Reported by
Ukraine’s two anti-corruption agencies have accused a Kyiv judge of illicit enrichment and announced the completion of a separate investigation into suspected embezzlement at the state rail operator Ukrzaliznytsia.
The moves are part of Ukraine’s effort to curb corruption and show Brussels that even while fighting for survival, it can uphold the rule of law and deserves a place in the European Union.Â
That balancing act grew more complicated in July, when parliament passed legislation that sharply curtailed the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP), prompting swift backlash from citizens and officials who warned the measure threatened years of progress against graft.
With Ukraine receiving significant foreign aid, E.U. taxpayers expect assurance that their money will not be siphoned off by corrupt officials. Under pressure from mass protests at home and criticism abroad, lawmakers reversed course and restored the agencies’ independence.
The agencies swiftly picked up where they left off. On Monday evening, their investigators alleged that a judge purchased two plots of land and a house in the Kyiv region in 2021 for about $900,000, despite having no legitimate income to support the acquisition. Illicit enrichment and false declarations remain at the center of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agenda.Â
Since NABU and SAP were founded, several senior officials — including judges, lawmakers, and agency heads — have faced similar charges, which carry potential prison terms, property confiscation, and bans on holding public office. NABU did not disclose the judge’s name or current judicial role. Officials confirmed the case will proceed to court once the pretrial investigation is complete.
At the same time, NABU and SAP said they had concluded an investigation into suspected embezzlement of more than 15 million hryvnias (about $370,000) at Ukrzaliznytsia. Prosecutors alleged that in 2022–2023, an organizer working with officials at the company’s Production Support Center manipulated tenders to favor preselected suppliers of paint and linoleum. Competing bids were canceled if prices were too low, and contracts were signed at inflated rates, causing losses to the state rail operator.
