“Midas” vs. Mindich: How Ukraine’s NABU executed the biggest anti-corruption operation in its history — and why the EU is getting involved

Zelensky responded with general statements, saying he supported the NABU and SAPO investigation without naming any individuals. “In the energy sector, in every sector, everyone who built these schemes must receive a clear procedural response. There must be verdicts, and officials must work with NABU and law enforcement agencies as required to achieve results,” he said. Zelensky acknowledged that efforts to eradicate corruption from Ukraine have been insufficient, and he announced a “reset” of major state-owned energy enterprises.

Ukraine has launched a comprehensive audit of its largest state-owned companies, including in the energy and defense sectors. The review covers Naftogaz, Ukroboronprom, Ukrzaliznytsia, and Ukrhydroenergo. Zelensky said the results will be shared with key international partners.

For now, NABU has held off on releasing new information about the “Midas” operation, citing issues “related to martial law.” At the same time, sources say the charges against Mindich may form part of a larger criminal case. According to The Economist, anti-corruption agencies now plan to shift their focus to the defense sector — one of the country’s largest and most opaque. Prosecutors have already suggested that Zelensky’s former business partner may have influenced National Security and Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov, who previously served as defense minister.

“Midas” and the European Union

Ukraine’s adversaries have used the corruption scandal as a justification for reducing aid. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, known for his pro-Kremlin stance, said Brussels “must stop sending the money of the European people to Ukraine!” Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, who has ties to the Russian FSB’s Fifth Service, similarly argued that additional assistance to Kyiv would not help end the war. “I would not want the money of Italian workers and pensioners to be used to fuel further corruption,” Salvini said.

Overall, however, the Ukrainian anti-corruption operation generated a wave of support across Europe. The European Commission said the sweeping NABU and SAPO investigation shows that Ukraine’s are functioning. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas called the scandal “extremely unfortunate” but nonetheless backed Ukraine. “They are acting very forcefully. There is no room for corruption, especially now. I mean, it is literally the people's money that should go to the front lines. I think what is very important [is] that they really proceed with this very fast and take it very seriously,” she said.

Ambassadors from the G7 nations welcomed Zelensky’s willingness to support an independent NABU investigation into possible corruption in the energy sector, calling it essential for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Berlin would insist on a thorough investigation in Kyiv but would not scale back its support.

Who is responsible for fighting corruption in Ukraine

Ukraine currently has four anti-corruption bodies: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), and the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). All were created between 2014 and 2019 after the Revolution of Dignity. After former president Viktor Yanukovych fled the country, Ukraine’s international partners insisted that the administration of new president Petro Poroshenko take on corruption, making the demand a key condition for Ukraine’s visa liberalization agreement with the EU.

NABU and SAPO were created with strong support from the United States and the European Union, which provided Ukraine with financial and technical aid to launch them. Western experts trained detectives, and international partners continue to provide tens of millions of hryvnias in technical assistance each year. By October 2025, NABU had received more than 39 million hryvnias (just under $1 million) from the United States and EU countries.

NABU was to serve as an independent investigative body for high-level corruption cases. SAPO would act as the prosecutorial authority. NACP became responsible for prevention and oversight. And the HACC was created to adjudicate such cases. To ensure transparency and civilian oversight, a Public Control Council was established at NABU. All NABU employees except for the deputy directors are officially appointed through open competitions, even if questions have been raised about the transparency of these processes.

NABU conducts only pretrial investigations. It sends its case files to SAPO, which now operates as a separate branch of the Prosecutor General’s Office. However, until March 2024, the head of SAPO reported directly to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, meaning SAPO’s leadership was accountable to him in its work.

Only after the European Commission and IMF demanded greater independence for SAPO — threatening the curtailment of financial assistance — did the Verkhovna Rada pass a law granting SAPO’s chief the status of deputy prosecutor general while allowing the office to function with more autonomy.

Cases then go to the HACC. The court operates separately from the broader judicial system, and its judges are selected through a competitive process involving international experts. Still, when it comes to preventing corruption, responsibility lies primarily with NACP. That agency monitors asset declarations of public officials, compares them to their lifestyles, and conducts anti-corruption reviews of government decisions. Until 2019, the agency operated as a collegial body with multiple members making decisions jointly. That model was later abolished due to inefficiency and persistent deadlock.

Fighting those who fight corruption

From the moment NABU and SAPO were created, authorities in Kyiv repeatedly tried to limit their influence and weaken their independence. In 2016, then-President Petro Poroshenko and members of his party introduced a bill that would have given the Prosecutor General full control over the sitting head of SAPO and over the future appointment process.

After negative reactions from the United States and the EU, the bill was withdrawn from parliament and never returned. It is worth noting that several associates of Poroshenko, as well as entities personally linked to him, figured in early investigations by the newly established anti-corruption bodies.