Anti-graft activist Shabunin on Ukraine's corrupt and criminal law enforcement elite

The interview was recorded before it became known that Kravchenko had resigned as prosecutor general.

Radio NV: Ukraiinska Pravda, citing sources, reported that after the scandal erupted — when new National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) recordings were released and possible corruption in the Prosecutor General’s Office came to light — President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was supposedly ready to dismiss Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko, but was talked out of it by David Arakhamia, head of the Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada. What does that mean? Can we say that Ruslan Kravchenko is now in serious trouble? Of course, we have not seen any charges or suspicions from the anti-corruption agencies. So let’s talk a bit about what is happening with Kravchenko.

Vitaliy Shabunin: Forget about Kravchenko. We all have problems here.

We have a top official from the Prosecutor General’s Office accused of protecting call centers. Call centers whose work drove people to suicide — the poorest people these centers defrauded. These are Ukraine’s most vulnerable citizens.

We have a problem because, as I noted, the prosecutor stressed in court that part of the investigation is being conducted at the request of Czech law enforcement. There was wiretap evidence showing that Czech investigators approached the Prosecutor General’s Office — specifically the international cooperation department of another suspect in the case, Serhiy Kropyva — asking for help investigating Ukrainian call centers operating in the Czech Republic. Our Prosecutor General’s Office is shielding criminal activity aimed at citizens of EU countries that are financing our war.

Friends, we all have problems, because part of the law enforcement elite is not simply corrupt — it is already criminal. That is our problem.

Now, is Zelenskyy going to fire Kravchenko? There are two areas of discussion.

The first, the one that matters to us: Would it change anything even if Zelenskyy suddenly fired him? It would change nothing, because this is not the first prosecutor general whose office has at least serious corruption problems, including actual charges. And it will not be the last if we do not change the procedure for appointing the prosecutor general.

That is exactly why the European Union is demanding that Ukraine change the approach to appointments. It must become competitive, the same way it is for the head of the State Bureau of Investigation. And for that, the Europeans will give us money.

In the news just before our broadcast, NV emphasized that there is no money. Well, here is the money: Let’s vote for the reform and get the money. It is that simple.

So if the procedure for appointing the prosecutor general is not changed to a competitive one, you and I, Oleksiy, will be sitting here in a year or two in the exact same place with the next scandal in the Prosecutor General’s Office. For us as a society, the most important thing is to change the appointment procedure for the prosecutor general to a competitive one.

Now about Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy did not fire [State Bureau of Investigation Director Oleksiy] Sukhachov, who cannot explain 143 real estate objects registered in his brother’s name. The scandal rocked the entire country. Every major media outlet covered the investigation. Zelenskyy did not fire the head of the SBI.

Why do we think he will suddenly fire his own prosecutor general? And even if he does, do we have the illusion that he will appoint someone better? On what basis? So the responsibility right now rests with Zelenskyy.

Plus we move on to Arakhamia and other lawmakers. Look, I do not have that information, but I fully accept that it is true, because all this time lawmakers have been protecting Kravchenko from trouble.

Why? I even said this on your air, I think, about six months ago. Kravchenko came to parliament and said: “Friends, I will not sign anything against any of you, even if the SBU or the SBI asks me to. Save me.” That was after the latest scandal involving attacks on NABU and SAPO (Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office – ed.), when we all together finally pulled [NABU detective Ruslan] Magomedrasulov and his father out of prison. At that point it was obvious that the prosecutor general who, among other things, personally signed documents in those proceedings should have left office.

Kravchenko came to parliament and bought himself immunity from the MPs by promising not to sign charges against them — including Arakhamia and other lawmakers. So the MPs share responsibility for the fact that we have this kind of prosecutor general.

Radio NV: I think we need to return to what makes Ruslan Kravchenko valuable. Looking at recent Ukrainian history, in 100 cases out of 100 we see that presidents wanted a loyal prosecutor general. Kravchenko was appointed on June 21, 2025; President Zelenskyy signed the decree literally a few weeks before the major assault on NABU and SAPO began — an attempt to strip them of their independence. That triggered the first protests in Ukraine during the full-scale war. The plan was to subordinate NABU and SAPO investigations to the Prosecutor General’s Office. There was the famous news conference where then-SBU chief Vasyl Maliuk, together with Ruslan Kravchenko, explained how everything would be wonderful and how it would only improve the situation. But the assault ultimately failed. So two questions. First: What makes Ruslan Kravchenko important to the president today? And second: How can the Prosecutor General’s Office still restrict the way our anti-corruption investigators conduct their work?

V.S.: I have to push back: The assault succeeded. Parliament voted to destroy their independence. Then people took to the streets, and Zelenskyy was forced to crawl back. But the plan worked.

And I will tell you more: If people had not come out, Magomedrasulov and his father would still be in prison. And in the next cell you would most likely have found Kravchenko and me, and a couple of other people. So friends, Zelenskyy’s assault succeeded; the people beat it back.

Next, a good question: How can the prosecutor general interfere? The prosecutor general cannot interfere much, except by refusing to sign authorizations for investigative actions against lawmakers. He can genuinely block work involving members of parliament.

I will remind you that Zelenskyy and the current parliament lied to all of us. They told us they had abolished parliamentary immunity. I said five years ago that was a lie, friends. They made it worse than before. Previously, law enforcement could investigate lawmakers and then, once they had an evidence base, go publicly with the recordings to parliament. And let parliament refuse to allow the charges to be pressed. Now the prosecutor general can block the start of an investigation. You cannot even gather evidence. That is what makes the prosecutor general valuable to the parliamentarians, to Arakhamia and company. He can stop even the collection of evidence against them.

As for Zelenskyy — honestly, I have no idea. I find it hard to invent a stranger, more inadequate prosecutor general who every day proves the need to change the appointment procedure. It seems to me he only harms Zelenskyy, but that is a problem for the prosecutor general and Zelenskyy.

Zelenskyy bears personal electoral and political responsibility for everything that happens in the Prosecutor General’s Office. He nominates the prosecutor general. He removes him or does not remove him, as has been the case this whole time. So this is his political responsibility.

Radio NV: We now have two faces of this case. One of them is Serhiy Kropyva. A pre-trial restriction has not yet been chosen for him. He is deputy head of the Department of International Legal Cooperation in the Prosecutor General’s Office. And, as we understand it, his girlfriend is Yelyzaveta Ivakhnenko. She is 22 years old. She held the position of deputy dean of the Faculty of Cybersecurity and Information Technology at the Odesa Law Academy. Among other things, there was an instruction for her to delete from her Instagram photos with very expensive items. Will the investigation stop there? Or do you expect this case to continue and produce higher-profile suspects?

V.S.: Oleksiy, with your permission I will correct that. The Anti-Corruption Court has already taken Kropyva into custody. There it is 120 million hryvnias ($2.7 million) in bail or two months in detention. 20 million ($449,397) for this “Muse” of his, or the lady in the pre-trial detention center. And the driver was taken with 3 million ($67,409) in bail. These are the suspects who have already been charged. The Anti-Corruption Court recognized the validity of the charges, and the people have entered pre-trial detention.

There are two aspects here.

One story: Journalists, civil society experts and the public understand that it was impossible in the Prosecutor General’s Office to protect a call center, give instructions to prosecutors — “go after these ones, leave those alone” — and, I remind you, deceive Czech colleagues on their official request; organize the prosecutor general’s life, vacations, international trips, help arrange and build a house, so that the prosecutor general supposedly knew nothing about it. We are not idiots, friends.

Kravchenko could not have been unaware that his subordinate, who was practically his personal assistant, was covering his life… Kravchenko could not have been unaware of where the money was coming from. He knew for certain. And here there is a big difference between what we understand and what the investigation can prove in court.

There is a big difference. The investigation, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and NABU need hard evidence of this. Not just sound logic, as we have, but hard evidence. I hope NABU and SAPO have it.

Radio NV: Kravchenko denies everything. He says no one bought anything, no one helped arrange any visas. I have in front of me a statement from the Prosecutor General’s Office; I will quote it briefly. “Regarding the possible involvement of one of the employees of the Office of the Prosecutor General in unlawful activity related to the work of fraudulent call centers, all circumstances must be established by the investigation. The Office of the Prosecutor General will provide the anti-corruption agencies with full assistance and all necessary information within the law.” And further it says that over the past 12 months more than 1,050 searches were conducted, the activity of about 340 fraudulent call centers and more than 5,000 operator seats was stopped. With the full-scale invasion, call centers acquired a Robin Hood aura. “Look, these call centers are now calling Russians.” Later some [Russian singer -ed.] Larisa Dolina was selling her apartment because they managed to draw her so deeply into this scheme, this scam. When did that Robin Hood halo disappear? When it became clear that they were working not only against Russia but also against the EU?

V.S: The first block of questions is about what the Prosecutor General’s Office is denying. They say one thing, and then the prosecutor in court quotes the opposite from the recordings. Example: The Prosecutor General’s Office officially stated that no searches were taking place in the prosecutor general’s premises. The prosecutor in court reads the opposite from the documents; the same day the Prosecutor General’s Office says the opposite. Not that a search took place, but not in the prosecutor general’s office — in premises he uses. A lie.

Then there was a lie about a pile of other things. In other words, the prosecutor general constantly lies.

What would have been the right thing to do? Come out to a news conference and answer journalists’ questions. I will bet money that Kravchenko will be afraid to hold a public news conference. At most there will be some closed off-the-record.

Radio NV: I also do not believe he will hold an open news conference.

V.S.: Because he is a coward. He promised to come after everyone, but here he is afraid of journalists at a news conference. There will definitely be at most some closed off-the-record.

Moving on. About the flamboyant reports from the Prosecutor General’s Office that “we closed the call centers.” On the NABU recordings it is clearly stated how this Kropyva explains that this is creating the appearance of work. It is there on the recordings.

Or on the recordings there is the story that when the Czechs approach him, the Prosecutor General’s Office, “give us evidence on these call centers,” Kropyva asks his accomplices, “Are these our call centers or not? Check whether these are not the call centers we are protecting.” That is not a fight against call centers and illegal activity. That is a fight against competitors in criminal activity.

Bandits also kill other bandits because they need their field of activity, their share of the criminal business. So this is a mafia story — not a story where bandits kill bandits, but where bandits in the Prosecutor General’s Office use the powers the law gave them as the state to clear the criminal market for themselves. This is the mafia. This is not even corruption; this is pure mafia. And European law enforcement officers are in shock.

As experts we told them this; I told them this two years ago: “Friends, this is worse than the Sicilian mafia. Because the Sicilian mafia bought law enforcement officers, and here law enforcement officers are organizing a criminal group. And you are now connecting this criminal group to your procedures and the capabilities of the entire European law enforcement system.” Back then they did not believe us.

And then in Monaco our figures try to blow up a businessman connected to a call center, and Ukrainian special services organize it. In other words… I’m at a loss for words.

So there is no Robin Hood aura whatsoever. If someone in a call center is working against Russia — let them work; there is a legal procedure provided for that. But that has nothing to do with mafia activity, with defrauding both Ukrainians and EU citizens.

Radio NV: Will the current suspects be ready to enter into a deal with the investigation? What is your forecast?

V.S.: This is one of the tools that has proven its effectiveness. A plea deal with the investigation — we even adjusted this procedure through parliament with a law — is a good instrument.

I sincerely wish the suspects in the case to go for a deal. This is the classic question of who will turn first. My advice is to turn first and not go to prison, or to go to prison for the minimum term.

Radio NV: A plea deal with the investigation is when a suspect is genuinely ready to cooperate with law enforcement, ready to provide testimony. And that means the term for this suspect will be reduced. The idea is that the person admits guilt, and the sentence will be shortened.

V.S.: But the person has to turn in the one higher up the chain. The person has to turn in the scheme organizer, not a rank-and-file accomplice.

Radio NV: There is a classic question. NABU and SAPO are criticized for announcing cases. We see a form of communication that is not common in Europe — cases with a certain media accompaniment, with the publication of parts of the recordings, that is, of the evidence that will later be used in court. It is clear what the argument “for” is: In this way the anti-corruption agencies draw attention to the case so that it cannot be swept under the rug and forgotten, so that it does not fall apart. But what are the downsides? What downsides do you see?

V.S.: NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office work exclusively within the law and in the manner provided by law. Such a procedure exists in the Criminal Procedure Code. The disclosure of case materials or covert investigative actions is sanctioned by the prosecutor. That is a procedure provided by law.

What am I ready to debate? They do not announce cases; they communicate only after the charges have been pressed. That is, before the charges are pressed, you will not hear anything at all, no public comments from NABU and SAPO.

Meanwhile, other law enforcement agencies issue press releases about searches, statements about 350 closed call centers, a lot of PR, “I will come for everyone,” and in the end neither charges nor cases in the courts. A lot of PR, little result.

So here I like the logic of the anti-corruption agencies: Stay silent until the moment charges are pressed.

Now why is it worth doing this? You are right — so that the case cannot be buried, because on the other side there are people with enormous powers. And political influence, the prosecutor general. The prosecutor general is the highest procedural figure in the criminal justice system. There is no one higher than the prosecutor general. And our case at the very least points directly at him. Here it is better to play it safe.

Another example. The case of [deputy head of the Presidential Office Oleh] Tatarov was taken away from NABU. There were no recordings, nothing to show. In the end they took the Tatarov case from NABU and buried it, using almost half the law enforcement system.

So it seems to me that this approach by NABU and SAPO is exactly the right one.

And I will remind you of the difference. When the SBI seized my phone, what did it release? My nude photo sent to my wife. They did not even post it on their own site; the cowards sent it through the leak channels. NABU and SAPO always [talk about] case materials, “we investigated,” “our official resources,” “we bear responsibility for everything we release.” Do you hear the difference?

So it seems to me that the entire law enforcement system needs to seriously rise to the level of NABU and SAPO.