Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies report 107 suspects and 76 convictions
The first-half 2026 report combines new cases involving former senior officials with 55 guilty verdicts that became legally effective and a measurable financial impact.
Ukraine’s two central high-level anti-corruption bodies have released a six-month report that captures both the reach and the limits of criminal enforcement during wartime. From January through June 2026, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, or NABU, and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, or SAPO, opened 360 investigations and reported 107 suspects.
Those numbers are only the beginning of the process. Prosecutors sent 56 indictments involving 106 defendants to court during the same period. Separately, 55 guilty verdicts involving 76 people became legally effective. That distinction matters: a suspect has not been convicted, and an indictment still has to be tested in court. The presumption of innocence applies to every person whose case remains unresolved.
The most politically sensitive new case involves a former head of Ukraine’s Presidential Office. NABU and SAPO say he and six other people are suspected of laundering more than 460 million hryvnias through the construction of a luxury residential development in Kozyn near Kyiv. Investigators allege that almost $9 million of the money was connected to a corruption scheme involving the state nuclear energy company Energoatom. The investigation is ongoing.
A former energy minister is a suspect in a related line of inquiry. Investigators allege money laundering and participation in a criminal organization, and say the organization received more than $112 million in cash through a trusted intermediary while the official held office. According to NABU, the money came from illegal activity in the energy sector. These are allegations by investigators, not judicial findings of guilt.
A former deputy head of the Presidential Office is also among the senior ex-officials named in the report. He and other suspects are accused by investigators of involvement in the alleged diversion of more than 141 million hryvnias in green-tariff payments tied to solar power facilities in Russian-occupied parts of the Zaporizhzhia region. That investigation also remains unresolved.
Defense procurement forms another major part of the report. NABU highlights cases involving alleged theft of military property, the alleged embezzlement of more than 32 million hryvnias connected to Ukroboronprom, and an alleged demand for a $1 million bribe in exchange for signing a contract to buy FPV drones. Wartime procurement makes these cases especially consequential because losses can translate directly into fewer resources available to the armed forces.
The report also documents cases that have moved beyond allegations. In April, the Appeals Chamber of Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court left a six-year prison term in place for former State Fiscal Service chief Roman Nasirov after partially modifying the lower court’s judgment. In June, the High Anti-Corruption Court approved a guilty plea agreement with former Supreme Court chief Vsevolod Kniaziev and imposed a five-year prison sentence with confiscation consequences specified by the court.
NABU’s financial accounting gives another measure of impact. Its detailed report puts the first-half economic effect of NABU and SAPO work at more than 2.06 billion hryvnias. More than 864 million hryvnias was reimbursed to the state, more than 139 million hryvnias in assets went to Ukraine’s Defense Forces, and the agencies say their intervention saved 726 million hryvnias in drone procurement. More than 321 million hryvnias in money and property was confiscated under court rulings.
The cumulative figures are larger. By June 30, NABU said a total of 12.3 billion hryvnias had been reimbursed to the state in its cases over time, while assets transferred to the Defense Forces had exceeded 3.2 billion hryvnias. Those are cumulative totals and should not be presented as if they were generated in the first six months of 2026 alone.
For Ukraine’s political system, the report sets up a straightforward test. Reaching former senior officials is one measure of institutional independence, but moving cases through adversarial trials and legally effective judgments is the harder measure of capacity. The first half of 2026 produced examples of both: new allegations at the top of government and completed cases in which courts imposed criminal penalties. The next question is how many of today’s high-profile investigations can survive that same judicial scrutiny.
