough votes,” Zheleznyak said.

The move represents a reversal from events, when on the evening of 22 July Zelenskyy signed a law that limited the independence of the anti-corruption institutions NABU and SAPO.

That decision prompted thousands of people to participate in protest rallies in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities. Protesters chanted: “Veto the law,” “Return Europe,” and “Shame.”

Responding to the protests, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced plans to submit a draft law to the Verkhovna Rada that will restore independence to NABU and SAPO. Zelenskyy said that the text of the draft law “guarantees real strengthening of the law enforcement system in Ukraine, independence of anti-corruption bodies, as well as reliable protection of the law enforcement system from any Russian influence or interference.”

According to the document published on the Rada’s website, the subordination of the Specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) to the Prosecutor General will be abolished. Other provisions include limiting the Prosecutor General’s influence on NABU, institutional independence of SAPO, and simplified procedures for appointing prosecutors.

On 30 July, MPs submitted two additional alternative draft laws concerning NABU and SAPO. The total number of alternative documents has now increased to six.

When Ukrainian Gen Z hit the streets to defend anti-corruption agencies, they turned protest signs into an art form. Armed with cardboard, markers, and three years of war-induced gray hair, they created what might be the most literate protest movement in recent memory.

These weren’t your typical angry slogans. Protesters quoted Taras Shevchenko alongside modern poets, mixed classical Ukrainian literature with creative profanity, and crafted messages that read like Twitter threads gone beautifully offline. “Do cattle low when NABU is whole?” riffed on 19th-century novels. “Nations don’t die of heart attacks—first their NABU and SAPO are taken away” played with national poetry. And yes, plenty of signs just said “fuck” in various creative arrangements.

Political experts later explained why the profanity worked so well: it desacralizes power and connects educated protesters with ordinary voters. Basically, when you tell authorities “you’re wrong,” you stay polite. When you say “you’ve lost your fucking minds,” you’re questioning whether they deserve power at all. Guess which one scares politicians more.

The result? President Zelenskyy backed down in 72 hours. Turns out democracy responds better to cardboard signs and literary references than most people expected.

Law 12414 would have transferred control of Ukraine’s main anti-corruption bodies—NABU and SAPO—to a presidentially-appointed prosecutor general. These agencies were created after the 2014 Revolution of Dignity as independent watchdogs. For protesters, many of whom had relatives who died creating these institutions, the law felt like betrayal from within.

After three days of protests, Zelenskyy announced he would submit new legislation preserving the agencies’ independence. Sometimes the pen—or marker—really is mightier than the sword.

More about the Gen Z that nobody expected

They came. They cussed. They won.

Confused about the law? We’ve got you:

Explained: why Ukraine nuked its own anti-corruption agencies

“Fucked up reformers!” screamed the sign of 18-year-old Polina, the girl with the green hair. Her companion’s metaphorically shouted “CUNTS” in huge green letters. Teenage profanity filled every corner of the first large wartime protests engulfing Ukraine’s capital.

It could have been any Gen Z rebellion against the system. And in a way, it was—against a system where President Zelenskyy gutted Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies over just 72 hours. Except it was also a protest for a system—the one Ukraine dreamed up during the Euromaidan revolution in 2014.

“I don’t give a fuck,” Polina snapped back at criticism over the protests’ expletive language. “Swearing allows you to express an opinion and is part of the freedom of speech. Get it?”

Prudes on Facebook scolded protesters like her: it was beneath Ukrainian national dignity to devolve to such unholy vocabulary.

Yet there she was, a first-year student of Ukraine’s top university, one uncle killed during the 2014 protests where Ukrainians rebelled against a pro-Russian president’s U-turn on EU integration, and another uncle killed fighting the Russian invasion, unapologetically demanding political accountability from Ukraine’s current president.

“We know our history, we know why this happened. We are fighting for our freedom from Russia. We are against Ukraine turning into Russia from the inside. So, NABU should be an independent institution,” she said, holding her expletive sign.

Polina encapsulated the main demand of the protests—that a law to bring Ukraine’s anti-graft agencies under the control of a presidentially appointed prosecutor is repealed.

Tens of thousands of people like Polina, holding a sea of cardboard signs, may have just saved Ukraine’s democracy.

The 20-somethings who organized a revolution in 24 hours

Twenty-three-year-old Zinaida Averina never expected to become the architect of Ukraine’s first wartime democratic uprising. When parliament rushed through legislation gutting anti-corruption agencies on 22 July, she created a Telegram chat for protesters that exploded to over 2,000 people within hours.

The chat became a masterclass in grassroots democracy. Participants debated protest demands, coordinated with police, organized snacks and water stations, and—uniquely for a political movement—created separate threads for memes and hookups. “What could be sexier than a clear civic position?” joked one organizer. “We need to solve the demographic crisis!”

Many signs cheekily declared “This cardboard is paid for”—a stab at conspiracy theories claiming Western funding behind the protests’ eruption.

But the most remarkable thing happened on the streets. “Two very young people, eyes shining with excitement, look at the crowd,” witnessed Anton Senenko. “Katia, this is our first Maidan!” one exclaimed, invoking Kyiv’s Independence Square, Maidan Nezalezhnosti, where all the revolutions happen.

They kissed.

Not exactly your typical protest energy. But then again, this wasn’t your typical protest.

Explore further

“I defended Zelenskyy against Trump’s dictatorship accusations. Now I can’t,” says Ukraine’s top corruption fighter

Why swearing terrified the authorities more than anything

Critics fixated on the protesters’ colorful language, missing why it was so politically effective. Oleksandr Rachev explained the strategy behind the swearing.

“When you tell authorities ‘you’re wrong,’ you stay within a model of respect that doesn’t frighten them,” he noted. “When you say ‘you’ve lost your fucking minds,’ it means questioning their very legitimacy. And that scares them.”

The profanity served another function: mass appeal. “Swearing is considered the language of ‘ordinary people,'” Ravchev continued. “University professors and activists don’t swear—that’s why they stay in their intellectual bubble. Swearing is a bridge between creative youth protesting and ordinary voters who actually vote.”

The slogan “I need a system that works for me” would be fine for intellectuals, he argued. But “Why the fuck do I need a system that works against me?” reaches ordinary people’s minds. “Because that’s exactly how they talk.”

Behind those Facebook posts scolding protesters about “pure language,” Ravchev detected real fear: “The authorities are terrified that profane protest slogans will reach mass voters and sweep them away.”

Academic Volodymyr Kulyk found himself shouting “The Office fucked up” despite never swearing in front of his wife in 35 years. The moment surprised him—but he understood what was happening.

The youth had “finally desacralized power, which can now be addressed without picking words, at least when it deserves it,” he wrote. When even a polite academic starts cursing at the government, something fundamental has shifted.

The war’s children have gray hair

But there was a deeper reason behind the raw language. These weren’t typical teenagers. Tetiana Troshchynska noted: “My hairdresser tells me about all the gray children she gives haircuts to. 12, 13, 16 years old. Half-gray heads, gray streaks, peppered gray. I tell some, not others, because they’re sad and crying. I don’t know where they’re from, what they’ve experienced, who they’ve lost.”

The Kapranov Brothers added: “Swearing is a consequence of war, exactly like ruins, minefields and trenches. Just as we’ll have to demine forests and seas from Russian mines after the war, we’ll have to demine heads from swearing. But—after the war.”

These weren’t kids who idealized the two anti-corruption agencies, NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau) and SAPO (Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office). Most protesters readily admitted both agencies had problems—corruption scandals, slow investigations, bureaucratic failures.

“They’re trying to get rid of essentially the only anti-corruption mechanism that Ukraine has,” Marco, a 25-year-old who lived in Chicago for a decade before returning to Kyiv, explained to Euromaidan Press.

“By doing that, they’re trying to integrate it into the actual government, which makes it so the people in government who are corrupt decide whether they themselves are corrupt, right? So, it’s a little counterintuitive.”

NABU and SAPO, whatever their flaws, were the first real separation of power in Ukraine—bringing it closer to a functioning democracy and further from the likes of the autocracies in Russia and Belarus.

More in our editorial

Editorial: Zelenskyy opens a second front—against his own people

The twitter-space goes offline

But focusing on the swearing missed the real cultural phenomenon. Most signs weren’t profane—they were poetic.

Ukrainian cultural observer Olena Oleksandra Chervonik noted that these cardboard creations represented “real poetry, with all its nerve and broken form. Something in the tradition of Ukrainian futurists—short, with broken lines, unconventional syllable division.”

Signs mixed Latin script with Cyrillic, quoted Taras Shevchenko alongside modern poets, featured portraits of Lesya Ukrainka next to Zelensky caricatures.

“If you want to know where modern poetry is in Ukraine—here it is, on these cardboards,” one literary critic observed. “Poetry as a weapon is something very Ukrainian.”

This was Ukraine’s first Twitter-era protest movement; the cardboard sea of short, punchy statements was tweets gone offline.

Yet paradoxically, it produced some of the most sophisticated political poetry seen on Ukrainian streets:

• “Do cattle low when NABU is whole?”—parodying a 19th-century Ukrainian novel by Panás Myrnyi, which basically says that cattle (people) don’t complain when they’re well-fed;
• “Nations don’t die of heart attacks—first they lose their NABU and SAPO”—riffing on modern poetess Lina Kostenko, “Nations don’t die of heart attacks—first they lose their speech”;
• or the blunt “Why the fuck do I need a system that works against me?”

The unspoken wartime contract, broken

The protests revealed something deeper than anger over specific legislation. As wounded veteran and protester Sabir explained: “We had an unspoken social contract: we don’t criticize the authorities during war, but they don’t pull any bullshit. But they kept pulling bullshit. Now they decided they could allow themselves more. People showed they couldn’t.”

The speed of the legislation shocked even seasoned political observers. Bills typically languish in parliament for months. This one passed in hours, with Zelensky signing it the same evening as protests erupted outside his office.

“When you pass such a law in one evening, it looks very much like fear of losing power,” said IT worker Olena Danyliuk, 31. “They’re trembling at the thought they might have to give up power.”

EU officials were reportedly shocked when they learned of the legislation. Brussels had planned to secretly fast-track Ukraine’s accession talks, but the anti-corruption law threatened that timeline.

Perhaps Ukraine was following Georgia’s trajectory—offering high hopes but ultimately succumbing to pro-Russian authoritarianism?

Not so fast, said the youngsters with their “silly” signs.

Explore further

EU had a secret plan to bypass Orbán. Zelenskyy blew it up instead.

When Gen Z rebellion goes right

The contrast with Western youth movements couldn’t be more vivid. While American and European teenagers often target democratic institutions themselves—demanding to tear down systems they see as irredeemably corrupt—Ukrainian Gen Z fight to preserve and strengthen democratic institutions against authoritarian capture.

This difference reveals an ironic truth: Western youth don’t know how good they have it. They’ve never lived without independent courts, free press, or anti-corruption agencies. They can afford to attack these institutions because they’ve never experienced their absence.

Ukrainian twenty-somethings have gray hair at 16 and dead relatives in their family trees. They know exactly what happens when democratic institutions disappear. They are, actually, dying for a stab at a democratic future, not the one that Russia offers—where opposition figures end up dead or imprisoned, where corruption flows unchecked because there’s no independent oversight.

As veteran protester Ivan Chyhyryn, who lost his leg rescuing a wounded comrade, told reporters: “My parents were on Maidan in 2014 when I was very young. Creating independent anti-corruption institutions was one of their goals. What my parents fought for is now being thrown away.”

His generation inherited revolution in their DNA—the Orange Revolution in 2004, the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, and now resistance to democratic backsliding in 2025. But unlike previous generations who had to build democracy from scratch, these youth were defending institutions they’d grown up with.

The cardboard revolution’s victory?

By Wednesday evening, Zelensky announced he would submit new legislation preserving anti-corruption agencies’ independence. “We heard the street,” he said—the same president who’d ignored international criticism and parliamentary opposition.

And this illustrated the main difference between Ukraine and Russia: Russian opposition complains it can’t change anything while Ukrainian teenagers flood the streets with “Fuck corruption” signs and win.

“I genuinely believe that if this happened in Russia, police would have just come in and beat everybody up,” Marco told Euromaidan Press. “In Ukraine, though, we really are freedom-loving and we will show the government that we are the ones in charge, not them.”

Even Russian independent media called these protests a “political crisis.” For Russians, street demonstrations represent a system breakdown. For Ukrainians, they represent the system working—checks and balances moving from the streets into the political fabric.

As protester Polina put it: “Only we can fight for our best future. That’s why we’re all here.”

Not bad for a generation whose main political tools are Twitter, Telegram, and magic markers.

Explore further

Explained: why Ukraine nuked its own anti-corruption agencies

After a law limiting the independence of anti-corruption bodies came into effect, one of them, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau or NABU, announced the completion of investigations of long-term cases. Four high-profile criminal cases were closed in one week by the agency, Glavkom reports.

This surge in anti-corruption activity coincided with a public statement by the new Prosecutor General, Ruslan Kravchenko, about his intention to intervene in certain cases that NABU had been investigating for years.

“In such cases, I will raise questions and possibly create a joint investigative group with other employees,” said Kravchenko.

For comparison: in January 2025, NABU did not report about the number of cases brought to a conclusion. According to the Center for Countering Corruption, the agency completed one in May and three in March, Texty reported. 

Billion-dollar fraud at PrivatBank

Finally, NABU completed the investigation of one of the largest cases involving the embezzlement of over $225 million from PrivatBank before its nationalization. According to the investigation, the money was funneled through a scheme of fictitious loans registered to controlled entities.

The case involves six suspects, including oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, who has been in custody since 2023.

Undeclared assets of AMCU head

Pavlo Kyrylenko, head of the Antimonopoly Committee, is charged with failing to declare significant property, including several apartments in Kyiv and Uzhhorod, a residential house of over 220 sq.m. near Kyiv, two land plots, two garage boxes, six parking spaces, three non-residential premises totaling over 190 sq.m., and a BMW X3 car. Additionally, a separate case regarding Kyrylenko’s alleged illegal enrichment amounting to over $1.75 million is under review and has already been transferred to the High Anti-Corruption Court.

Fictitious rulings for draft dodgers in Odesa Oblast

Regional judges systematically issued fake rulings allowing men to avoid mobilization. The most common reason was the status of “sole parent.” According to the investigation, $3,500 was charged for such rulings. A total of 1,040 similar rulings were issued over the past year.

$300,000 for impunity

Another case was completed, and this time against an SBU officer who, according to the investigation, demanded $300,000 for destroying materials related to the illegal smuggling of men abroad. If refused, he threatened to initiate criminal prosecution under more serious charges.

Ukraine will receive only part of the fourth tranche of financial assistance under the Ukraine Facility mechanism. The reason is the failure to implement three out of sixteen key reforms stipulated in agreements with the EU, says Guillaume Mercier, European Commission spokesperson, European Pravda reports. 

If Kyiv had implemented all 16 reforms, Ukraine would have received €4.5 billion. But according to Mercier, the European Commission assessed only 13 indicators as fulfilled, and therefore proposes a reduced tranche of €3.05 billion.

Which reforms were not implemented?

The three reforms that remain unfulfilled are:

• decentralization
• reform of ARMA (Asset Recovery and Management Agency),
• transparent selection of judges for the High Anti-Corruption Court.

Ukraine submitted a request to the EU for a partial payment back in June 2025.

The Ukraine Facility program envisions providing Ukraine with up to €50 billion over several years, conditional on the successful implementation of reforms. Each tranche is tied to specific steps. 

Masked men appeared at anti-corruption demonstrations in Kyiv Thursday evening, carrying inflammatory signs targeting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy personally—exactly 24 hours after Ukrainian intelligence warned that Russia would deploy provocateurs to exploit the crisis.

The timing wasn’t coincidental. Defense Intelligence had warned Wednesday that “Kremlin agents are actively studying the internal situation” to weaponize protests against the law that subordinates Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies to the Prosecutor General’s Office.

When the real protesters left, others appeared

The incident unfolded around evening as legitimate demonstrators wrapped up their third day of protests against Law No. 12414. What happened next looked like textbook destabilization.

Masked individuals emerged with signs reading “Ukraine is not Kvartal! Ukrainians are not slaves!” “Killers of democracy traitors of Ukraine,” and “Heroes are dying for Ukraine and these two are destroying it!”—directly targeting Zelenskyy and his chief of staff Andriy Yermak, according to footage captured by a Euromaidan Press correspondent.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Euromaidan Press (@euromaidanpress)

Legitimate protesters had focused on defending institutions: “Hands off NABU and SAP!” and “The lost generation wants democracy.” These newcomers turned it into a vitriolic attack on the country’s leadership.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Euromaidan Press (@euromaidanpress)

The power concentration driving protest anger

Why target Zelenskyy and Yermak specifically? The anti-corruption law represents broader concerns about power centralization during wartime.

When investigators began targeting Zelenskyy’s closest associates—including Oleksiy Chernyshov, the only Cabinet minister invited to Zelenskyy’s COVID birthday party, and business partner Tymur Mindych from Kvartal 95—the response was to subordinate the investigators rather than allow the process to continue.

The law effectively places NABU and SAPO under the Prosecutor General’s control, ending a decade of institutional independence. The protesters aren’t calling for Zelenskyy’s removal—they want the law repealed while maintaining effective war leadership. Most Ukrainians still oppose holding elections while fighting Russia. Their primary concern remains winning the war.

That’s precisely what makes this moment valuable to Moscow. The Kremlin hopes to exploit these real institutional tensions to destabilize Zelenskyy’s government entirely.

Explore further

Explained: why Ukraine nuked its own anti-corruption agencies

Surgical timing raises questions

Witness Mladena Kachurets documented the evening’s events. The suspicious activity began about 10 minutes before an air raid alert—perfect timing for dramatic effect.

“Masked individuals gathered the remaining protesters around them and delivered some kind of recorded speech,” she wrote. Multiple distractions played out simultaneously. While media focused on MP Maryana Bezuhla giving comments, “behind her was a verbal altercation between two young men, drawing part of the attention away.”

Then came the crescendo. When the air raid alert sounded, “the masked individuals demonstratively lit flares—an impressive picture, you’ll agree.”

Classic Russian influence operation

The provocateurs’ work didn’t end with the flares. Multiple Russian media outlets, starting from TASS, quickly fabricated coverage, with headlines like “Protesters in Kyiv called Zelenskyy and Yermak ‘traitors of Ukraine'” appearing the next day.

“They unfurled posters with images of Zelenskyy and Yermak, accompanied by inscriptions: ‘Killers of democracy – traitors of Ukraine’ and ‘Dictators.’ The posters also indicated that ‘these two’ are destroying the country, and ‘Ukrainians are not slaves,’” TASS reported on the provocateurs.

They cited Strana.ua, a pro-Russian media outlet that Ukraine sanctioned in 2021, as their source without providing actual links to any such article. Strana indeed reported on the event, on their Telegram channel, using a video by UNIAN with a comment presenting this as legitimate sentiments of the protesters.

The catch is that Ukrainian media, sensing Russian hybrid warfare operations from a mile away, either did not report on the men or reported them as provocateurs. Even the opposition 5 Kanal tweeted the video with a comment “provocative action” and followed up with a comment from the organizers that dismissed the burned Yermak and Zelenskyy portraits as a “provocation.”

The UNIAN video that Strana.ua shared the video with this comment: “At a protest in Kyiv, a group of planted provocateurs are lighting flares to the sound of air raid sirens. It looks like these uninvited guests are clearly and openly staging a photo op. Makes you wonder who needs this footage besides Russian propaganda—and who’s pulling the strings?”

What unraveled in the backyard of the President’s Office in Kyiv on 24 July was a classic Russian influence operation. Its aim was to fabricate a virtual reality inside the heads of Russians to validate the propaganda narratives driving Russia’s war—that Ukrainians want this, because they don’t support Zelenskyy anyway.

The inflammatory signs calling Zelenskyy a “dictator” and “traitor” now circulate in Russian information space—manufacturing evidence that Ukraine is fragmenting internally to validate Moscow’s narrative that its invasion “liberates” Ukrainians from their government.

We’ve seen multiple examples of how these operations work in the Surkov Leaks, a collection of Vladimir Putin’s gray cardinal Vladislav Surkov, who worked to destabilize Ukraine from within after the Euromaidan revolution with hybrid warfare means. So far, it appears that the operation has influenced solely Russians, as the incendiary narrative of “down with the dictators” proved too radical for Ukrainians.

But that doesn’t mean that the Kremlin won’t keep trying and finding other ways to mess with the minds of Ukrainians—and anybody else gullible enough to fall for the Kremlin’s information warfare.

Explore further

What Surkov’s hacked emails tell about Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine

What happens next?

But here’s what actually happened to the supposed “dictator”: within three days of signing the controversial law, Zelenskyy submitted corrective legislation under intense public pressure.

“We heard the street,” he admitted, promising new legislation to restore anti-corruption agency independence. Parliament has scheduled July 31 to vote on the bill—though passage isn’t guaranteed.

Protesters haven’t declared victory yet. They’ve vowed to keep demonstrating until the corrective law actually passes and institutional independence is genuinely restored. The danger to democratic institutions was real, and vigilance remains essential.

But that’s precisely the point. The provocateur operation aimed to show Russians that Ukrainians reject their leadership and welcome “liberation.” Instead, it captured something different: a democracy under stress but still functioning. Public pressure forced a presidential retreat. Protests work. Institutions push back. Citizens stay engaged.

Ukraine’s democracy is imperfect and fragile—but it’s alive. The operation succeeded only in Russian information space, manufacturing the illusion of internal collapse for domestic consumption while the real Ukraine continued the messy, contentious work of democratic governance.

Ukraine’s parliament will convene on 31 July to review President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s draft law 13533, which promises to restore independence to the country’s anti-corruption agencies, according to parliamentary speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk.

The speaker said that he would propose adopting the bill immediately as a basis and in full, while supporting its urgent signing. Beyond Zelenskyy’s anti-corruption measure, parliament will also consider other “important legislative initiatives,” Stefanchuk added.

The session will come nine days after parliament passed law №12414 on 22 July, which amended the Criminal Procedure Code to make NABU and the Specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor’s Office dependent on decisions by the prosecutor general. Zelenskyy signed the document the same evening.

The 22 July law triggered protest actions across multiple Ukrainian cities. Amid the protests, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with the heads of law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies, including the Prosecutor General.

 Zelenskyy announced later he submitted the new draft law to parliament, stating it would ensure “strength for the law enforcement system” and preserve “all norms for the independence of anti-corruption institutions.”

The National Anti-corruption Bureau confirmed that Zelenskyy’s bill would restore all powers and independence guarantees for NABU and SAPO that were affected by the earlier legislation.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) have stated that the bill submitted by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy restores all guarantees of independence for these institutions.

“Bill No. 13533, submitted by the President of Ukraine as urgent, restores all procedural powers and guarantees of independence for NABU and SAPO,” the agencies report.

NABU and SAPO participated in drafting the text and are urging the Ukrainian Parliament to adopt the President’s initiative as soon as possible, both in the first reading and as a whole.

“This will help prevent threats to the criminal proceedings investigated by NABU and SAPO,” they emphasize. 

The work of Ukraine’s independent anti-corruption bodies is a key requirement for its path to European membership. It also affects the future of Ukraine’s aid, which mostly depends on Ukraine amid US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy. The bloc’s leaders have appealed to Kyiv with questions on the controversial law and urged transparency in reform.

After Zelenskyy decided to respond to the mass rallies and work on the law restoring the activities of NABU and SAPO, the EU viewed such actions positively.

Western trust under threat as Zelenskyy nears signing controversial law that crashes Ukraine’s anti-corruption system

At the same time, European Commission Spokesperson Stefan de Keersmaecker emphasized the need for continued efforts in this direction.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a law Tuesday dismantling Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies.

The timing was disastrous: Brussels had secretly scheduled 18 July to open Ukraine’s first EU negotiating cluster, bypassing Hungary entirely, but abandoned the plan after Ukraine’s anti-corruption crackdown, according to European Pravda sources within EU institutions.

Zelenskyy knew about the plan. He’d been personally involved in discussions with Danish officials and EU leadership since late June, European Pravda reported, citing unnamed European officials. But instead of supporting this diplomatic breakthrough, Ukraine systematically undermined its reform credentials by rejecting the Bureau of Economic Security selection results, conducting searches of activist Vitalii Shabunin’s home, and finally signing the law gutting NABU and SAPO independence.

Brussels was ready to break its own rules for Ukraine

The Danish EU presidency and European Commission had crafted something unprecedented: legal measures to sideline Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán, who had systematically blocked Ukraine’s accession, completely.

Bloomberg reported in May that member states pushed the Commission to explore options for opening Ukraine’s first negotiating chapter despite Hungarian objections.

The breakthrough insight: while unanimity is required to start and complete EU accession negotiations, sources told Bloomberg it’s not a legal requirement for opening individual clusters. The Commission informed member states that it intended to send the European Council a first report on starting cluster discussions with Ukraine and Moldova.

After years of Hungarian obstruction, 26 member states were willing to risk institutional precedent.

The “parallel negotiations” mechanism

The mechanism was elegant: conduct “parallel negotiations” where 26 EU states would negotiate with Ukraine while Moldova received formal recognition. When Moldova opened negotiating clusters, the 26 states would issue statements confirming Ukraine had completed the same work and that only Hungary’s veto prevented legal advancement.

• Inter-Governmental Conferences: The Danish presidency was prepared to convene working bodies pivotal to enlargement that don’t require Hungarian consent
• Political weight: Though legally non-binding for Ukraine, these would carry enormous political significance
• Synchronized progress: Ukraine’s advancement would be coordinated with Moldova’s formal recognition

The Danish presidency, which described enlargement as a “geopolitical necessity,” had exhausted diplomatic options with Hungary.

Hungary systematic obstruction

Orbán had forced Brussels into this position through relentless obstruction. After blocking progress during Hungary’s 2024 EU presidency, he staged a “national consultation” where 95% of 2.3 million participants opposed Ukraine membership—though an opposition poll found 58% Hungarian support for Ukraine’s EU bid.

Zelenskyy met with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen during the NATO summit in The Hague. He flew to Denmark on 3 July for private negotiations. Final details were hammered out in Rome on 10 July. Everything was set for the 18 July ceremony in Brussels.

European officials were prepared to risk institutional precedent. Ukraine chose that exact moment to implode its reform credentials.

How Ukraine sabotaged itself

The self-sabotage unfolded in a devastating sequence:

• 9 July: The Ukrainian government rejected the winner of a transparent, EU-supported competition to head the Bureau of Economic Security. The government simply overturned the selection results with no explanation.
• 11 July: Law enforcement raided anti-corruption activist Vitalii Shabunin’s home without a court warrant. They also searched the mother of fallen Hero of Ukraine pilot Andrii “Juice” Pilshchykov simply because Shabunin had briefly stayed there.
• 14 July: Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna announced her resignation as Ukraine’s chief EU negotiator—replacing a negotiator at such a sensitive moment gave Brussels another reason to pause.

Denmark quietly abandoned the 18 July proposal. European Pravda sources reported EU officials asking: “WTF? What is going on?”

Brussels draws the line

EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos warned Deputy Prime Minister Taras Kachka that the anti-corruption law would have “serious consequences for the entire negotiation process.” Some member states now believe “it would have been better not to rush into opening the first cluster.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Zelenskyy directly to express “strong concerns.” Brussels views this as democratic backsliding comparable to Georgia’s retreat.

Economic consequences mounting

The OECD warned that undermining anti-corruption agencies will hurt:

• Defense investments in Ukraine
• Reconstruction funding from international partners
• Future borrowing capacity as creditors reassess risk

But European officials doubt the Presidential Office takes these warnings seriously—they are accustomed to Brussels making threats without decisive action.

Explore further

Zelenskyy’s scandalous law weakening anti-graft watchdogs takes effect (updated)

Putin wins without trying

Anti-corruption architect Daria Kaleniuk pointed out the bitter irony: Zelenskyy “just gave Putin his best argument.”

Putin’s original justification for war was that Ukraine was “losing sovereignty to foreign partners, establishing anti-corruption institutions with foreign experts.” Ukrainian MPs are now making Putin’s argument for him.

Ukraine will fall behind Moldova in EU accession talks. The “decoupling” Brussels tried to avoid becomes inevitable—not because of Hungarian obstruction, but because of Ukraine own choices. As one European official noted: “Ukraine has done the dirty work instead of Viktor Orbán.”

What the law actually does

The legislation Zelenskyy signed grants the Prosecutor General sweeping authority to:

• Reassign NABU investigations to other agencies
• Issue binding instructions to anti-corruption bodies
• Unilaterally close high-level corruption cases
• Control SAPO operations through mandatory coordination

Transparency International Ukraine called it the dismantling of “prosecutorial independence.”

The timing was particularly damaging. Just as European officials prepared to risk institutional precedent for Ukraine’s benefit, Kyiv chose to demolish its reform credentials.

The protest signs in Kyiv yesterday said everything: “My father did not die for this.”

When Ukrainians took to the streets 11 years ago in Ukraine’s Euromaidan Revolution, they had simple demands: a country where one would want to live. A place where everyone is treated equally under the law and justice is not an empty word.

Yesterday, in 72 hours, Ukraine’s government destroyed those hopes by dismantling what took a decade to build.

The rushed adoption hidden in another law, the dirty tactics pressuring MPs, the ongoing investigations against Zelenskyy’s inner circle, the flimsy accusations against Ukraine’s anti-corruption organs invoking old traffic accidents, leave no mistake: this legal theater was a planned assault on the system of checks and balances created since Euromaidan.

The significance of this system for Ukraine is profound. Since Aristotle’s time, dividing power into legislative, executive, and judiciary has separated democratic governance from monarchy. In Ukraine, it was largely theater—and each revolution rose against increasing authoritarianism.

NABU and SAPO, whatever their flaws, were the first real separation of power in Ukraine. They could be improved, made more effective. But gutting their independence isn’t about effectiveness—it’s about destroying Ukraine’s capacity to check those in power and resist authoritarianism.

This is what’s happening now. The young people who flooded Ukrainian cities in protest are defending republicanism against monarchy. This desire sets Ukrainians apart from Russia and Belarus—the promise of European integration sealed with the blood of Euromaidan protesters who died for freedom.

This promise of functioning democracy, the best guarantee of dignified life, drove Ukraine since 2014 to reject the Russian path where personal freedom gets discarded and authority worshipped. It drives Ukrainians defending their land against the Russian invasion.

That promise had concrete stakes. NABU independence was the condition for visa-free travel, EU candidacy talks, and every step toward European integration. Those foundations just crumbled.

Ukrainians on the frontline didn’t die for Zelenskyy’s power to concentrate authority and enrich himself. They died for their families, for a future where their children wouldn’t choose between dignity and survival.

Power is intoxicating. It is a bitter irony that Zelenskyy became the villain from his own TV show—the corrupt president enjoying the impunity he once campaigned against.

He signed the law with record speed, buried the attack in photo-ops, ignored thousand-strong protests in his evening address.

Since today, a second front has opened in Ukraine—between those preserving Ukraine’s democratic future and those sacrificing it for personal protection. This fight determines whether Ukraine’s victory over Russia means anything, or whether we become the corrupt autocracy we once fought to escape.

Zelenskyy can still reverse course—withdraw his signature, restore what was broken. But each day this law stands, Ukraine moves closer to becoming the country it once fought to escape.

The choice between republic and monarchy remains his to make.

History is watching.

Russian intelligence services are attempting to destabilize Ukraine amid the anti-corruption crisis, Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence warns. Kremlin agents are actively studying the internal situation in order to exploit the wave of protests linked to the adoption of the new law, which enables control over independent anti-corruption bodies. 

According to the agency, Russia’s goal is to undermine Ukraine’s ability to resist full-scale military aggression and to discredit the country on the international stage. 

“Russia intends to discredit Ukraine in the eyes of the world to weaken or destroy Western support for the armed struggle against the aggressor,” the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence says.

Inside Ukraine, the Kremlin sees an opportunity to capitalize on public discontent to stir chaos and polarize society. This is not just about propaganda — intelligence warns of possible provocations orchestrated directly from Moscow.

“To escalate the protests, deepen polarization, and plunge Ukrainian society into chaos… provocations inspired by Moscow are not ruled out,” the agency cautions.

The Defense Intelligence stresses that the country is in the midst of a genocidal war, in which Russia employs not only weapons but also manipulations, disinformation, and internal sabotage.

“The Ukrainian nation is living through a genocidal war in which the aggressor is trying by all means to destroy our state,” the agency emphasizes.

On 22 July, Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov, the head of the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence, called for internal disagreements to be resolved through open dialogue.

“Ukrainian history has taught us, a nation loses when it is torn apart by internal strife. We face a common misfortune and a common enemy. That is why internal disagreements should be resolved through open dialogue to achieve a single shared goal, to defend our country,” he claimed.

He added that he is confident: Ukraine will be saved by strong armed forces and institutions.

No one becomes an anti-corruption activist to make money, least of all in Ukraine. When I first met the co-founders of the Anti-Corruption Action Center – Vitaliy Shabunin and Daria Kaleniuk – back in 2014, they were already veterans of state persecution, and have become only more experienced in the decade since.

AntAC has pioneered and pushed through many of the reforms that have helped Ukraine to become more transparent and less corrupt, leading to the creation of new courts, new laws, new law enforcement agencies, and much more. And this is why it is so alarming that Shabunin has been arrested and his home searched, on the transparently absurd premise that he was dodging military service, while he was following an order from his superior officers to be seconded to the National Agency for Corruption Prevention.

“We strongly believe that, in addition to illegal persecution, these searches are an attempt by the authorities to obtain information about the Anti-Corruption Action Centre’s activities,” said the AntAC. “The goal is simple – to undermine our activities aimed at exposing government corruption.”

It is easy to condemn corruption by your opponents, but sadly easy to excuse it in your friends, particularly in wartime. AntAC’s consistent refusal to go easy on anyone – for example, over the government’s recent refusal to follow the law over the leadership of the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine – has won it many enemies, but even its critics recognise how central it has been to Ukraine’s democratic development.

“The actions of the pre-trial investigation bodies can be considered either as complete incompetence of officials and unsuitability for their positions, or as a deliberate attack aimed at putting pressure on Vitaliy Shabunin, who continued to criticise the work of state bodies while serving in the military,” said 90 Ukrainian NGOs in a joint statement. 

Western foreign officials need to raise Shabunin’s case with their Ukrainian counterparts and continue raising it until this case is dropped. If Ukraine wants to keep receiving support as a democracy fighting a dictatorship, it needs to keep acting like a democracy, and that means its leaders being willing to hear things they don’t want to hear.

THE U.S., A CRYPTO-POWERED TAX HAVEN?

So the European Union’s Anti-Money Laundering Authority is up and running, and one of its first acts has been to warn about the risk posted by cryptocurrencies in its 2025 work programme. Bruna Szego, AMLA’s chair, added that national regulators need to regulate crypto companies as stringently as they do anything else, and that big crypto companies were likely to be among the 40 institutions that AMLA will directly supervise, along with the continent’s largest banks.

The view from the UK is similar. “The risk of money laundering through cryptoassets has increased significantly since 2020 with cryptoassets increasingly appearing in money laundering intelligence over this period. Cryptoassets are increasingly used for laundering all forms of proceeds of crime,” states the country’s newly-published money laundering risk assessment. “The international nature of the blockchain and cryptoasset transactions present unique difficulties in conducting effective enforcement against criminal actors.”

For anyone with a passing acquaintance with money laundering, all of this is completely non-contentious. However, it is hard to square this caution with what’s happening in the United States. Trump’s own crypto company is expanding its business, U.S. regulators are now cool with retirement accounts holding crypto, and yet another big crypto firm is looking to sell shares on the stock exchange. The technology’s boosters are feeling confident, and presenting blockchain as central to national security.

I see cryptocurrencies as near perfect tools for criminals and tycoons to escape the rules democracies put in place to prevent them from owning everything and bribing everyone. But I can also appreciate the artistry of the efforts of the Digital Chamber to boost its members’ business interests by arguing that they’re for the good of the United States and therefore for the good of humanity (for are those two causes not one and the same?).

“It is TDC’s position that blockchain technology supports global economic freedom by empowering those who resist tyranny around the world,” said the Chamber, one of the biggest crypto lobbyists in Washington, DC.

I don’t know what’s worse: that people say this stuff without believing it, or that they actually believe it. Being able to move money in secret may theoretically empower everyone, but in reality it disproportionately empowers already rich people. The U.S. is turning itself into a blockchain-powered tax haven at any incredible rate. Cartels, kleptocrats, oligarchs, spies, plutocrats, these are the real long-term beneficiaries from cryptocurrencies, and if we don’t realise that soon then the rest of us will pay a heavy price for Washington’s capitulation to their lobbyists.

THE U.K., TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK

Britain, meanwhile, continues its inch-by-inch progress towards a less dirty financial system. It has dissolved 11,500 companies that did not abide by newer, more stringent rules around transparency, closed three company formation agents, and barred several people from working in corporate formation again. For those of us used to how appallingly lax things used to be, this is all rather good to see, if hard to believe (they do, after all, have previous when it comes to boasting about things they shouldn’t be proud of).

The government is planning a summit on countering illicit finance which, coupled with a surprisingly good-looking series of proposals for getting dark money out of politics, feels weirdly hopeful for a country with a tendency to err on the side of letting dirty cash go wherever it likes. I anticipate that counterbalancing bad news will be along next week.

Still, while I’m being optimistic, I’ll give a shout out to The Latimer Network, which brings together experts and practitioners in countering illicit finance from the U.K. and beyond, with the aim of improving how that is done. One of its particular focuses is on trying to think of a better way of identifying money laundering than the current workhorse: the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). 

Tens of millions of SARs are filed globally each year, supposedly to alert the authorities to transactions that look dodgy. That is far too many to read, and most of them are valueless anyway, and it would be great to come up with a better way of monitoring transactions, so that criminals are excluded from the financial system. And don’t tell me it’s blockchain.

However, if you’d like an insight into some of the problems facing the British government, here’s a piece I wrote on the absolute disaster that is the national water system. You wouldn’t have thought you could mess up the water supply in a country where it rains so much, and yet, here we are.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post Ukraine clamps down on anti-corruption activists appeared first on Coda Story.

A law curbing anti-graft watchdogs has officially taken effect in Ukraine, triggering public protest and sharp criticism from legal observers and European officials. Submitted by the ruling Servant of the People party, which holds a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, the bill was passed on 22 July and signed into law by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that same evening — a rare instance of rapid enactment.

Key anti-graft watchdogs stripped of independence

Law No. 12414 was officially published on 23 July in the Rada’s Holos Ukrainy newspaper, granting it full legal force. As a result, the prosecutor general now has the authority to reassign investigations from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) to other law enforcement bodies, issue binding written instructions to NABU detectives, serve as the effective head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), and unilaterally close top-level corruption cases.

In addition, SAPO’s procedural autonomy is severely curtailed. The law removes the agency’s ability to determine NABU’s jurisdiction in exceptional cases, strips its head of the right to resolve jurisdictional disputes, and prevents SAPO leadership from altering appellate or cassation complaints submitted by its prosecutors. Transparency International Ukraine stated that the law is an attack on anti-graft safeguards and warned it dismantles the foundations of prosecutorial independence. 

Explore further

Abuse of power: Ukraine’s Civil Anti-Corruption Council urges Zelenskyy to veto new law undermining anti-corruption system

EU sounds alarm

The law was authored and pushed forward by MP Maksym Buzhanskyi, a member of Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party. It introduces sweeping amendments to Ukraine’s Criminal Code and bypassed standard parliamentary procedures. Critics argue it violated Article 116 of the Verkhovna Rada’s regulations by radically altering the subject of the original legislation.

EU Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos said she was “seriously concerned” over the Rada vote.

“The dismantling of key safeguards protecting NABU’s independence is a serious step back. Independent bodies, like NABU [and] SAPO, are essential for [Ukraine’s] EU path. Rule of Law remains in the very center of EU accession negotiations,” she wrote on X.

Cities erupt in protest after Rada passes the law

The law’s passage sparked mass protests in Kyiv and multiple other Ukrainian cities including Lviv, Dnipro, Odesa, and Ivano-Frankivsk late on 22 July. Demonstrators accused Zelenskyy and parliament of dismantling Ukraine’s most trusted anti-corruption structures. 

Explore further

From Lviv to Odesa: Ukrainians take to streets to save anti-corruption agencies

Zelenskyy offers no explanation beyond ‘Russian influence’

Despite public backlash and mounting criticism, Zelenskyy signed the bill into law, giving only a vague and unsupported rationale. In a video address on 22 July, he said that “anti-corruption infrastructure will work, but must be cleared of Russian influence.” He added that justice must become “more visible” and said cases involving fugitive officials should finally be pursued. However, he gave no details on how curbing anti-graft watchdogs would aid in countering Russian infiltration.

Intelligence raids, spy accusations, and political timing

Before the legislative push, starting 21 July, the SBU security service and Prosecutor General’s Office carried out approximately 80 searches targeting 19 NABU staff across multiple oblasts. Employees were accused of state treason, illicit trade with Russia, and acting on behalf of oligarchs. The State Bureau of Investigations simultaneously reopened dormant car crash cases involving NABU staff.

SAPO expressed concern that the SBU and prosecutor’s office had accessed covert investigative data, risking the exposure of classified operations. They warned that SBU actions could disrupt ongoing probes by revealing details of undercover measures.

Why watchdog independence mattered

NABU and SAPO were formed in 2015 after the 2014 Revolution of Dignity to combat entrenched elite corruption. NABU was empowered to investigate top-tier officials including the president (if no longer in office), ministers, MPs, judges, and high-ranking bureaucrats. SAPO was designed to prosecute those cases autonomously, free from political oversight. The agencies’ independence was a central requirement for Ukraine’s EU integration.

Tatarigami, a prominent Ukrainian analyst, wrote that the law creates mechanisms to derail or redirect any investigation that threatens presidential allies — not only under Zelenskyy but under any future president. He warned that the logic of citing “Russian influence” as a justification is flawed, since agencies like the SBU have themselves been infiltrated by Russian agents in the past.

Update: OECD warns Ukraine risks losing defense investment

According to European Pravda, the OECD has warned Kyiv that the law undermining NABU and SAPO could jeopardize both Ukraine’s OECD accession and its appeal to international investors.

In a letter dated 22 July, Julia Fromholz, head of the OECD Anti-Corruption Division, told the president’s office that law No. 12414 weakens anti-corruption safeguards and risks breaching Ukraine’s obligations under OECD standards.

New draft law aims to cancel restrictions on NABU and SAPO

A new bill has been prepared in the Verkhovna Rada to cancel the restrictions on NABU and SAPO introduced by the controversial law No. 12414 adopted on 22 July. The initial law limits the powers of Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies under the pretext of regulating wartime investigations into missing persons.

The timing was surgical. As security services arrested their own officials for taking $300,000 bribes from draft dodgers, Ukraine’s parliament voted to gut the very agencies designed to catch such corruption.

On 22 July 2025, lawmakers passed Bill No. 12414 by 263 votes, effectively ending a decade of post-Euromaidan anti-corruption reforms. The legislation transfers control of corruption investigations from independent agencies—NABU and SAPO—to the politically appointed Prosecutor General.

The vote came one day after authorities conducted over 70 searches against NABU employees, citing alleged Russian intelligence links that critics say provided convenient cover for the institutional demolition.

This matters because Ukraine built these institutions specifically to investigate officials close to the presidency—the very people now beyond reach. NABU had been investigating Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov in land schemes, defense sector corruption, and cases involving Zelenskyy associates. With the Prosecutor General—who reports directly to presidential chief of staff Andriy Yermak—now controlling all corruption cases, those investigations effectively end.

Western partners have expressed concern, with G7 ambassadors planning to raise the issue with Ukrainian officials. EU financial support depends on democratic governance progress—progress that this law reverses. The European Commission’s Ukraine Facility and IMF loans were conditioned on maintaining independent anti-corruption institutions that no longer exist in any meaningful form.

For Daria Kaleniuk, this represents more than institutional rollback. The executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, who helped design these agencies after Euromaidan, calls it Ukraine’s “Yanukovych moment”—a return to the system of untouchables that sparked the 2014 revolution.

In an exclusive interview with Euromaidan Press, she warns that Zelenskyy is creating the very conditions Putin uses to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Political control over anti-corruption institutions

Euromaidan Press: Ukraine’s Parliament just passed a law putting all corruption investigations under one politically appointed prosecutor. Ukrainian activists like you are calling this a return to Yanukovych times. What does that comparison mean?

Daria Kaleniuk: It means that Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko will control all investigations against top officials in the country. He will have access to all cases of the independent agencies NABU and SAPO.

He will be able to stop these cases, give orders on how to investigate or not investigate, change prosecutors, and take cases outside of NABU to give them to other agencies.

So it returns complete control to the prosecutor general, who is 100% loyal to the president, over justice in Ukraine. This is exactly what we were trying to move away from since the Revolution of Dignity.

During the Yanukovych period, he had a prosecutor general named Viktor Pshonka who safeguarded businesses and monopolies for Yanukovych and his associates. There was the so-called “family”—close family and friends of Yanukovych who controlled the most lucrative businesses in the country. No one could investigate them because the prosecutor general made sure they were untouchable.

We are coming back to the  era of untouchables in Ukraine.

If you are loyal to Zelenskyy, you will be untouchable and have access to lucrative contracts, especially in the defense sector where most Ukrainian taxpayer money is spent. You can steal, commit fraud, produce bad equipment, not deliver on time – and there will be no justice.

This is the  Yanukovych moment for Zelenskyy. 

What Euromaidan stood against

Corruption you can’t imagine

This is what Ukraine is fighting against

What does this mean for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations?

It’s horrible. We’ve been reporting developments in NABU and SAPO to international partners for 10 years. This is our progress toward building good governance and the rule of law, getting closer to the EU.

More than 90% of Ukrainians now support EU aspirations. All those EU accession developments, money granted through the Ukraine Facility in exchange for reforms, IMF loans – they are in big danger because the fundamentals on which these programs were built are being destroyed by Zelenskyy and his associates to protect family members and close businesses from investigation.

Simultaneously, there’s a huge crackdown on watchdog organizations. There were these absurd charges against Vitaly Shabunin [-her colleague-], claiming he served in the army inappropriately. We expect more charges against Vitaly to silence him.

Zelenskyy and Yermak want to silence us. They will try to develop criminal charges like state treason. Basically, you are a state traitor in Ukraine when you’re saying the truth.

This is not what the Ukrainian people are fighting against Russian aggression for. This is actually what we are fighting against, because Russia wants to suppress freedom of speech, independent thinking, and criticism of authorities.

Democracy is very deep in the veins of the Ukrainian people. All those fallen heroes were fighting for a completely different Ukraine than Zelenskyy is now trying to build – where there is freedom, dignity, and justice with the rule of law.

When Zelenskyy silences independent media and watchdog organizations, he is crossing many red lines inside Ukrainian society, which could lead to a very dangerous explosion. To prevent this,  Zelenskyy must stop this law.

If he signed it, he has to withdraw his signature.

All those who invented this attack on anti-corruption bodies are either intentionally or unintentionally helping the Kremlin win this war from inside Ukraine.

Start of their end

You’ve been doing this work since 2012 through three different presidents. What’s the common pattern when leaders try to capture such institutions? How does this moment feel different?

It is the start of their end. Agony.

It’s complicated in Zelenskyy’s case because we’re simultaneously fighting a large-scale war. If there were no war, Zelenskyy and his parliament would not be in power.

Unfortunately, for Zelenskyy and Yermak, the only strategy they’re thinking about is maintaining power. This causes them to roll back reforms and dismantle democracy because they understand they cannot win democratic elections.

It smells like they feel elections are coming. All these crackdowns are related to the fear of not being in power longer.

How to stay in power? Get rid of watchdog organizations naming names and saying the truth. Get rid of independent media – sanction media owners to shut down outlets like Ukrainska Pravda, Novaya Vremya. Intimidate individual activists and journalists. Then destroy possible political opponents.

There is a lot of trust in Ukraine’s armed forces. Therefore, the State Bureau of Investigations will attack military commanders who have the trust of the Ukrainian people.

In Shabunin’s case, Zelenskyy and Yermak showed they can use this instrument to destroy any person serving in the military.

Kaleniuk’s colleague targeted

“Obvious revenge”: Ukraine prosecutes the activist who created its anti-corruption system

Zelenskyy becomes villain against whom he campaigned in 2019

It’s ironic that Zelenskyy campaigned as the anti-corruption outsider in 2019. Now he’s dismantling the very institutions built to fulfill these promises. Why this turn? Why now? Doesn’t he understand this is suicidal?

I think he needs to thank Mr. Andriy Yermak, who controls 90% of information flow to Zelensky, shapes his mind, and helps him appoint very loyal managers.

Yermak appointed Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko, basically suggested him as a very good prospective Pshonka for Zelensky.

Zelenskyy might not understand or is too busy and tired. But he’s not coping with his role as leader, which should reflect the mood of the Ukrainian people.

If he entrusted so much power to Yermak and Oleg Tatarov – guys against democracy, against fundamental freedoms, against checks and balances – it reflects his view of society.

He campaigned in “Servant of the People” against untouchables. He created untouchables inside his circle. So he became the [anti-]hero against whom he was campaigning.

Could you give us more context about what NABU and SAPO have accomplished that is now at risk?

They have charged hundreds of people in high-level positions, tackling critical cases in different sectors.

Just this year, there were charges in defense sector food procurement, against key state officials in land schemes, and charges against Oleksiy Chernyshov, the former deputy prime minister and close friend of Zelenskyy.

We’ve been using these cases since 2022 as powerful arguments to advocate for more weapons, more support for Ukraine, fast-track European integration, the Danish model.

These are the narratives the Kremlin tried to spread through propaganda – that Ukraine is absolutely corrupt, that Zelenskyy is autocratic, oppresses opposition, and silences critics.

Two months ago, I was defending Zelenskyy against this. When Trump was saying Zelenskyy is a dictator, I wrote pieces and did interviews saying there is a system of checks and balances in Ukraine, these anti-corruption institutions are working.

Now I can’t say anything. Yermak, Zelenskyy, and the MPs voting for this law have created beautiful arguments for the Kremlin to make Ukraine a country not worth supporting.

I hope international partners will keep supporting Ukraine with military assistance – it’s critical for our armed forces dying defending Ukraine. But clearly, Russia will use this to discredit support.

Is NABU infested with Russian spies?

The government says this is about national security after finding Russian spies in NABU. You’re saying it’s about protecting corrupt officials. How do we know who’s right?

It’s very simple. The Security Service, Prosecutor General’s Office, and State Bureau of Investigations conducted simultaneously 80 searches against more than 15 NABU detectives and their family members without court warrants, claiming it was a special operation to unveil Russian spies.

So far, we have only two cases in which a suspicion was announced. All the other cases are not related to cooperating with Russia—car accidents from years ago, other crazy cases.

Even the security-related charges aren’t extraordinary cases with clearly significant security damage. One NABU worker allegedly sold cannabis to Dagestan through relatives with Russian citizenship. Another allegedly provided information to a former security service officer during the Yanukovych period.

Simultaneously, the security service is verifying how SAPO handles state secrecy and getting access to all pending investigations—whistleblowers, agents cooperating with NABU, and all operative information.

They already accessed files and saw where NABU was looking. Coincidentally, the next day, Zelenskyy passed a law empowering the prosecutor general with all rights to control when NABU moves and breathes.

He’s directly receiving orders from Yermak, executing Zelenskyy’s will. Zelenskyy is pissed off that NABU and SAPO are investigating his close associates like Chernyshov.

Perfect moment

The timing seems strategic – wartime, no elections, weakened opposition. Was this the perfect moment?

It is the perfect moment because our European partners are on vacation drinking prosecco and enjoying the summer seaside. I’m joking obviously, but that’s important – how to mobilize proper reaction from European partners.

Protests against law to gut anti-corruption agencies are starting in Ukraine. Here is Lviv

Today, the parliament voted for law #12414 to bring the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and Specialized Anti-Corruption Office under control of politically-appointed General Prosecutor,… pic.twitter.com/9H6PeDH07K

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) July 22, 2025

Overall, this attack is strategically important for the Kremlin and plays into their hands. If they’re trying to accuse us of state treason, they should look at themselves – how they’re creating reasons and grounds for the Kremlin to attack Ukraine internationally.

What concretely happens now? If there’s a billion-dollar corruption case tomorrow, who investigates it?

The Prosecutor General controls that case. NABU can investigate, but there will be just the name NABU. The substance of having a truly independent agency with SAPO supervision will be over.

It means one person, Kravchenko, goes to another person, Yermak, and they agree: “Should we investigate this billion-dollar case? Probably not, but we’ll ask this defense producer for 10% bribe. Let’s introduce our affiliated companies as co-owners, and then we won’t investigate anything. Everybody’s happy.”

We are building new oligarchs in Ukraine. This is the thinking happening inside the president’s office among those designing this scheme.

10 years of Ukraine’s progress annulled

What does this mean for Ukraine’s European integration prospects?

It puts us back 10 years. I have déjà vu of November 2013, when Yanukovych refused to sign the EU association agreement and told the Ukrainian people, “I don’t care what you think.”

The establishment of these institutions was written in all documents related to EU accession, IMF loans, and visa liberalization. If you dismantle these agencies, you can’t remove them from these documents. These are Ukraine’s obligations, which are now nullified. All progress will be nullified.

How to repair that overnight when the destruction is already done? It’s impossible.

Parliament members voting for this trash were so happy, congratulating themselves. Folks like Maksym Buzhanskyi from Servant of the People were celebrating with Yuliia Tymoshenko, who spreads the same messages Putin spread in early February 2022 before invading Ukraine.

Putin said Ukraine is losing sovereignty to foreign partners, establishing anti-corruption institutions with foreign experts. For that, Ukraine needs to be liberated. This is how Putin started the large-scale war.

Now our MPs are saying the same thing Putin was saying. Are they nuts? They should quit and work in Russia.

International partners stay mum as red lines crossed

What has the international response been? Is it what you expected?

Very slow. This escalation could have been prevented if before the Ukraine Reform Conference, when the Cabinet violated the law and didn’t appoint a BEB director, URC leaders clearly told Zelenskyy it’s unacceptable.

At the end, as there was no reaction, came these searches of Shabunin without court warrants, absurd accusations.

Did we see the international partner’s reaction? No, everybody was waiting. “Let’s see how it develops.” 

“Everybody doesn’t care about corruption and the rule of law anymore. We’re the bosses in our home. We decide what we do. We don’t care about your reforms.”

This approach was bred by self-censorship of our international partners.

Daria, thank you very much. Let’s hope President Zelenskyy will roll back this law.

After this interview was recorded, Zelenskyy signed the law

Zelenskyy signs controversial law undermining Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has signed Law No. 12414, which grants the Prosecutor General’s Office control over the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP).

The official website of the Ukrainian Parliament has confirmed that the president approved the law despite mass protests from anti-corruption watchdogs, European officials, and activists.

People in Lviv, Dnipro, and Odesa took to the streets to protest against the law that brings Ukraine back to the times of former pro-Russian President Victor Yanukovych, who was ousted in the 2013-2014 Euromaidan protests. 

The bill provides that:

• The Prosecutor General gains access to all NABU cases or can grant such access to any other prosecutor.
• The Prosecutor General can issue mandatory written instructions to NABU detectives and, if they are not followed, can change jurisdiction by transferring cases to other agencies,
• Has the right to close investigations at the request of the defense,
  Independently resolves jurisdiction disputes,
• Signs notes of suspicion against high-ranking officials personally.

The head of SAPO loses the right to participate in prosecutor groups, as this is decided solely by the Prosecutor General. 

Ukraine’s parliament voted to strip anti-corruption agencies of their independence just as a major bribery scandal emerged within the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), exposing the government’s attack on oversight institutions while corruption flourishes unchecked.

The $300,000 bribery case involving an SBU official who helped draft dodgers avoid military service reveals systemic corruption within the same agency that justified dismantling independent anti-corruption institutions.

The timing demonstrates how Ukraine is eliminating accountability mechanisms while the problems they were designed to address persist across the system.

SBU official sold draft exemptions for $300,000

An SBU Department for Protection of National Statehood sector chief exploited his unit’s role in a National Police investigation targeting illegal border crossings by draft dodgers. Through two intermediaries—including a former SBU employee—he demanded $300,000 from a suspect to destroy case materials and leak investigative details, NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) reported.

The official threatened prosecution under more severe charges if the suspect refused to pay. Investigators documented him receiving $72,000 before filing charges under Article 368 of Ukraine’s Criminal Code for abuse of office.

The scheme targeted Ukraine’s most sensitive wartime issue—military service evasion during an existential fight for survival. The corruption reached into the security apparatus responsible for protecting national defense, showing how graft undermines Ukraine’s war effort at the highest levels.

The SBU confirmed their Internal Security Department discovered the corruption in 2024. The case was subsequently transferred to the State Bureau of Investigations, then to NABU due to the large bribe amount—following standard procedures for high-value corruption cases.

Parliament guts anti-corruption oversight

Hours after NABU announced the completed investigation, Parliament passed Bill No. 12414 by 263 votes, fundamentally restructuring Ukraine’s anti-corruption system. The legislation transfers key oversight powers from independent agencies to the politically-appointed Prosecutor General.

The new rules allow the Prosecutor General to reassign NABU cases, override SAPO prosecutorial decisions, and resolve inter-agency disputes. SAPO prosecutors now report to the Prosecutor General rather than their own leadership, while NABU’s director must seek permission to claim jurisdiction over cases.

NABU and SAPO were created after the 2014 revolution specifically to investigate high-level corruption with independence from political interference. The new law eliminates that independence entirely.

Political analyst Ihor Chalenko told Euromaidan Press the changes create “a lasting centralization of authority over Ukraine’s law enforcement system.” All investigative agencies now operate under a single hierarchy, with the Prosecutor General holding decisive power over case assignments and prosecutorial decisions.

Explore further

Security service officials took $300,000 bribes as Ukraine guts corruption oversight

A pattern of institutional conflict

This isn’t the first time Ukraine’s security agencies and anti-corruption bodies have clashed. In 2017, the SBU detained seven NABU employees working undercover, sparking what became known as the “war of anti-corruptionists.” That conflict escalated to threats of dismissing NABU’s director, prompting warnings from the US that aid could be cut if anti-corruption institutions were dismantled.

The SBU has also faced criticism for targeting journalists investigating corruption. In February 2024, the agency was exposed for illegally surveilling investigative outlet Bihus.Info, while in 2024, President Zelenskyy fired the SBU’s cybersecurity chief for allegedly retaliating against a journalist who investigated his family’s questionable property purchases.

These patterns suggest institutional tensions that extend beyond the current crisis, with the SBU repeatedly finding itself involved in controversies while serving as both investigator and subject of corruption probes.

International stakes rise

The G7 Ambassadors expressed “serious concerns” about developments at NABU and requested meetings with Ukrainian government officials. Ukraine’s EU aspirations and billions in Western aid depend heavily on anti-corruption performance, making institutional changes a potential threat to international support.

The Anti-Corruption Action Center described recent developments as “an attempt to destroy independent institutions” to prevent investigations into officials close to President Zelenskyy. The European Union has not yet considered suspending funding over the anti-corruption agency changes, but observers worry about the precedent.

Why this matters for Ukraine’s future

The timing of these separate developments—a completed corruption case against the SBU and Parliament’s vote to centralize anti-corruption control—reveals the complexity of Ukraine’s institutional challenges during wartime.

With elections suspended and political opposition limited, independent anti-corruption agencies represented among the last checks on executive power. The SBU case demonstrates that corruption exists across the security apparatus, raising questions about whether concentrating oversight authority in the Prosecutor General’s Office addresses the problem or simply relocates it.

Ukraine must simultaneously fight external enemies and maintain internal accountability. The latest revelations suggest the corruption challenge extends throughout the law enforcement system that’s now being reorganized under centralized control.

People in Lviv, Dnipro, and Odesa took to the streets to protest the adoption of bill No. 12414 by the Ukrainian Parliament. It restricts the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), reports Suspilne.

On 22 July, the parliament approved bill No. 12414, which introduces changes to the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the pre-trial investigation of cases related to enforced disappearances under martial law conditions.

According to Ukrainian deputy Anastasiia Radina, amendments were added at the last moment that “turn SAPO into a decorative institution and make the activities of NABU and SAPO fully dependent on the will of the Prosecutor General.”

The bill provides that:

• The Prosecutor General gains access to all NABU cases or can grant such access to any other prosecutor.
• The Prosecutor General can issue mandatory written instructions to NABU detectives and, if they are not followed, can change jurisdiction by transferring cases to other agencies,
• Has the right to close investigations at the request of the defense,
• Independently resolves jurisdiction disputes,
• Signs notes of suspicion against high-ranking officials personally.

The head of SAPO loses the right to participate in prosecutor groups, as this is decided solely by the Prosecutor General, Hromadske reports. 

In Lviv, people gathered near the Taras Shevchenko monument to protest against the law. Co-organizer Justyna Moyseev said initially 30 people registered for the protest, but the expected number grew, and is expected to reach 100.

During the protest, people chanted slogans such as “Hands off NABU,” “Change or die,” and “Corruption is the death of the future.”

Ukraine’s parliament votes to gut anti-corruption agencies amid Russian spy scandal (UPDATED)

“One must always remember that the Ukrainian people stand together primarily because we want victory, peace, and to move toward the EU. Only for this reason do Ukrainians endure and do not want to cause trouble. But it seems the authorities are forgetting this a little. We want to remind them,” said one Lviv protester, Roman Schmidt.

Residents of Dnipro also joined the protest. Participant Anna stressed that she does not support the adoption of this bill.

“This directly affects the fact that corruption in the country will most likely flourish, and that’s not okay. They won’t be independent,” she said. 

A similar protest gathered in Odesa, where people called on the president not to sign the bill, chanting “Protect democratic institutions.” 

Kyiv is also protesting against the bill. People are carrying posters reading “People’s wrath is scarier than NABU and SAPO,” “Money hates silence,” “No to the destruction of the anti-corruption system.”

On 22 July, the Ukrainian Parliament passed bill No. 12414, which effectively destroys the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), says the Independent Anti-Corruption Commission (NAKO). 

The NAKO emphasizes that this decision will severely undermine trust in Ukraine on the international stage. The development of anti-corruption institutions, supported by civil society and international partners since 2015, was a key condition for Ukraine’s progress towards the EU and NATO.

The liquidation of NABU’s and SAPO’s independence threatens further international aid.

The law was adopted amid high-profile searches at NABU, where security forces uncovered an FSB agent working inside the bureau who passed information to Russia.

“Yesterday we saw SBU searches that showed NABU is not perfect, and that is true, but today these searches have been used by the authorities to dismantle an independent anti-corruption investigation,” says NAKO senior researcher Tetiana Nikolaienko.

Now the Prosecutor General becomes the de facto head of SAPO prosecutors, gains full access to NABU cases, has the right to transfer them to other bodies, decides jurisdiction disputes, and signs indictments against high-ranking officials. This destroys the possibility of conducting impartial investigations according to the law.

Meanwhile, the Anti-Corruption Action Center stresses that President Zelenskyy’s signature under this law will return the country to the times of former pro-Russian President Victor Yanukovych.

“Under these conditions, NABU, SAPO, and the High Anti-Corruption Court lose all meaning as Zelenskyy-installed Prosecutor General will stop investigations against all the president’s friends,” adds NAKO.

Accordingly, there is no point in electronic asset declarations, punishment for illegal enrichment, special confiscation, or other anti-corruption reforms.

The Civil Anti-Corruption Council under the Ministry of Defense says Ukraine’s anti-corruption system has lost its independence within several minutes. The organization is urging President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to veto a bill No. 12414, passed by Ukrainian lawmakers, which curtails the freedom of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO)

While the bill was introduced as addressing the investigation of wartime disappearances, last-minute amendments radically altered its essence. Both the relevant committee and the parliamentary chamber approved the changes at record speed.

“This law strips SAPO of its independence,” states the Civil Anti-Corruption Council under the Ministry of Defense.

From now on, the Prosecutor General will have direct control over prosecutors in the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, can reassign their powers, seize NABU cases, and issue directives.

This opens the door to manual control, political interference, impunity for loyal officials, and the destruction of independent investigations into high-level corruption.

“We are fighting for justice. But this law is about abuse of power and shielding installed persons,” the Council emphasizes.

The West has reacted swiftly to the law. The European Commission has voiced concern, stressing that EU financial support depends on progress in democratic governance. G7 ambassadors have said they plan to raise the issue with Ukrainian officials.

Guillaume Mercier, the spokesperson for the European Commission for Enlargement, has claimed that the EU is providing Ukraine with significant financial assistance “subject to progress in transparency, judicial reform, and democratic governance.”

“These bodies are crucial to Ukraine’s reform agenda and must act independently to fight corruption and maintain public trust,” he says.

NABU was established in 2015 under pressure from Western partners and civil society.

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.

I am a regular listener to Ezra Klein’s podcast, and I’m a fan. There should be more podcasts that treat serious issues seriously, but there’s something he said back in April when talking about the root cause of problems on the Left of politics that has concerned me since I heard it. “It’s not just the fault of money in politics, because there’s money on all sides of the issues. There’s something else going on,” he said.

That concerned me because it encapsulated a mistake that’s often made about why political funding is problematic. It’s often assumed that the only problem is that rich people can buy support for an issue they care about, so it’s therefore often missed – as Klein did – that a far bigger problem is that they define what is considered an issue in the first place.

You could look at the fact that billionaires supported both Republicans and Democrats in last year’s presidential election (although far more money went to Republicans), and conclude that – since both sides got money – it’s not a big deal. Or you could wonder which issues don’t get attention because no one with money is interested in them being discussed.

Five years ago, when I’d just started writing this newsletter, I made a big thing out of the fact that three people owned more than $100 billion. Centi-billionaires were new back then, but they’re old hat these days. Some 18 people have passed that threshold now, and more will be along to join them very soon. Oxfam predicts there will be five trillionaires by the end of the decade, and that was before Donald Trump’s tax cuts were passed by Congress.

Last year, here in the U.K., it looked like Keir Starmer actually understood the importance of protecting politics from the corrupting effect of money, but he’s failed to actually follow through. “Time and again, Labour’s warm words about cleaning up politics have not translated into action. Rather than rebuilding faith in democracy, Starmer’s listlessness risks eroding it even further,” wrote the journalist Peter Geoghegan last week.

Meanwhile, over in France, billionaire wealth has already nosed its way into politics and is helping to raise the profile of the Far Right. 

“Media groups, at the hands of a few powerful men,” wrote one observer late last year, “are actively shaping the political discourse in a way that normalises far-right narratives and talking points. By giving disproportionate airtime to far-right figures and framing their extremist positions as legitimate responses to France’s social and economic challenges, these media outlets are gradually shifting public opinion.”

It's a sign of this shift in opinion that the asset manager Aberdeen (fresh from cancelling a rebrand to ‘abrdn’, which cost an estimated £500,000) has decided to sack the independent board of the Financial Fairness Trust, which has supported organisations researching the effects of inequality. A few years ago, that kind of philanthropy was a cheap way to look like the kind face of capitalism. These days, I’m not sure anyone cares.

Back when I was a cub reporter, an old-timer gave me some advice: “don’t write about process, nobody cares about process, write about results”. It’s good advice for someone trying to write articles, but it’s bad advice more broadly, because process is important. The process of drafting regulation is when laws get defined; the process of crafting the rules that will guide the implementation of laws is when questions get resolved. The power of billionaires is that they can afford to employ people to monitor that process, and to make suggestions. If the rest of us don’t care, the world will be stolen from us without any of us noticing.

And once it’s stolen, it’ll stay stolen. Thanks to impenetrable financial structures like a trust registered in South Dakota, the super-rich can keep their wealth safe in perpetuity. When I first wrote about South Dakotan trusts, back in 2019, there was around $350 billion squirreled away in the Mount Rushmore State. That total has now hit $815 billion, having risen by $100 billion in the last year alone.

“It’s going to go on for—the estimates vary — 10 to 15 more years. But, there’s a huge transfer underway from the boomer generation to the next generation," said Bret Afdahl, the director of the state’s Banking Division.

Sometimes it can be hard to stay optimistic.

THE IMAGINARY BANKER

Here’s a weird story: “meet Barbarat Giuseppe, the world’s most prolific banker. He’s run most of the world’s largest banks … Mr Giuseppe’s spectacular career is spoilt only by the small detail that it’s all fraudulent”.

Guiseppe may not actually exist, but he’s been able to create a series of U.K.-registered companies with the same name as major financial institutions: UBS, Goldman Sachs, and so on. When he’s been caught, he’s just created new familiar-sounding companies, perhaps as part of a money laundering scheme, though it’s not immediately clear how it would help.

“We need to see prosecutions. Skip the hard stuff of finding victims of fraud. Do an “Al Capone” and prosecute the easy offences instead,” writes Dan Neidle’s Tax Policy Associates. Amen to that.

It’s a story that shows that, despite attempted reforms, there are still major problems with many aspects of the U.K.’s company formation system. “The foundations for a successful regime are now in place, however it will take a concerted effort from across the economic crime architecture to deliver results,” wrote Transparency International’s Ben Cowdock.

RUSSIA’S BLOCKCHAIN BET

Last week, I wrote about how Russia was moving money via crypto and Kyrgyzstan to evade Western restrictions on its financial sector, and here’s an interesting analysis of the phenomenon. “Russia is building a parallel financial system using blockchain as its backbone,” writes analysts from Astraea. “This network presents a growing challenge for regulators and underscores the urgency of developing coordinated international responses to crypto-based sanctions evasion.” 

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post The Men Who Bought the World appeared first on Coda Story.

Ukraine's Cabinet of Ministers rejected a nominee to lead the economic crimes agency, drawing swift criticism from lawmakers and businesses over alleged interference in the selection process.

The agency, the Bureau of Economic Security, was created in 2021 to investigate economic crimes. It has since faced accusations of being used to pressure — and in some cases extort — businesses, prompting multiple calls and efforts to overhaul it.

Selecting a new director of the agency by the end of July is one of Ukraine's obligations to the EU and International Monetary Fund as part of international financing packages extended to the war-torn country by the institutions.

As part of a recent attempt to relaunch the bureau, Oleksandr Tsyvinsky on June 30 was officially nominated by the bureau's selection commission that consists of six members — three from the government and three international experts. Tsyvinsky is known for exposing schemes involving illegal land seizures in Kyiv..

But Ukraine's government on July 8 said it had rejected Tsyvinsky following alleged concerns raised by the country's intelligence service of potential Russian connections.

The government unanimously decided to ask the commission to submit two new candidates who meet all security requirements, the government press service wrote on its official Telegram channel, a move it claims aligns with the law.

Following Tsyvinsky's nomination, it was revealed that his father holds a Russian passport. He has said he hasn't spoken to his father, who lives in Russia, in years.

Tsyvinsky holds clearance for state secrets and has passed special vetting, backed by over 20 years in law enforcement, including nearly a decade at the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).

Opposition lawmaker Yaroslav Zhelizniak, said the government had no grounds to reject a properly nominated candidate, claiming President Volodymyr Zelensky's office is behind the blocking of the nomination.

"The (bureau's) legislation provides no legal grounds for the cabinet to demand a new shortlist or impose additional, undefined requirements such as 'security criteria.' The term itself is absent from any statute and therefore has no legal force," Zhelizniak said.

"The SBU letter in this case is nothing more than an indicator of the winner's disloyalty to the President's Office and a desire to block the appointment," said Olena Shcherban, deputy executive director of the AntAC in a statement following the news.

Major business associations have called on Zelensky, Parliament Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk, and Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal to reverse the government's decision.

The business groups warned that failing to reform the agency will harm investment decisions, particularly as Ukraine's wartime economy needs to attract capital.

"War is a time for radical changes in the rule of law and business climate, otherwise the economy cannot ensure the country's survival," the businesses wrote in an open letter.

‘Neither side wasted time’ — Ukraine’s economy minister on minerals deal negotiations with Trump’s ‘business-oriented’ administration

Ukraine’s Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko says her task is simple — to get the investment fund behind the closely watched minerals deal with the U.S. off the ground, and prove its detractors wrong. “There are so many criticisms from different parties that this fund is just a piece of paper we can put on the shelves — that it won’t be operational,” Svyrydenko, who is also Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, tells the Kyiv Independent at Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers on July 4, the morning

The Kyiv IndependentLiliane Bivings

A former deputy chief of the Russian army's General Staff, Colonel General Khalil Arslanov, was sentenced to 17 years in prison on July 7 over a scheme involving the theft of over 1 billion roubles ($12.7 million) from Defense Ministry contracts, Russia's state-owned TASS news agency reported.

A closed-door military court found Arslanov and others guilty of embezzling millions from state contracts with Voentelecom, a company providing telecommunications services to the Russian military.

Arslanov was also convicted of extorting a 12 million rouble ($152,400) bribe from the head of a military communications company. Two co-defendants, Colonel Pavel Kutakhov and military pensioner Igor Yakovlev, received seven and six years in prison, respectively.

Arslanov, a former head of the Russian military's communications unit, served as deputy chief of the army's General Staff from 2013 until his removal in 2020 and was named a colonel general in 2017.

This high-profile conviction is the latest in a series of corruption scandals that have implicated top echelons of the Russian military establishment over the past year. Russia has significantly stepped up prosecutions of senior defense officials.

Just last week, on July 1, former Russian Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov was sentenced to 13 years in a penal colony after being found guilty of corruption. It was the harshest verdict in a series of high-level military corruption cases until Arslanov's sentencing on July 7.

Authorities initially detained Ivanov in April 2024 on bribery allegations, later adding embezzlement charges in October. His trial, like Arslanov's, was held behind closed doors reportedly due to national security concerns.

Ivanov's co-defendant, Anton Filatov, a former logistics company executive, received a 12.5-year sentence.According to state media, the embezzled amount totaled 4.1 billion roubles ($48.8 million), primarily funneled through bank transfers to two foreign accounts. Ivanov pleaded not guilty.

The court stripped him of all state honors and ordered the confiscation of property, vehicles, and cash valued at 2.5 billion roubles, including a luxury apartment in central Moscow, a three-storey English-style mansion, and a high-end car collection featuring brands like Bentley and Aston Martin.

Russia striking NATO while China invades Taiwan ‘plausible’ scenario, experts say

If Beijing moves against Taiwan, NATO might soon find itself in a two-front war with China and Russia — or so the alliance’s secretary general believes. “If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin… and telling him, ‘Hey, I’m going to do this, and I need you to to keep them busy in Europe by attacking NATO territory,’” Secretary General Mark Rutte said in a July 5 interview with the New

The Kyiv IndependentMartin Fornusek

Editor's note: This article was updated to include comments from Ukraine's Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov.

Deputy Prime Minister and National Unity Minister Oleksii Chernyshov will keep his position after a decision from the High Anti-Corruption Court on July 2, despite an ongoing corruption investigation.

Chernyshov is a suspect in a "large-scale" illegal land grab corruption case. After a court hearing on June 27, he was banned from traveling abroad without permission and slapped with a bail set at Hr 120 million ($2.9 million) while awaiting trial.

Despite Cheryshov’s defense appealing the bail, it was paid in full shortly after the July 2 hearing,  Olesya Chemerys, spokesperson for the High Anti-Corruption Court, told Ukrainian media Ukrainska Pravda. July 2 was the last day to pay the bail.

Prosecutors filed a motion for his removal on June 27. The day before, he told the Kyiv Independent that he denied the allegations and would not step down from his job.

"I definitely respect the court’s decision. At the same time, I will use all legal means to defend myself in court further and to protect my name and reputation," Chernyshov told the Kyiv Independent after the hearing on July 2.

Chernshov is the highest-ranking official in Ukrainian history to face such charges while in office, attracting a lot of eyes to the case. He is also considered a close ally of President Volodymyr Zelensky, marking a major accusation against the president’s inner circle.

Chernyshov has headed the National Unity Ministry since December, which was previously named the Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied territories Ministry, to strengthen ties with the Ukrainian diaspora. It was initially unclear why the ministry was created and what Chernyshov’s responsibilities were.

Earlier this week, several Ukrainian MPs, including lawmaker Yaroslav Zhelezniak, speculated that the ministry could be dismantled due to Chernyshov’s case.  Zhelezniak believes that the ministry is not needed and was created with the political goal of securing a position for Cherynshov, reported Radio Svoboda.

For now, Chernyshov says that the ministry will continue to operate as usual. "We have a lot of important work ahead, and stay dedicated to our values and tasks," he told the Kyiv Independent on July 2.

Speaking to reporters after the court dismissed the motion for his removal, Chernyshov said he had "collected funds" to pay the bail as his personal accounts are blocked.

The court’s decision to keep Cheryshov in place has raised concerns among the Anti-Corruption Action Center, a Kyiv-based watchdog. With Chernyshov still acting as deputy prime minister, he could potentially use his position to influence the court’s decision going forward in the case, said Olena Shcherban, deputy executive director at ANTAC.

"The logic of the court is currently completely unclear to me, as are the motives — but given the high profile of the position and Chernyshov being close to the president's entourage, I do not exclude that the court could be influenced," Shcherban told the Kyiv Independent.

"Whether this will affect the case is not yet known; it all depends on whether Chernyshov will still influence witnesses and use his position to save himself — and I think he will definitely use it," she added.

According to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) investigation, during his time as communities and territories minister in 2020-2022, Chernyshov and his associates undervalued land plots to benefit a developer in exchange for kickbacks.

Chernyshov and his accomplices allegedly received "significant" discounts on apartments in existing buildings, totaling over Hr 14.5 million ($346,000), from the developer. The actions cost Ukraine Hr 1 billion ($24 million), according to NABU.

Chernyshov first raised eyebrows after he left the country on a business trip days before law enforcement unveiled the charges and detained two of his close associates. Despite suspicions that he had fled the country to avoid arrest, he returned to Ukraine on June 22 and was summoned to NABU the following day.

During the court hearing, NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) requested that Chernyshov be suspended from office and that the court set bail of Hr 120 million ($2.9 million).

The two offices also requested additional measures restricting his movements, including that he hand in his passport and wear an electronic monitoring device.

Top Russian defense official gets 13 years in graft crackdown

Authorities detained former Russian Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov in April 2024 on bribery allegations, later adding embezzlement charges in October.

The Kyiv IndependentOlena Goncharova

Former Russian Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov was sentenced on July 1 to 13 years in a penal colony after being found guilty of corruption—the toughest sentence so far in a string of graft investigations involving high-level defense officials.

Authorities detained Ivanov in April 2024 on bribery allegations, later adding embezzlement charges in October. Over a dozen individuals, including two other former deputy ministers, have been implicated in separate investigations.

The trial was held behind closed doors due to national security concerns. Ivanov’s co-defendant, Anton Filatov, a former logistics company executive, received a 12.5-year sentence. According to state media, the embezzled amount totaled 4.1 billion roubles ($48.8 million), largely funneled through bank transfers to two foreign accounts.

Ivanov pleaded not guilty. The court stripped him of all state honors and ordered the confiscation of property, vehicles, and cash worth 2.5 billion roubles. Reports in Russian media described his and his wife’s assets, including a luxury apartment in central Moscow, a three-storey English-style mansion outside the city, and a high-end car collection featuring brands such as Bentley and Aston Martin.

Prominent Russian war correspondents known as "Z-bloggers" have publicly condemned the corruption exposed within the defenae sector, especially as the war in Ukraine continues. One of them, Alexander Kots, acknowledged that 13 years is a long sentence but argued that corrupt  officials should face trial during wartime as "traitors to the Motherland."

Since 2016, Ivanov oversaw large logistics contracts at the defence ministry, including those tied to property, housing, and medical support.

He served under Sergei Shoigu, who was replaced as defence minister last year but remains influential as the secretary of Russia’s Security Council. Authorities have also arrested two of Shoigu’s other former deputies in separate cases. In April, a court sentenced Lieutenant-General Vadim Shamarin, the former deputy head of the army’s general staff, to seven years for accepting bribes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The wave of prosecutions reflects what appears to be President Vladimir Putin’s effort to address corruption, inefficiency, and waste in Russia’s expansive military budget, which accounts for 32% of federal spending this year.

Ukraine’s new interceptor UAVs are starting to knock Russia’s long-range Shahed drones out of the sky

Russia’s Shahed drone swarms are pummeling Ukraine on a nightly basis, inflicting ever more death and destruction in cities that had managed to carve out some sense of normalcy amid wartime. Civilian alarm has grown. With traditional air defense stockpiles running low, the government is banking on newly created

The Kyiv IndependentKollen Post

Police aggressively dispersed protestors at an anti-government rally in Belgrade, whereover 100,000 demonstrators gathered on June 28 to demand snap elections.

The rally marks the latest mass action in a protest movement that started last fall, with activists calling for an end to corruption and the 12-year rule of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic.

Crowds in Belgrade on June 28 chanted "We want elections!" — a key demand of the movement that Vucic has consistently refused. His term ends in 2027, which is also the date of the next scheduled parliamentary elections.

Police officers in riot gear used tear gas, pepper spray, and stun grenades to forcibly dispersed crowds, according to multiple media outlets. Dozens of protestors were detained, though the police did not provide an exat number.

Serbian Interior Minister Ivica Dacic claimed that demonstrators attacked the police.

Protestors reportedly threw eggs, plastic bottles, and other objects at riot officers blocking the crowd from entering a city park where Vucic supporters were staging a counterprotest. Vucic reportedly bused in groups of his own supporters from around the country ahead of the rally.

As protests engulf Serbia, President Vucic looks for support East and West

Editor’s Note: Following a number of attacks against peaceful protestors in Serbia, the Kyiv Independent agreed to not publish the last names of people who gave comments for this story. BELGRADE, Serbia — Thousands of protestors walked 300 kilometers on March 1 from Belgrade to the southern city of Nis to

The Kyiv IndependentCamilla Bell-Davies

Vucic, a right-wing populist leader with authoritarian tendencies and warm ties with Russia, has repeatedly accused foreign states of inciting the protests in order to topple his government. He is provided no evidence to support these claims.

The current wave of protests in Serbia began in November, when a train station roof in the town of Novi Sad collapsed, killing 15. The disaster was blamed on government corruption.

While Vucic has alleged that Western powers are trying to trigger a "Ukrainian-style revolution in Serbia," the Serbian protests are not markedly pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian. Unlike mass demonstrations in Slovakia, where activists explicitly condemned the government's Kremlin-friendly agenda, the Serbian movement is focused on Vucic's corrupt leadership.

Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Serbia has attempted to navigate a delicate diplomatic path between Moscow and the West. It has positioned itself as neutral in the Russia-Ukraine war and balanced its status as an EU candidate with its longstanding ties to Russia.

Vucic made his first official visit to Ukraine on June 11.

Ukraine’s new top prosecutor known for high-profile cases, seen as Zelensky loyalist

Loyalty to the incumbent administration has been the key requirement for prosecutor generals in Ukraine. Ruslan Kravchenko, who was appointed as prosecutor general on June 21, appears to be no exception. Previously he had been appointed as a military governor by President Volodymyr Zelensky and is seen as a presidential loyalist. Kravchenko became Ukraine’s top prosecutor after a lengthy hiatus during which the position of prosecutor general remained vacant. His predecessor, Andriy Kostin, r

The Kyiv IndependentOleg Sukhov

A former deputy mayor for Kharkiv is facing multiple charges related to creating and leading a scheme that allegedly embezzled 5.4 million hryvnias ($130,000) of budget funds allocated for fortifications, law enforcement agencies announced on June 28.

Ukraine's military as well as public officials has seen several corruption scandals since the start of Russia's full-scale war, related to illicit enrichment, money laundering, bribery, and misconduct of the command.

A total of four people, including two company heads and two entrepreneurs, were arrested alongside the former official, the National Police said.

The scheme allegedly involved a shell company procuring purchased materials for fortifications at prices over 30% above market value.

While authorities did not name the former official, Ukrainska Pravda reported, citing law enforcement sources, that the suspect in question is Andrii Rudenko, Kharkiv's Deputy Mayor for Housing and Communal Services between 2015 and 2024.

Authorities did not publicly release the identities of the remaining suspects.

The five suspects are currently facing charges under 17 articles of Ukraine's Criminal Code, with motions filed to impose pre-trial detention without bail.

It was not immediately clear as to the maximum sentence the suspects may receive if found guilty, however, Ukraine's Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko said that he will seek for "stolen budget funds must be fully returned to the state."

Law enforcement agents have previously arrested Kharkiv officials with corruption related charges.

In April, authorities charged a total of eight individuals, including local officials and entrepreneurs, accused of colluding with contractors to supply firewood to the military at prices significantly above market value. Several officials and entrepreneurs of housing and utilities departments in several regions, including Kharkiv, were allegedly implicated.

Ukrainian drone strike on Crimea air base destroys 3 Russian helicopters, SBU claims

The attack destroyed Mi-8, Mi-26 and Mi-28 attack helicopters, and a Pantsyr-S1 self-propelled anti-aircraft missile and gun system, the Security Service of Ukraine told the Kyiv Independent.

The Kyiv IndependentKateryna Denisova

Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) have filed a motion with the High Anti-Corruption Court seeking to impose bail and suspend Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov from office, NABU's press service reported on June 27.

Chernyshov was officially named a suspect on June 23 in what NABU called a "large-scale" illegal land grab case. Chernyshov heads the new National Unity Ministry in charge of returning refugees and is a close ally of President Volodymyr Zelensky. He left Ukraine days before law enforcement revealed a massive corruption scheme and detained two of his former close associates — Maksym Horbatiuk and Vasyl Volodin.

Investigators allege that Chernyshov and his associates undervalued the land fivefold, costing the state Hr 1 billion (about $24 million), and received discounted apartments worth over Hr 14.5 million ($346,000) in return. In a comment to the Kyiv Independent, Chernyshov has denied the allegations and said he has no plans to step down.

The agencies are requesting that Chernyshov be placed under a bail measure of Hr 120 million ($2.8 million) and be formally removed from his current post while the investigation proceeds.

The agencies said the proposed measures reflect the risks identified during the investigation, including concerns about potential obstruction of justice. They emphasized that their motion aligns with the court's precedent in similar high-profile corruption cases.

The motion also requests that Chernyshov be subject to standard obligations, including a travel ban, passport surrender, and mandatory cooperation with law enforcement. SAPO additionally urged that he be prohibited from contacting other suspects or witnesses in the case.

The agency noted that Chernyshov returned to Ukraine voluntarily and responded to their summons.

If the court upholds the request, Chernyshov would be required to pay the bail within five days. Failure to do so or breach of the imposed conditions could result in a more severe pre-trial measure, prosecutors said.

Chernyshov returned to Ukraine on June 22 following growing public pressure and reported to NABU the following day. Despite his claim that he had been on a scheduled business trip, critics accused him of attempting to evade charges.

Chernyshov is considered a close ally of Zelensky and has held several high-profile roles, including CEO of state-owned oil and gas giant Naftogaz.

Exclusive: Ukrainian deputy prime minister suspected of corruption says he won’t step down

Ukrainian minister and deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov has been formally named a suspect in a high-profile illegal land grab case, becoming the highest-ranking official in Ukrainian history to face such charges.

The Kyiv IndependentDominic Culverwell

Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov on June 23 was formally named a suspect in a high-profile illegal land grab case, becoming the highest-ranking official in Ukrainian history to face such charges while in office.

After reports and public speculation around Chernyshov's potential involvement, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) released a statement announcing that he was the sixth suspect in a “large-scale” corruption scheme led by a property developer from Kyiv who illegally claimed a land plot to build a residential complex.

In a comment to the Kyiv Independent, Chernyshov denied the accusations against him. "I'm absolutely not involved in that (scheme) — that's clear," he said.

He also said he won't step down from his post. "I will stay in this position," Chernyshov told the Kyiv Independent.

Chernyshov, who heads the new National Unity Ministry in charge of returning refugees, is a close ally of President Volodymyr Zelensky. He raised eyebrows in Ukraine after leaving the country days before law enforcement revealed a massive corruption scheme and detained two of his former close associates — Maksym Horbatiuk and Vasyl Volodin.

According to the anti-corruption agency, during his time as communities and territories minister in 2020-2022, Chernyshov and his associates undervalued land plots by five times to benefit the developer, which Ukrainian media identified as Serhii Kopystyra, allegedly costing the state Hr 1 billion ($24 million).

In exchange, NABU says the developer gave kickbacks to Chernyshov and his accomplices with "significant" discounts on apartments in his existing buildings, totaling over Hr 14.5 million ($346,000). Ukrainian news site Ukrainska Pravda reports this took place between 2021-2022.

NABU and Ukraine's Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) seized the plot to prevent the scheme. Most of the illegally obtained apartments have been seized.

Chernyshov arrived back in the country on June 22 after suspicions mounted in Ukraine that he was on the run and avoiding detention.

"I was definitely on a business trip and I was not escaping out of Ukraine," Chernyshov told the Kyiv Independent. "The rumors of me not returning are nothing but manipulation. I came exactly once my trip was over. I had a very intensive trip in Europe."

Chernyshov claims he was targeted by a "smear campaign" but said he didn't know who could be behind it.

He also said that he came back on his own accord and denied that anyone had asked him to return.

The minister arrived at the NABU offices on June 23, after the agency summoned him to be charged. Upon leaving the bureau, Chernyshov wrote on Facebook that he had a “constructive chat” with detectives and will cooperate with the organization.

An investigation into Chernyshov and two of his associates took place last year after suspicions arose, according to Ukrainska Pravda, with the agency obtaining a warrant to search Chernyshov's home.

But sources in anti-corruption agencies told Ukrainska Pravda that the head of NABU, Semen Kryvonos, blocked police searches due to his close relationship with Chernyshov, who was his boss when Kryvonos headed the State Architecture Inspection, an agency that was subordinated to Chernyshov's former ministry.

Searches allegedly took place a few weeks ago, after a one-year delay, according to Ukrainska Pravda.

Chernyshov said that while he knows Kryvonos in a professional manner, the two are not in contact. He added that the allegations against Horbatiuk and Volodin look "quite serious" but that it was for law enforcement to decide if their detention is justified.

He was appointed head of state-owned energy giant Naftogaz in 2022 after the dissolution of the Communities and Territories Development Ministry. He became the national unity minister in December 2024, a ministry created from scratch.

Chernyshov is widely believed to have a personal friendship with Zelensky. According to a report by Ukrainska Pravda, he was among only a handful of guests invited to celebrate Zelensky's birthday during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2021 — and the only member of the Cabinet of Ministers in attendance.

"The key thing is that today NABU and SAPO have actually reached the immediate circle of the president's 'family,'" Olena Shcherban, deputy executive director at the Anti-Corruption Action Center (ANTAC), a Kyiv-based watchdog, told the Kyiv Independent.

The President's Office feels the threat from NABU and SAPO and will likely attack the two institutions in response to Chernyshov's notice of suspicion, rather than "saving" the minister, Shcherban added.

"I am sure we will see both attempts to make harmful changes to the law and personal attacks on the SAPO head (Oleksandr Klymenko)," she said.  

Deputy PM Chernyshov returns to Ukraine as questions mount amid corruption probe

Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov returned to Ukraine on June 22 following his official trip abroad amid media speculations connecting Chernyshov’s absence to an ongoing corruption investigation.

The Kyiv IndependentDmytro Basmat

Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov returned to Ukraine on June 22 following his official trip abroad amid media speculations connecting Chernyshov's absence to an ongoing corruption investigation.

Chernyshov, who announced his return in a Facebook post, has been the subject of controversy in recent days after law enforcement agencies unveiled a corruption scheme involving two officials from the now-dissolved Communities and Territories Development Ministry, which was headed by Chernyshov.

Suspicions about Chernyshov, who heads the new National Unity Ministry focused on relations with refugees and the Ukrainian diaspora, arose when the deputy prime minister did not attend a Kyiv forum he himself organized in person but joined online from abroad.

Chernyshov unexpected work trip to Vienna, announced on June 16, came just three days after law enforcement officials revealed the scheme, leaving Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal to answer questions in parliament about Chernyshov's trip. The National Unity Ministry said that foreign trips are a regular part of Chernyshov's work.

Ukrainska Pravda reported, citing its sources, that Chernyshov's son and wife had also Ukraine following Chernyshov's most recent trip. It was not immediately clear whether they had returned to the country.

"Finally home. A difficult but very important business trip (which, thanks to some media outlets, became unexpectedly popular) is now over," Chernyshov said in a Facebook post.

Chernyshov added that he will be returning to work within the Cabinet of Ministers starting on June 23.

"We’ll also break down the smear campaign fact by fact. The truth always prevails," he added, referring to the ongoing police matter.

According to Ukrainska Pravda, Chernyshov and two of his associates came under investigation last year over suspicions that they received kickbacks from Serhii Kopystira, the head of the KSM Group, for illicitly transferring a plot of land for real estate development between 2021 and 2022.

Four sources in anti-corruption agencies told Ukrainska Pravda that despite the investigation, no police searches were conducted at the time, as they were blocked by the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, Semen Kryvonos, who has a long-standing relationship with Chernyshov.

After the dissolution of the Communities and Territories Development Ministry at the end of 2022, Chernyshov was appointed the head of the state-owned energy company Naftogaz. In 2024, the official was tasked with leading the new National Unity Ministry — a position that often involved travel abroad — while also being named deputy prime minister.

The other two people connected to the case — Maksym Horbatiuk and Vasyl Volodin — were reportedly detained last week as the investigation began moving forward.

President Volodymyr Zelensky previously commented on Chernyshov's presence abroad amid questions from media.

"What Shmyhal told me is that he’s on a business trip. He had two tasks from me, from the government, from all of us: the first — to open hubs in different countries, and the second — multiple citizenship. As far as I understand, he is working on both of these," Zelensky was quoted as saying.

The Kyiv Independent could not verify all the claims presented through the media investigation.

Ukraine war latest: ‘Ukrainian drones for the foot of every Russian soldier’ — Zelensky responds to Putin’s threat to conquer all of Ukraine

Key developments on June 21-22: * ‘Ukrainian drones for the foot of every Russian soldier’ — Zelensky responds to Putin’s threat to conquer all of Ukraine. * 3 killed, 14 wounded as Russia strikes Ukrainian military training facility. * Russia seeks to advance along almost entire eastern front, Ukraine holding ground in Kursk Oblast,

The Kyiv IndependentSonya Bandouil

Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov's official trip abroad has been approved until the end of the week, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said on June 20 amid media speculations connecting Chernyshov's absence to an ongoing corruption investigation.

Shmyhal made the comment in response to opposition lawmaker Iryna Herashchenko in parliament.

Suspicions about Chernyshov, who heads the new National Unity Ministry focused on relations with refugees and the Ukrainian diaspora, arose earlier this week when the deputy prime minister did not attend a Kyiv forum he himself organized in person but joined online from abroad.

The deputy prime minister's unexpected work trip to Vienna, announced on June 16, came three days after law enforcement agencies unveiled a corruption scheme involving two officials from the now-dissolved Communities and Territories Development Ministry, which was headed by Chernyshov.

According to Ukrainska Pravda, Chernyshov and two of his associates came under investigation last year over suspicions that they received kickbacks from Serhii Kopystira, the head of the KSM Group, for illicitly transferring a plot of land for real estate development between 2021 and 2022.

Four sources in anti-corruption agencies told Ukrainska Pravda that despite the investigation, no police searches were conducted at the time, as they were blocked by the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, Semen Kryvonos, who has a long-standing relationship with Chernyshov.

After the dissolution of the Communities and Territories Development Ministry at the end of 2022, Chernyshov was appointed the head of the state-owned energy company Naftogaz. In 2024, the official was tasked with leading the new National Unity Ministry — a position that often involved travel abroad — while also being named deputy prime minister.

The other two people connected to the case — Maksym Horbatiuk and Vasyl Volodin — were reportedly detained last week as the investigation began moving forward.

Chernyshov traveled to Prague on June 10 and 11 for a business trip, and then to Vienna a week later. The subsequent court hearings with the two detainees detailed Chernyshov's role in the corruption scheme, according to Ukrainska Pravda.

The news outlet stressed that there is currently no evidence that Chernyshov's current stay abroad is connected to the investigation. The National Unity Ministry said that foreign trips are a regular part of Chernyshov's work.

The Kyiv Independent could not verify all the claims and has reached out to Chernyshov's team for comment.

Trump’s peace push falters in both Ukraine and the Middle East — for similar reasons

U.S. President Donald Trump addressed a wide range of subjects during his inauguration speech. When speaking about international relations, he was adamant — “Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity,” he said, talking about Russia’s war against Ukraine and the fighting in the Middle

The Kyiv IndependentOleg Sukhov

Coda’s ZEG storytelling festival in Tbilisi has come to an end, and I am both overloaded with information and exhausted by drinking too much wine. My take-home message was that oligarchy is spreading ever wider, and that we need to take its threat to democracy far more seriously than anyone is doing at the moment.

I shared a stage with Ed Caesar, author and journalist from The New Yorker- magazine, who has written some great pieces on oligarchs (as well as much else), with Paul Caruana Galizia, who made this excellent podcast on Londongrad, and with Hans Gutbrod, whose piece on Georgia’s own Bidzina Ivanishvili is very much worth reading. And if you like surreal, ethereal documentaries, I highly recommend Salome Jashi’s ‘Taming the Garden’, which tackles oligarchy and its implications through the story of Georgian trees. 

The joy of the festival is in the incidental meetings, of which few were more joyful for me than sitting next to Joseph Stiglitz at dinner and getting to hear his views on inequality, oligarchy, and the age of Trump. Where else would I ever get to do that? 

Moral of the story: you too should find time to come to Tbilisi next year for ZEG. If you do, you can also make a side-trip to the market to stock up on one of the world’s best condiments.

SHOW US THE MONEY

Victoria Cleland, the Bank of England’s Chief Cashier, has announced that worried Brits are hoarding cash. “At a time of uncertainty, at a time of crisis people do move to cash. They want to make sure they have literally got something under the mattress,” she said at a conference in London.

This, she said, helps to explain why the value of all the banknotes in circulation keeps going up – indeed, it hit a new all-time high of 85.872 billion pounds this year – despite the fact that people use less cash all the time. The Bank of England has previously estimated that between 20 and 24 percent of banknotes at any one time are being used in transactions, and the rest are unaccounted for (or, according to Cleland, hoarded). 

So, if we do the sums and we accept Cleland’s logic, we can say that around 1,000 pounds worth of banknotes is being hoarded by every single person in the UK, up from around 920 pounds last year. I have to say that, with all due respect to Cleland, I am very dubious about that figure, not least because someone is getting a double share to make up for the fact that I don’t have even a fraction of that.

The most recent survey I can find, which is from 2022, suggests I am not alone. The average Brit had just 113.82 pounds at home back then, and it’s hard to see why that total would have increased ninefold in the last three years.

This is not a UK-specific situation. The last survey conducted for the Federal Reserve shows that the average American had $373 either in their wallet or at home in 2024, down $70 from the year before. So cash hoarding in the US is going down, but the value of banknotes in circulation keeps going up –  indeed, it hit a new all-time high of $2.835 trillion in the most recent data release, which is around $7,000 for every person in the United States. So either Brits and Americans alike are spectacularly under-reporting how much cash they’re keeping at home, or someone else is using all that cash for something else.

Considering that barely a week goes by without news of major money laundering gangs being busted with bags full of banknotes, I personally would like it if central bank officials put a little bit of thought into asking whether the extremely healthy demand for their products is not in fact coming from organised criminals. And if it is, whether central banks ought to do something about that.

Five years ago, the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee scolded the Bank of England for not caring about where its banknotes go. “The Bank needs to get a better handle on the national currency it controls,” its chair, MP Meg Hillier, said. It still does.

TRACKING ‘ENDANGERED’ MILLIONAIRES

Regular readers will know how much I admire the ability of Henley & Partners, the world’s foremost passport vendor, to turn almost any piece of news into an advertisement for buying a new passport and/or visa.

In recent times, the alarm is being sounded by changes to British tax policy which, basically, make it more expensive for very rich people to live and to die in the UK. And Henley responded in the way that it always does – “provisional estimates for 2024 are even more concerning, with a massive net outflow of 9,500 millionaires projected for this year alone,” it reported last year about the “wealth exodus”. All was not lost, however. If only the UK would scrap taxes on capital gains and inheritance and privatise its healthcare system, millionaires might be persuaded to stay.

The ‘research’ was picked up very widely, with few media outlets questioning its methodology, its publisher’s motivations, how representative its purported database of 150,000 people was of the millions of millionaires in the world, or indeed how exactly anyone knows where they’re all going. The Tax Justice Network has now delved into the report, and its findings are worth a read, not least the headline conclusion that there was no exodus. The correct policy response, it argues, would therefore not be tax cuts at all but higher taxes on wealth.

So, what should we think? Are millionaires leaving the sinking ship, or are they clinging on to help rebuild? Should we lower taxes or raise them? The obvious solution is surely to use satellite tags so millionaires can be tracked like wildebeest as they migrate from the watering holes of Chamonix to the rich, grazing pastures of Mayfair via the rutting grounds of St Barts. Only then can we know for sure if they’re being chased into extinction.

CALLING OUT MONACO

The European Union’s regularly updated “list of high-risk jurisdictions presenting strategic deficiencies in their national anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regimes” has done something worthwhile for the first time I can remember by singling out Monaco.

Normally, the list is made up of a random selection of irrelevant places and third-order tax havens. And there’s plenty of the usual on display: why anyone would worry that Côte d'Ivoire, Namibia and Nepal, for example, are supposedly big centres for financial crime, I have no idea. And normally, the list will avoid pointing a finger at any country that is closely allied or aligned with any EU member, which means the U.S. and U.K. never get singled out even though they’re clearly far more problematic than, say, Algeria.

This time, however, the list does single out Monaco. The principality is a major problem, with deep ties to deeply unsavoury people and a fast-developing financial scandal.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post The cash hoarders, migrating millionaires, and Monaco mischief appeared first on Coda Story.

There are two options for criminals in a democracy who don’t want to go to jail. The first is to launch a large-scale campaign to legalise whatever crime it is that you want to commit. This is hard, slow, laborious and, in most cases, impossible. The second is to not get caught. This is not necessarily easy either, but it’s a lot easier when law enforcement agencies are small, embattled and under-funded.

The 300,000 or so financial institutions subject to regulations in the United States have to report any suspicions they have about transactions, as well as reports of large cash payments, to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN. The idea is that their reports will alert investigators to crimes while they’re going on, and help the goodies catch the baddies.

DEFUNDING THE COPS

Sadly, however, FinCEN’s computer system is so clunky it’s like, as a former prosecutor once said, trying to plug AI into a Betamax. Investigators often have to create their own programmes to trawl a database that gains more than 25 million entries every year, or else just pick through them in the hope of finding something interesting. It effectively means that this vast and priceless resource is hardly ever used.

And now FinCEN’s budget looks like it will be slashed even further. “The pittance allocated to FinCEN in the current budget has been reduced even further,” wrote compliance expert Jim Richards, with a link to the 1,200-page supplement to the White House’s proposed 2026 budget with details about the cut. The reduction would take spending back to 2023 levels, which is worrying for anyone keen on seeing criminals stopped. And that’s even before you take into account the effect of workforce disillusionment at regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, resulting from the cuts imposed by DOGE.

“I experienced some dark times during my SEC career, including the 2008-09 financial crisis and the Enron and Madoff scandals,” wrote Martin Kimel in a passionate column in Barron’s. “ But morale at the Commission is the worst I have ever seen, by far. No job is secure. Nobody knows what will become of the agency or its independence.” So, he added, “when the SEC offered early retirement and an incentive payment for people to voluntarily resign, I and hundreds of others reluctantly accepted.”

If you lose experienced personnel, and you lack the resources to invest in the latest technology, you will always lose ground against entrepreneurial and skilled financial criminals. That is the inevitable consequence of what is happening in the United States, which will be devastating for the victims of fraudsters, crooks, hackers and more.

THE UK PRECEDENT

There is, however, a cycle to this kind of thing. Governments that are determined to unleash the private sector always cut enforcement of regulations, but then they become embarrassed by the inevitable revelations of corruption, sleaze and incompetence that result. This is what happened in Britain, where years of news headlines about London being the favourite playground of oligarchs finally led to government action.

Three years ago, the British authorities imposed a special levy on financial institutions to fund the bodies that fight crime, and last month it published a report on the first year of spending. More than 40 million pounds has been invested in new technology to tackle Suspicious Activity Reports (so no more Betamax in London), and almost 400 people have been hired to do the work, including some of them finally beginning to try to drain the swamp that is the U.K.’s corporate registry. This is good news. 

It is inevitable that, just like in the U.K., the United States will eventually become so appalled by the rampant criminality that will result from the cuts to FinCEN, the SEC and other bodies, that politicians will start building a decent system to stop it. I just wish everyone would get on with it, so millions of people don’t have to lose out first.

THE EU GETS INTO GEAR?

You can accuse the European Union of many things, but you can’t say that it acts hastily. Several months after the last progress update from the Anti-Money-Laundering Agency (AMLA), it has appointed its four permanent board members. They represent an interesting cross-section of European expertise. 

There’s Simonas Krėpšta who, at the Bank of Lithuania, has overseen the country’s booming fintech sector and, therefore, has a good insight into the country’s booming money laundering sector, which has seen quite a lot of firms get fined, including arguably Europe’s most valuable startup Revolut. 

Then there’s Derville Rowland of the Central Bank of Ireland, who will bring inside knowledge of Europe’s most aggressive tax haven. And Rikke-Louise Ørum Petersen, who joined Denmark’s Financial Supervisory Authority in 2015, just when the money laundering spree by Danske Bank was about to explode into public view. Finally, there’s Juan Manuel Vega Serrano, who was previously head of the Financial Action Task Force, which gives him plenty of experience of working at an ineffective, slow-moving, superficially apolitical, supranational anti-money laundering organisation. 

All told, I’d say this is a pretty perfect group of people for the job. The European Union works slowly, but it works thoroughly. Of course, AMLA won’t actually be doing anything until 2028, and it probably won’t do much after that either. But you can’t have everything.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post Creating a culture of corruption appeared first on Coda Story.

The Corporate Transparency Act was passed by Congress at the very end of Donald Trump’s first term, with bipartisan support and an important mission to protect national security, expose wrongdoing and complicate the committing of financial crime by forcing companies to declare the names of their owners. 

This was at the time not a controversial piece of legislation, not least because American politicians – as part of the Financial Action Task Force – have been pressuring other countries to pass similar laws since the late twentieth century. But it has proved messy to implement. FinCEN, the United States’ financial crimes enforcement network, only finished making the necessary rules to file what it calls “beneficial ownership information” last year – just in time for judges in Alabama and Texas to declare them illegal, and then for the second Trump administration to basically ditch them altogether by saying they don’t apply to 99.9 percent of corporations that are registered in the U.S.

The consultation period over this decision to ditch the filing requirement is now over. (So, if you feel strongly but didn’t get round to writing in, I’m sorry to say you’ve missed your chance.) It is now possible to browse through the several-dozen submissions from concerned citizens and organisations, which is an enlightening experience.

MAKING COMPANIES OPAQUE AGAIN

In the pro-rules camp, you can find comments from law enforcement agencies, anti-corruption organisations, environmental campaigners, credit unions and others who are concerned that the Trump administration’s decision to maintain the previous lax standards is damaging and unwise.

“Without this data,” stated the National District Attorneys’ Association, in a fairly typical submission, “prosecutors are left blind when investigating shell companies used by fentanyl and human traffickers, cybercriminals, and corrupt foreign actors.” These, they added, “are not abstract concerns –these are real threats to American families and communities.”

In the other camp are the small business owners, or associations representing them, who are delighted that the requirements to file their details with FinCEN are now history, and want all beneficial ownership information already filed to be deleted. 

“For many of us, the original BOI requirements felt like an unfair assumption of guilt, treating hard working entrepreneurs as potential criminals rather than the backbone of our economy,” wrote Stephen McKissen, the owner of a video production company in Denver, Colorado. Removing the requirement, he argued, “for US companies and US persons to report BOI lifts a significant weight off our shoulders.” 

Ever since the world’s first piece of anti-money laundering legislation was passed in 1970, businesses have complained about the compliance burdens it imposed upon them. Criminals hide by pretending to be legitimate businesspeople, and the only way they can be exposed is by imposing rules on everyone, thus obliging honest folk to undergo paperwork and inconvenience, which is not popular with the honest folk (or, I suppose, the dishonest ones).

It's crucial to the way the legislation is implemented therefore to minimise that inconvenience, to make sure it does not cause so much irritation that it becomes a political issue. This appears to be where the U.S. efforts ran aground. I had a look at the FinCEN portal through which company ownership is registered and which the small businesses were complaining about. It didn’t look too bad to me, but if the registration process is anything like the comment-reading process, I can see why people are annoyed about having to do it.

Every single comment on the proposed rule changes has the same headline, so it’s impossible to tell which are interesting and which are utterly banal, without opening a new page, then opening a new attachment. When you return to the main page, the list of them rearranges itself unexpectedly, so it’s hard to know which ones you’ve already read. It is in short a very poorly designed piece of software, and you’d think a country that created Google, Apple, Facebook and the rest might have been able to find some better programmers.

Back, though, to America’s notoriously lax shell company legislation. It is the result of it being devolved to state level, so that some states – Delaware and Nevada are stand-out examples – end up competing with each other to attract more incorporation, thus sparking a race to the bottom. 

Perhaps there’s nothing that could have been done to make American business owners appreciate the need to file information about beneficial ownership, but the lesson for bureaucrats is that you have to make compliance easy. Having to file information at both state and federal level was never going to be popular, particularly if the web portal involved was also clunky and annoying. 

However, what’s left of the Corporate Transparency Act will nicely align with the White House’s wider agenda, since it now only applies to foreign companies that have registered to do business in the United States. If criminals currently using offshore-incorporated corporations want to avoid having to report their identity to the authorities, they’ll now need to set up a domestic shell company, which will I suppose be a small win for USA Inc.  

It’s too early to say whether Trump’s tariffs and threats will bring businesses and manufacturing back to America, but he is at least making onshore shell companies great again.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post How Trump is bringing shell companies back onshore appeared first on Coda Story.

Since Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, some 31 percent of “revenue agents” (the people tasked with conducting tax audits) have lost their jobs. This is supposed to save the government money, but it’s a bit like trying to reduce the cost of crime by sacking police officers. 

“This administration is clearly running the risk of losing hundreds of billions of dollars -- in fact, likely over $1 trillion -- through its destruction of the IRS. “At a time when deficits are high and rising, that seems a baffling policy choice,” said Larry Summers, noted economist, former treasury secretary, and former president of Harvard University.

The policy is indeed baffling if its aim is to collect taxes; it’s not baffling at all, though, if the intention is to help rich people dodge them.

An early announcement from Trump’s Department of Justice was to pause enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which has been central to global efforts against bribery since the 1970s. Trump has long argued that prosecuting American businesses for bribing foreign officials makes it harder for U.S. companies to compete. A new DoJ memo shows that it has now thought about what it wants to do, and how to do it in a way that prioritises American interests.

There have long been suspicions that U.S. authorities reserve their biggest fines for non-US companies (a French bank getting fined almost $9 billion, for example), and suggesting that prosecutions will be “America first” is unlikely to help with that perception. “Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") will now be focused on conduct that harms U.S. interests and affects the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, further suggesting that future FCPA enforcement will be focused on non-U.S. companies,” noted lawyers from White&Case in this assessment.

There is already widespread global concern that the Trump administration will exploit the U.S. dollar’s dominant position in finance to force foreigners to do what it wants. Suggestions that corruption laws are not equally enforced will only further that suspicion. The fewer foreigners who rely on dollars, the less impact US sanctions will have, so it would be good if officials would consider that before implementing their policies.

MINDING THE TAX GAP

Readers old enough to remember the financial crisis of 2007-8 will also remember the wave of popular anger against tax-dodgers that followed it. American prosecutors investigated Swiss banks (good times!); protesters occupied branches of Starbucks (fun!); almost all countries agreed to exchange information with each other about their citizens’ tax affairs to uncover cheats (massive!).

According to the EU Tax Observatory, this information exchange has been a triumph, and cut wealthy people’s misuse of offshore trickery by two-thirds. I have always been a little suspicious of these declarations of victory, however, despite them coming from such a good source, and find grounds for my doubts in this new report from the UK’s National Audit Office.

British tax authorities every year estimate a tax gap – the difference between what the country’s exchequer should receive, and what it actually gets – and politicians regularly talk about reducing it. If the Trump administration seems uninterested in clamping down on tax evasion, and financial chicanery in general, the British government has pledged additional resources for technology and investigators to try to understand what’s happening and whether its tax gap estimate is close to being accurate, so we may learn more about this in future years. Fingers crossed.  

But the NAO report suggests that the way it’s calculated may be a bit questionable. According to the standard estimate, wealthy individuals pay around 1.9 billion pounds less than they should. But, according to a different estimate (“compliance yield”), the tax authorities have successfully brought in an extra 3 billion pounds from wealthy people that would not have been collected without their efforts.

It is a little hard to understand how it is possible to increase tax compliance by 1.1 billion more pounds than the entire deficit that wealthy people are supposedly underpaying. It’s like losing two pounds down the back of an armchair, reaching beneath the cushion and finding three. Except with billions. Something else is very definitely going on. “The large increase in compliance yield raises the possibility that underlying levels of non-compliance among the wealthy population were much greater than previously thought,” notes the NAO.

I am, I admit, someone who fixates on offshore skulduggery, but I can’t help noticing the report states that a mere five percent of the UK tax authorities’ investigative efforts were looking into “offshore non-compliance”. Tax advisers are clever, well-paid people, and they’ll know very well about the best places to hide their clients’ money, and there’s even a suggestion for them in the report: if your client holds wealth in properties abroad, or owns shares in her own name rather than through an institution, her home government will never know about her income she earns from them. Happy days.

A POSTER CITY FOR ILLICIT FINANCE

And speaking of offshore skullduggery. The city of Mariupol has long been central to the war in Ukraine. Enveloped early by Russian forces, its defenders held out for months in an epic battle in the ruins of the Azovstal steel plant, before surrendering in May 2022. Moscow has since made it the poster city for the supposedly prosperous future available in a Russia-ruled Ukraine, but a new report makes clear how hollow such claims are.

“Powerful Moscow-based networks are controlling much of the reconstruction programme. Well-connected companies are benefiting from Russian spending that involves the widespread use of illicit finance and corrupt practices,” note its authors, David Lewis and Olivia Allison. They have specific policy recommendations, of which I think the most important ones relate to my old bugbear of sanctions, which should be better targeted and more strategically deployed. Russia’s crimes in Ukraine include the looting and economic exploitation of cities like Mariupol. 

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post Making America corrupt again? appeared first on Coda Story.

I visited the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands a couple of years ago, intrigued by its curious bad luck in repeatedly being struck by massive gaming and money laundering scandals, like this one and this one. In case you’re not au fait with the CNMI, it’s a US territory north of Guam, which is best known as the place the Enola Gay and the Bockscar departed from on their way to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It's also the current home of Jim Kingman, a Texan lawyer who was invited to the commonwealth in 2023 to act as special prosecutor in a baroque corruption scandal featuring former ex-Governor Ralph Torres, who had been acquitted along party lines in impeachment proceedings in the islands’ senate the year before.

A LESSON FROM SAIPAN

And for Kingman, it’s been basically downhill from there. His attempts to investigate, subpoena or prosecute have been frustrated at every turn by a local elite that’s decided it doesn’t really want him to make any progress. “Where are the feds? Where is the oversight? Where are the ethics committees? Where is the bar? What are we even doing out here?” he asked in a fed-up Facebook post, a year into the corruption trial, with almost no progress made.

With the change in government in Washington, DC, Kingman is clearly concerned about the future of his mission on the islands, and has given an interview to a local journalist who also described the sheer extent of obstruction that Kingman has faced. It’s a bitter read, but it has a defiant tone, a commitment to fighting corruption, that leaves an optimistic aftertaste.

“One promise that I can make is that I won’t quit,” Kingman said. “I can’t promise the desired results in a process I don’t have control over. There is a fundamental change that needs to happen to set up a more sustainable government and that will have to come from the people here. The forces that I have been facing have made it clear that these changes will not be received from an outsider.”

Kingman is just doing his job as a lawyer, but the reason I single him out is that he’s looking pretty unusual among American lawyers at the moment. Faced with hostile politicians, Kingman is choosing to fight. Far better paid, better networked and more powerful lawyers than him are choosing to take a different route and roll over when threatened. 

I’m glad Kingman is sticking to his principles, and wish him luck. If anyone hasn’t read about what Pakistani lawyers did over a decade ago to preserve judicial independence in the face of an interfering autocrat, I highly recommend this piece. Faced with far tougher circumstances than those confronting New York’s white-shoe firms, Pakistan’s lawyers and judges took their struggle to the streets and found that most people are sympathetic to the idea of an independent judiciary that can act as a constraint on a dictatorial, power-hungry executive.

SLOW PROGRESS

Of course, lawyers can take to the streets. But the authorities’ chronic neglect of offices that investigate and prosecute corruption and financial crime has critically hampered their effectiveness. 

The U.K. non-profit “Spotlight on Corruption” has produced a really useful dashboard to track how the British authorities have fared in their efforts against financial crime. Long story short – it’s been pretty bad. If anyone needed proof that underfunding investigative agencies for years and years was an ineffective way to tackle complex criminality, then here it is.

And more evidence has been provided by Transparency International UK’s Ben Cowdock who has produced a fascinating summary of the progress the British authorities are making in reforming its corporate registry. Long story short – it’s not going very quickly. 

With an assessment by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on the horizon, the “pressure is on to get Companies House reform right,” Cowdock notes. The FATF sets international standards for tackling money laundering and runs mutual assessments of its members on a regular timetable, and the UK is due to be assessed in December 2027. Before that, however, in February 2026, will be the assessment of the United States and there could be fireworks.

MADE EVEN SLOWER

Donald Trump has just pardoned a corporation for the first time. He decided to cancel the judgement against the founders of a crypto trading company that was fined $100 million last year. Authorities said the fine reflected the expectation that the digital assets industry “takes seriously its responsibilities in the regulated financial industry and its duties to develop and adhere to a culture of compliance.” But Trump appears to have given up on enforcing corporate transparency, which is a central pillar of the FATF’s approach to tackling illicit finance.

“What the getaway car is to a bank heist, the anonymous company often is to a fraud scheme,” said Transparency International U.S. in this useful factsheet of cases in which American shell companies have enabled fraud and financial crime. The Trump administration’s response to this has been to not only do nothing, but to stop what was already being done. There has not yet been a time when the American government has so egregiously flouted the FATF’s core principles. And the U.S. was central to crafting FATF back in the late 1980s, so we are drifting into uncharted and rocky waters. It's hard to imagine the FATF approving of what’s happening, and harder to imagine this White House reacting well to being criticised, so you’d hope the FATF is preparing for the fallout. 

If it is, however, it’s not showing any sign of being ready for battle. Its most recent publication is almost aggressively dull. And the latest public pronouncement from its president suggests that, while she might have some thoughts about the arrangement of the deckchairs, she’s not got much to say about the iceberg up ahead.

I am personally not a huge fan of the FATF, which has been very good at producing documents and very bad at stopping money laundering. In fact, I sometimes wonder if money laundering experts aren’t the modern day equivalent of the self-perpetuating lawyers lampooned by Charles Dickens in “Bleak House”. “The one great principle of the English law is,” Dickens wrote, “to make business for itself.” Still, we might find we’ll miss the FATF if it’s gone. 

AND FINALLY, WHAT IS A KLEPTOCRACY?

I was in Oxford last Thursday to chair an event for Professor John Heathershaw and Tom Mayne, two of the authors of Indulging Kleptocracy, a book about how British professionals have helped foreign thieves and crooks to steal, keep, protect and spend their fortunes. The week before I was in Washington and had lunch with Jodi Vittori, professor at Georgetown University, and author of this recent piece in Foreign Policy headlined “Is America a kleptocracy?”.

These are noted experts on kleptocracy, with lots of very interesting things to say, but they have different definitions of what the word means. In the U.K., Heathershaw and Mayne use it to describe the multinational networks that allow corrupt officials to steal money from places like Nigeria or Kazakhstan, launder it offshore, and spend it in London, the French Riviera or Miami. In the United States, however, Vittori and Casey Michel use it to describe a system of government (like a corrupt version of autocracy, democracy or any other -cracy).

I think these two definitions are the sign of something quite interesting. The United States has so much diversity in terms of how wealth is treated between individual states that crooks and thieves are able to build a kleptocracy within just one country. And the task just became easier, with a specialized team at the Justice Department investigating kleptocrats’ deals and assets now deemed unnecessary by the Trump administration. Not entirely surprisingly, the team’s investigations had irritated some of Trump’s closest advisors and allies.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post Lawless in Saipan, and Trump pardons crypto bros appeared first on Coda Story.

Last week I attended a crypto conference in Washington, D.C., and can report back that things are changing fast. New regulations look certain to come through in a hurry and – judging by the heinous quantity of lawyers in the venue – a lot of people are very serious about making a lot of money from them. This is, in my opinion, not good.

Crypto people complained bitterly under the Biden administration that regulators were treating them unfairly, by restricting their ability to do business. Many observers pointed out that crypto people were being regulated exactly the same way as everyone else, and that the reason they were struggling was that their product only makes money if it can break the rules, but the crypto people didn’t agree and responded by spending over $119 million on political donations before the 2024 elections.

MONEY WELL SPENT

The lobbying has paid off. Victorious (and well-funded) Republicans have responded to the crypto industry with a degree of enthusiasm that is positively overwhelming. Supposedly dead under the Biden administration, crypto has been brought back to rude health. “I'm so excited for all of us,” said House Majority Whip Tom Emmer. “This has been a long road to get here. We are on the precipice of actually making this happen. And guess what? That's only the beginning.”

He said Congressmen and senators were determined to get a bill onto President Trump’s desk by August that would regulate the stablecoin industry, thus providing the kind of legal certainty that would allow these “digital dollars” to explode even more dramatically than they already have. A lot of this will be overseen by the Office for the Comptroller of the Currency, which has already moved to scrap the cautious approach of the old days (i.e. last year).

“I’m creating a bright future for banks in America to use digital assets. Financial inclusion is the civil rights issue of our generation,” Rodney Hood, Acting Comptroller of the Currency, told a side session at the conference. “I have removed the sword of Damocles that was hanging over the head of the financial services industry.”

Millions of people lack bank accounts in the United States, and they are overwhelmingly the poorest members of society. Governments have failed to do enough to make sure everyone has access to financial services. And if crypto really could help vulnerable people access banking, then I’d be all for it, but I fear – certainly on the evidence of what I saw last week – it won’t.

Perhaps the most alarming discussion was that concerning World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s own crypto firm. Donald Trump Jr., beamed in by videolink, appeared to be seated on what looked like a white throne. He loomed over the stage like a permatanned deity in an inadequately-buttoned shirt. He explained that he’d only realised the power of crypto after his father had come out as a Republican and the family had all been cancelled. “You put that little R next to your name,” he said, explaining the need for crypto. “And I sort of realized very quickly just how much discrimination there is in the ordinary financial markets.”

The other three founders of the firm, which was created last year, all took to the stage in person. Zachary Witkoff – the son of President Trump’s special envoy tasked with helping to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine – spells blockchain wrong on his LinkedIn bio, and got the dress code wrong by wearing a suit and neglecting to grow a beard. Zachary Folkman, who once ran a company called ‘Date Hotter Girls’, wore a bomber jacket and facial hair, which matched the mood more precisely. Chase Herro was the most hirsute and casual of the lot, in joggers and a white baseball cap, and he explained that they would be targeting ordinary Americans, with the aim of getting them to use crypto to buy ham sandwiches from a bodega, as well as aiming to transform the cross-border payments system with their own stablecoin – USD1. 

The idea that these four nepo man-babies would be given the keys to any kind of financial institution was alarming, but the prospect of them doing so under permissive new regulations and an administration headed by one of their dads, was terrifying. “So one of our biggest goals is to kind of bring everybody back together and realize that this is a free market and, like, let the free market dictate who survives and who doesn't, and who thrives and who doesn't,” said Herro. Trump’s sons, incidentally, have also just invested heavily in a bitcoin mining company. 

WELCOME BACK, ALL IS FORGIVEN

The pace at the conference was frenetic, and every other session seemed to have Congressmen and/or senators explaining how cryptocurrencies would do their bit to make America prosperous and grand. Even three Democrats held a side session called “keeping crypto non-partisan”. No one was listening, though, partly because all the lawyers were talking to each other in the hallway but mainly because the Republican chairs of the Senate and the House banking committees were on the main stage at the same time explaining how America would remain the world’s crypto capital. 

Crypto is Trump’s project now, and no one cares what the Democrats have to say. If you want to see how much the industry has embraced the president’s talking points, check out this comically politicized advert from the blockchain company Solana, home of the $Trump memecoin. Even on X, the backlash was so fierce that Solana had to delete it.

What does this mean for the rest of the world though? American politicians seem to have decided that cryptocurrencies – and, particularly, dollar-denominated stablecoins – are good for America, that they bring business to the country, and help find customers for the Treasury’s debt. Anything that gets in the way of crypto therefore is bad for America. With great power comes great opportunity, as Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben might have said if only he’d had more donations from a pro-crypto SuperPAC.

Bo Hines, the hatchet-faced head of Trump’s council of crypto advisers, said his message to any crypto people working offshore was: “welcome home”. 

As for Tom Emmer, even the prosecution of the founders of Tornado Cash – the software that, prosecutors say, allowed criminals including North Korean hackers to hide $1 billion of stolen wealth – was governmental overreach. “We need all that innovation, all those risk takers and creators in this country, that's what is the definition of success. From that you'll get that economic growth,” Emmer said.

There is a terrible irony that cryptocurrencies – an idea much of whose popularity stemmed from the public anger sparked by the deregulation and greed that caused the great financial crisis of 2007-2008 – are becoming a new nexus for deregulation and greed. And I worry about what the backlash will bring when this too collapses. And I worry about all the bad behaviour that will be enabled before the collapse happens.

As Corey Frayer, who served in the Securities and Exchange Commission under Joe Biden, once said: “Crypto is a machine where fraud and money laundering go in one side, and political donations come out the other end.” 

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post A crypto government for a crypto nation appeared first on Coda Story.

A striking characteristic of Russian officials has long been how they combine passionate opposition to all the West professes to stand for with a marked willingness to invest, live, educate their children, party, and litigate in the West. And that brings us to Dmitry Ovsyannikov (there’ll be more on the elaborate spelling of his name in a bit), who was appointed governor of the city of Sevastopol by Vladimir Putin in 2016.

Sevastopol is the largest city on the Crimean peninsula, and was stolen from Ukraine by Putin in 2014 on the grounds that it had once belonged to Russia. “It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country,” Putin told the State Duma over a decade ago as justification for the annexation of Crimea, part 1 of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, “that Russia realised that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered.” Most Western countries do not accept this logic, and have tried to punish people involved, which is why Ovsyannikov was sanctioned by the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

WESTWARD BOUND

Ovsyannikov left Crimea in 2019 for a position in Moscow, but his political career came to an abrupt end after a scandal at a regional airport. He then did that thing Russian officials do and headed to Britain. In 2023, he moved into his brother’s house in London, where his wife and children were already living and attending private school.

Private schools, however, have to be paid for, and prosecutors say that arranging those payments was tantamount to circumventing the UK’s sanctions, so he was charged along with his wife and brother, and this month they went on trial. The alleged wrongdoing is fairly small-scale, but it’s an important test case. We have a few weeks to wait for an outcome, but there are some interesting points to draw out from it already.

The first is about spelling. If you’re trying to avoid notice as a Russian (or a representative of any other nation which uses a different alphabet to ours), it’s an entry-level stratagem to play around with transliteration. It’s noticeable that in the court documents, he uses a different version of his name -- Dmitrii Ovsiannikov – to that favoured by the Kremlin in the good old days, which is a switch between two common transliteration systems. His brother, meanwhile, spells his surname Owsjanikow, which uses yet another. I’m hoping there’s a third sibling, who’s gone all pre-revolutionary with Ovsiannikoff.

The second is about his citizenship. Ovsyannikov left Russia for Turkey in August 2022, which many Russians did after Putin invaded Ukraine, though admittedly most of them had not been senior officials in the occupying administration. He then applied for a British passport, which he obtained early the next year. 

Apparently Ovsyannikov’s father was born in Bradford, in the north of England, in 1950. How did a Yorkshire lad hook up with a Soviet lady at the height of the Cold War? Did their eyes meet over a discussion of production quotas? If there are any authors of “socialist realist romance” among my readers, this could be your time to shine. Ovsyannikov himself is 48, so he must have been born in 1976 or 1977. 

The third and most important thing about his case is whether he should still have been subject to sanctions at all. The U.K. may have continued to sanction Ovsyannikov, but in 2023 he challenged his EU designation and was removed from the bloc’s sanctions list on the grounds that he was no longer in a position of power or responsibility in Russia. Some may think that’s a weak reason, but I am inclined to think sanctions lists should be adapted if people have ceased the offending behaviour. Sanctions are a foreign policy tool, not a law enforcement instrument, and if the aim of the policy has been achieved, they should be cancelled. 

There are lots of oligarchs and officials who would be willing to do quite a lot to get off the sanctions list, much of which would severely inconvenience Putin. It may feel icky, but I think our governments should be open to such deals. The point of all this is to undermine the Kremlin after all.

AND IT’S STILL ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS

This is not to deny that it does indeed feel icky to see sanctioned individuals try and evade those sanctions to buy Mercedes SUVs, as Ovsyannikov did. He used his brother as a proxy to buy the car. It reminded me of company owners who nominate proxies offshore to hide the real ownership structure. Since 2016, companies in the U.K. have been obliged to name a “person of significant control”. The idea of the law was to stop people hiding behind opaque shell companies to commit financial crime, but is anyone enforcing it?

Apparently not, since lawyer Dan Neidle has been able to publish a map with the location of 65,000 foreign companies that own U.K. entities, none of which are declaring who is in control of their operations. You can search on the map yourself. There are five companies in the Falkland Islands, for example, and there’s even one in American Samoa: are these remote jurisdictions making late bids to become offshore tax havens?

Just as I was thinking about the efforts of Companies House to rein in fraud, I was still thinking about the use of cash money by launderers from last week. I was reading this article, and I was struck by the claim that the US aerospace sector is due to export $125 billion this year, making it the country’s second most successful exporting industry. 

In 2023, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing produced 1,326,976,000 $100 bills. That’s not all profit, because each bill costs 9.4 cents to print, and there’s some dispute about quite how many of those go abroad, but serious estimates range from 80 percent to 70 percent. Once you’ve done the sums, you end up with profits from $100-bill exports in 2023 of somewhere between $92.8 and $106.1 billion.

We don’t have the figures for 2024 yet, but the Federal Reserve said it would be ordering between $155.8 and $160.6 billion worth of $100 bills, which would yield profits of somewhere between $109.0 and $128.4 billion. 

Look at that number again: at the top end of the range, that would nudge aerospace into third place, and establish the $100-bill-printing industry as America’s second most successful exporter. Even at the bottom end, it would be fourth, ahead of brand name pharmaceutical manufacturing ($103.3 billion), and quite a lot bigger than natural gas liquid processing ($62.9 billion). Who says the public sector can’t contribute to the economy?

Before someone writes in: yes, I know that banknotes are technically loans made to a government, rather than products sold by the government. But it’s more fun this way, so I’m going with it.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post Did a Putin ally evade sanctions to pay private school fees? appeared first on Coda Story.

For the first time since comparable records began, there are fewer companies on the UK’s corporate registry. It’s a sign that anti-fraud reforms are beginning to show the first signs of a provisional impact. Companies House, as Britain’s corporate registry is known, has historically been dreadful – a “fraud fiesta”, in the words of the Dark Money Files podcast. Registering British companies was for years cheap, easy, and completely unverified, meaning they were the money launderers’ getaway vehicles of choice. 

A WELCOME FALL

After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and subsequent public concern about kleptocratic wealth infiltrating the UK, the government pledged to improve Companies House, including by giving it powers to check information, and obliging corporate directors to provide proof of identification. These are baby steps, but they’re already having results: “the companies register shrank during the period October to December 2024, for the first time since quarterly reporting began in the period April to June 2012”.

There were 5,408,707 companies on the register at the end of 2024, which was 19,879 fewer than at the end of September. That was a decline of 0.37 percent, so not a huge deal, though that did not deter some people. “COMPANY NUMBERS CRASH IN BUDGET FALLOUT,” shrieked the tiresome rightwing blog Guido Fawkes, which attempted to claim the falling numbers were because recent tax rises were scaring entrepreneurs away from starting businesses.

There is a strange belief among supposedly pro-business people that the easier it is to create a company, the more economic growth you will get. This is true, up to a point. But after that point, companies are so easy to obtain that they’re registered for the purposes of fraud, money laundering and corruption rather than honest enterprise, which will obviously impede rather than encourage business. 

So it is good that Companies House is finally trying to keep the more obvious malefactors from hiding their identities behind what anti-money laundering expert Graham Barrow calls burner companies. “None of these companies that were got rid of,” he told me, “were contributing anything.” 

Barrow runs a compliance firm called RiskAlert247, which trawls Companies House data in the quest for fraudulent firms with a programme called “Spider Sense”, which spots signs of dodgy behaviour. A mere five-minute demonstration was enough to convince me that the number of companies registered on Companies House has a long way to fall before it starts to reflect the actual quantity of legitimate firms in the country. There are hundreds of thousands of tax-dodging and fraud-enabling vehicles still on the registry although hopefully when new powers are brought in, they too will be winnowed out.

In the meantime, if you’d like a laugh, or simply to see how bad things were before the government got round to acting, look up “JOHN SMITH 3A LIMITED” – registered address 1 Any Road, Area, Anytown, United Kingdom, ZB2 2ZZ – on Companies House, and click on the “people” tab.

ANOTHER WELCOME FALL

The value of all the euro banknotes in circulation peaked in June 2022 at €1.60 trillion, and has been trending infinitesimally downwards ever since. In January this year, it was recorded at €1.57 trillion. This is as it should be: fewer people use cash for payments, therefore people take fewer banknotes out of banks, and so there are fewer banknotes in circulation.

What’s odd, however, is that – for decades – the opposite has been happening all over the Western world. The usage of cash has been in steep decline, but demand for banknotes has remained consistently strong. Although euro printing has begun to decline, it is only a recent phenomenon. The total of euro banknotes out there is still a lot higher than the trillion euros that were in circulation a decade ago. Central bankers call it a paradox, which is their way of saying they have no idea what’s going on.

While the value of euro notes in circulation has fallen, however slightly, the value of British pounds in circulation hit £90.5 billion in the first week of March, up more than three billion from last year, which was also an all-time high. And the value of cash dollars in circulation hit an all-time high of $2.36 trillion in January, which is twice as much as there was in January 2015, and that in turn was twice the total of January 2005. 

Ruth Judson seems to be the Federal Reserve analyst tasked with trying to work out who’s using all the dollars the Bureau of Engraving and Printing keeps churning out. Her latest paper estimates that more than half of them are circulating outside the United States. 

BUT IT’S STILL ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS

To me, the most interesting observation Judson makes is that demand for smaller denominations is declining, so the growth is overwhelmingly coming from people wanting more and more $100 bills. My personal theory is that, as money laundering rules have become more stringent, more criminals have turned to storing and moving their wealth in cash, and they naturally prefer to do that in large denominations, because you can get more value in a smaller space. It’s the criminal economy, stupid.

But why are they choosing to use $100 bills, rather than the even more valuable €200 or €100 banknotes? That is a bit of a mystery. Or a paradox, if you will.

Considering the destruction that the White House has wreaked on U.S. anti-corruption work, I should be pleased to see the announcement of tougher anti-money laundering measures. But I’m sorry to say I’m not. The Treasury Department has decided that money service businesses along the Mexican border must now report any currency transaction over $200 in a supposed action against cartels. This is catastrophically misguided. 

At the moment, all currency transactions over $10,000 have to be reported, and that is already producing a colossal deluge of paperwork. In 2023, Fincen received almost 21 million Currency Transaction Reports. Just imagine how many they’ll get now the threshold is $200, and the policy won’t even work at stopping the cartels.

According to the U.S. government’s own figures, Mexican cartels make $19-29 billion a year. They are NOT transferring these profits back home $200 a time via corner stores in Maverick County, Texas. Obviously. Even at the lower end of the estimate, that would involve more than quarter of a million money transfers every day, or more than 37,000 from each of the counties that the Treasury Department is imposing new measures on. 

If they actually wanted to stop the cartels, they should look instead into who’s taking all those $100 bills off their hands, since by their own estimates $25 billion is smuggled across the southern border in cash each year.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post It’s the criminal economy, stupid appeared first on Coda Story.

It’s been a big few weeks for crypto. El Salvador, the world’s biggest state-level crypto enthusiast, has apparently reverse ferreted on its agreement with the International Monetary Fund to stop buying bitcoin. Meanwhile Tether, the world’s biggest stablecoin and favourite of the most tech-savvy money launderers, seems to have finally decided to enforce Western sanctions and block a Russian cryptocurrency exchange from accessing tens of millions of dollars in USDT holdings. And U.S. crypto folks are beginning to worry that perhaps Donald Trump was exaggerating/lying when he said, back in July, “I will immediately order the Treasury Department and other federal agencies to cease and desist”.

BUKELE’S BITCOIN BET

But first to El Salvador. News of the death of its bitcoin project appears to be exaggerated, with the country buying yet more of the cryptocurrency just days after agreeing a $1.4billion deal with the IMF that seeks to “confine government engagement in Bitcoin-related economic activities.” On X, El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele posted: “No, it’s not stopping. If it didn’t stop when the world ostracized us and most ‘bitcoiners’ abandoned us, it won’t stop now, and it won’t stop in the future.”​​

El Salvador has many problems – not least excessively high levels of debt and a sluggish economy – to which Bukele has presented Bitcoin as the answer, including by making it legal tender in 2021 and obliging merchants to accept it for payments. Under pressure from the IMF (which says Bitcoin’s “widespread adoption could threaten macroeconomic stability and raise fiscal risks”, without elaborating), the El Salvador government has cancelled those reforms. But Bukele’s latest tweets suggest he’s not given up on his plans.

I don’t think anyone outside the IMF is nostalgic for the days when the lender used to bully the countries of Central and South America. But I doubt the IMF will take Bukele’s taunting quietly, so we’ve presumably not heard the last of this.

Personally, given my interest in financial crime, I think Bitcoin is a bit of a sideshow. It’s clunky, it’s expensive to use, and it’s wildly volatile – all of which mean it’s great for speculation, but not much good as a money laundering tool. Tether, on the other hand, now that is something to keep an eye on.

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE?

“What El Salvador has achieved, thanks to President Bukele, is truly incredible and will be narrated in history books,” posted Tether’s CEO, the emollient Paolo Ardoino, after Bukele said he would keep buying bitcoin. Tether issues the world’s biggest stablecoin, which is a cryptocurrency that’s worth the same as a dollar, but doesn’t suffer from any of the restrictions imposed by the kind of squares who comply with anti-money laundering rules at banks. Tether, incidentally, relocated its headquarters to El Salvador in January, so technically Bukele’s government is responsible for regulating it (lol).

Unlike Bitcoin, Tether is cheap, easy to use and non-volatile, which is why it’s become a funding vehicle of choice for Hamas, Hezbollah, the gangsters of the Mekong region, Russian money launderers, North Korea apparently, and almost any other baddies you can mention. Also unlike Bitcoin, Tether is a centralised operation, meaning it can freeze its currency if it wants to. The fact that it so rarely did was either a mark of its commitment to financial inclusion, or a sign that it didn’t care about enabling rampant fraud. But it looks like it may be trying to clean up its act.

Because bombshell news: almost three years after the U.S. sanctioned Garantex, a Russian cryptocurrency exchange, Tether finally got around to freezing its digital wallets. Before we get too delighted about the stablecoin’s decision to cooperate (the EU having also sanctioned Garantex last month), this was the result of the US Secret Service – in cooperation with Germany and Finland – working to cripple the exchange’s infrastructure. Tether presumably had little choice but to do what it did. 

In the meantime, sophisticated obfuscatory skills have allowed Garantex to move $60 billion worth of crypto since the US imposed sanctions. Still, there will be many annoyed Russians who will now be on the lookout for an alternative exchange. “We have bad news,” as Garantex announced on Telegram, “Tether has entered the war against the Russian crypto market… Please note that all USDT held in Russian wallets is now under threat. As always, we are the first, but not the last.”

THE CRYPTOCRATS’ LAMENT

If Russians who use crypto are struggling with sanctions, American crypto investors are increasingly annoyed by the suspicion that still shrouds the industry. “None of the federal banking agencies have actually overturned any of the anti-crypto guidance,” said Caitlin Long, CEO of crypto-friendly Custodia Bank. “It is still presumed unsafe and unsound for a bank to touch a digital asset.”

Donald Trump won substantial backing from crypto folks in last year’s election, thanks to his promises to cancel what they felt was excessive regulation of their activities. “We can't live in a world where somebody starts a company that's a completely legal thing, and then they literally get sanctioned and embargoed by the United States government,” said Marc Andreessen on the Joe Rogan podcast in November. Remarkably self-pitying, considering Andreessen’s a tech billionaire,

He and his fellows complain about widespread debanking – by which they mean that banks are closing the accounts of crypto companies and/or their owners, because of concerns about money laundering – and the fact there is no appeal process against such decisions. Crypto industry leaders insist the practice is really driven by banks’ determination to smother a competing technology in the cradle, and has unfairly targeted right-wingers. Trump promised to end the practice, but in truth this is a complex issue, and Long’s comments suggest they’re losing patience with his failure to master it.

The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on debanking last month, which featured three representatives of the crypto industry. But the witness who impressed me most was the Brookings Institution’s Aaron Klein who made it clear that the real victims of debanking are not crypto bros, but the kind of people without the money to effectively lobby President Trump.

“Approximately one in ten Black, Hispanic, and Native American households lack a bank account, about five times higher than for whites. Being unbanked is even more likely among those with a disability, with an unbanked rate above 11 percent,” said an excellent 15-page primer he submitted as evidence, which is well worth reading (it can be downloaded at the bottom of this page.)

The core of the issue is that banks face onerous regulations, worry about being fined, and therefore can’t see the value in providing accounts to clients who are more likely to cost them money than earn it. Yes, some of those clients work in crypto, but most are poor immigrants just trying to get ahead. (Check out quite how many of the FinCEN enforcement notices relate to convenience stores that cash cheques, rather than multi-billion-dollar money laundering schemes, and you’ll see what I mean.)

There is no easy fix to this, but the roots of the problem lie in the global rules against money laundering set by the Financial Action Task Force, which is currently holding a consultation on the issue. Should you have a lot of time on your hands, and an exceptionally high boredom threshold, you can read it. Perhaps you could send in an opinion too. Everyone has known about the problem for decades, and no one has ever been bothered to do anything about it before, but perhaps this time they will. Or perhaps they won’t. 

What we’re still waiting to learn is how the Trump administration intends to regulate crypto, or if it intends to regulate at all, given the investigations being dropped, last week’s crypto industry summit at the White House, and the mooted creation of a national cryptocurrency reserve.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post Cryptocrats fear regulation will stymie a new crypto era appeared first on Coda Story.

An early definition of kleptocracy, given by Singaporean journalist-turned-politician Sinnathamby Rajaratnam in a speech in 1968, was that it is a "a society of the corrupt, for the corrupt, by the corrupt". It’s a neat formulation, with its echo of Abraham Lincoln’s most famous line from the Gettysburg Address. And I’m curious about how exactly a society can change from Lincoln’s dream to Rajaratnam’s nightmare.

The first bit to go is the last part of the phrase – “by the corrupt” – because winning elections is the easiest thing for crooks to achieve in a society with well-established institutions. It’s the other stuff that gives the crooks trouble. Once corrupt people are in government, the middle part of the phrase – “for the corrupt” – does not necessarily follow. If the institutions remain run by honest people, kleptocracy not only may not take root, but the corrupt politicians may be pushed out of office by the next election.

HOW KLEPTOCRACY TAKES ROOT

So something I’ve been keeping an eye on since Donald Trump’s inauguration is how the Securities and Exchange Commission  treats Justin Sun. In case you don’t remember him, Sun is a Chinese crypto billionaire who spent $6.2 million on a banana, then ate it.

In March 2023, the SEC charged Sun and eight celebrities (including Lindsay Lohan, which I was disappointed by, being a fan of both Mean Girls and The Parent Trap) with fraudulently promoting crypto tokens. “Sun paid celebrities with millions of social media followers to tout the unregistered offerings, while specifically directing that they not disclose their compensation,” said Gurbir Grewal, head of the SEC’s enforcement division at the time. “This is the very conduct that the federal securities laws were designed to protect against.”

Six of the celebrities agreed to pay up to settle the charges at the first opportunity, another did a few months later. But Sun was in no hurry, which may have been a sensible policy. Last week, lawyers for Sun and the SEC wrote to the Manhattan judge overseeing the case asking that it be put on hold, saying they’ll come back with a status report in two months’ time. Now, this may all be procedural and above board, but it also may not be.

By September 2024, Trump began to talk about a new crypto company he was launching called World Liberty Financial. It had the admittedly clever tagline: “Be DeFiant” (DeFi of course meaning decentralized finance, the term for digital peer-to-peer transactions). But Trump’s venture struggled to hit its fund-raising target until it found a cornerstone investor: Justin Sun, who put in $75 million.

“This guy,” said World Liberty co-founder Zak Folkman at a forum in Hong Kong last month, with a gesture towards Sun, who was sitting beside him, “saw that regardless of the outcome, this project is a monumental move forward for the entire crypto community.” It is not yet clear what if anything, besides fundraising, World Liberty actually does, but at the same event, Folkman – who once set up a company called ‘Date Hotter Girls LLC’ – said its success came despite there being “no special treatment to anybody who purchased the token."

Hmmm, about that. Now, it’s clearly not true that the Trump White House is going easy on crypto just because Sun gave Liberty Financial $75 million. The SEC has already dropped a case against Coinbase, and last summer Trump was already telling a crypto conference that “when we see the attacks on crypto, it's a part of a much larger pattern that's being carried out by the same left-wing fascists who weaponize government against any threat to their power.” 

Since his inauguration, Trump has issued an Executive Order promising to make the United States the “crypto capital of the planet.” Pausing the investigation into Sun could just be part of a general reluctance to enforce regulations or crackdown on crypto. And the cryptocurrency Sun founded was not named as part of the national crypto reserve mooted by Trump.  

But the Sun case didn’t ever really have anything to do with crypto as such anyway, and the SEC was always careful to make clear it was charging him for the way he marketed his token, not for the fact of it. “We’re neutral about the technologies at issue, we’re anything but neutral when it comes to investor protection,” said Grewal.

So, from the point of view of people who don’t want the United States to tilt further towards Rajaratnam’s definition of a kleptocracy, it would be nice if the SEC maintained its case against Sun or else made very very very very clear that any decision to drop the case was in no way connected to the fact that he gave the US president’s company a nine-figure sum. It would also be nice if the Trump White House was prepared to promise action against some of the more egregious crypto frauds, but not many people are holding their breaths.

PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF KLEPTOCRATS

On an unrelated note, it appears that Sun also shares the Trump White House’s, er, particular approach to which kinds of free speech should actually be free. Sun, reportedly, put pressure on a crypto trade publication to take down an article critical of his stunt with the banana. Spending six million dollars on a banana should, apparently, be above reproach. 

Talking of free speech and those who believe themselves to be above reproach: the authorities in the uber wealthy Swiss town of Cologny were not cool about the idea that some journalists might stage walking tours pointing out homes bought with the proceeds of some of the more egregious bits of financial crime enabled by folks nearby.

“The residential area perched above the lake is a popular refuge for certain kleptocrats, potentates and other financial pirates,” the event’s publicity announced, before it got cancelled because the local authorities wouldn’t give permission for it to go ahead. Which is to say: the world may be changing more quickly with each passing minute, but Switzerland isn’t.

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post Of the corrupt, for the corrupt, by the corrupt appeared first on Coda Story.

If you’d like to know how I came to write about financial crime, you can watch the keynote speech I gave at the Royal United Services Institute FinSec conference earlier this month. The short version is that I was radicalised by Ukraine. I used to write about other subjects, but the Maidan revolution of 2014, and the subsequent annexation of Crimea, revealed the true dynamics of the world to me in a way nothing had before. 

OLIGARCHS CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH

It was partly the revelation of how gross the fallen kleptocrats’ greed had been; it was partly the realisation of how complicit Western enablers had been in the corruption of these kleptocrats; it was partly how Russia’s bought-and-paid-for proxies used blatant lies as cover for its annexation of Ukrainian territory; and it was partly the way that corruption had crushed Ukraine’s ability to respond. Ultimately, it was the combination of all four factors working together that convinced me there was nothing more important to the future of democracy than bringing illicit finance under control.

This is why it was so appalling to see the president of the United States repeating the Kremlin’s lies about Ukraine last week. Corruption of truth plus corruption of morals plus corruption of money equals the destruction of democracy.

Now I’m not going to pretend I have any influence over supporters of Donald Trump. Let's face it, not many of them read this newsletter, and if they did, they wouldn’t listen to me anyway. But it has made me think about what needs to be done in response.

The core of Putin-style politics is what he understands winning an argument to look like. When his opponents are too scared, confused, exhausted, or dead to continue, he thinks he’s won. Sometimes he has: murdering anyone who disagreed with him in Chechnya, shattering an entire city, plus driving out hundreds of thousands of people, did indeed pacify that poor, beautiful place, though it did not work so well as a strategy in Syria.

But here’s why the truth is so troubling to oligarchs, and why Trump unleashed his inner troll when Zelensky said some anodyne but true things, because, no matter how loud you shout, no matter how many people you imprison or murder, two plus two always equals four. And “if that is granted, all else follows.”

SO LET’S CONFRONT THEM WITH THE TRUTH

No matter what the trolls say, actual free speech is not just about letting your opponents say what they like, but about creating structures in which everyone can speak, everyone can be heard, and everyone can agree that the point is to arrive at the truth, not to shout louder. A marketplace of ideas, like any marketplace, can’t function without fair regulations.

And if our rulers refuse to abide by those regulations – like Trump or Putin or, in the U.K., former Prime Minister Boris Johnson – then it is everyone’s duty to call them out. So, it was great to see that Josie Stewart, a British civil servant who lost her job for exposing falsehoods told by Johnson’s government about the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, won a tribunal case for wrongful dismissal.

“We can’t have a system that says stay silent, no matter what you see, and forces dedicated public servants to choose between their conscience and their career,” she said. The usual boring people will claim she was part of the deep state or “the blob,” or whatever, but actually Stewart and people like her are a crucial safeguard against corruption.

Incidentally, in Wales, parliament is debating a new law that would mean politicians could lose their seats if they deliberately lie, which is an interesting idea.

LIKE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DAMAGE BEING DONE BY MUSK

The good folks at Accountability Lab and Humentum have continued their work to assess the effect of Elon Musk’s decision to destroy USAID (all to save the equivalent of around three and a half days’ worth of the U.S. budget deficit). They have responses from 665 recipients of aid funding, and have broken down how much those organisations will lose and what it means.

The money was spread across many areas, but the largest group affected have been organisations that provided healthcare services, followed by those working in “governance” and “anti-corruption”, with the impact potentially catastrophic even for those who didn’t rely on USAID for all of their money.

Here’s another estimate: after one week of the freeze, almost a million women lost sexual health services; after a month, that figure will hit four million. After 90 days, the supposed length of the freeze, almost 12 million women and girls will be denied life-saving care. That means, if previous trends repeat themselves. 4.2 million women will become pregnant without wanting to, of whom 8,340 will die.

Clinics were one of the few places in rural Afghanistan where women could still work, but now that’s gone. “To be honest, it was one of the worst days of my life,” a midwife in rural Afghanistan told Service95. Imagine what other days an Afghan midwife has likely lived through, and marvel that somehow Elon Musk has managed to make it worse. The knock-on effects in terms of increased misery, increased corruption, and increased terrorism are impossible to calculate, and how any of it benefits the United States is a mystery to me.

WAITING OUT SANCTIONS

While the U.K. is talking tough on sanctions, it is unclear what the Trump administration means to do about the sanctions on Russia and its oligarchs as it continues to negotiate peace. I found this UK Financial Threat Assessment nerdily fascinating. Particularly for its description of some of the mechanisms used by sanctioned Russians to evade restrictions on the movement of their money. Take this choice sentence: “Neo-Bank fails to detect that the regular deposits it receives from Global Bank into the account of Seafarer Z are made by Manager Y, which is funded by Company X, and therefore indirectly by the (sanctioned individual).” 

The British government has promised to keep oligarchs with ties to the Kremlin out of the U.K., where they once bought their most expensive toys, including mansions, newspapers and football clubs. But the oligarchs are sitting tight. For instance, superyachts are expensive toys. And Roman Abramovich hasn’t moved his 162-metre monolith for three years. Mooring fees alone cost more than $200,000 a year. If oligarchs are prepared to go to all that trouble just to keep the crews of their yachts paid, what will they do to buy weapons?

A version of this story was published in this week’s Oligarchy newsletter. Sign up here.

The post Why the future of democracy depends on controlling illicit finance appeared first on Coda Story.