On 11 May 2026, Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) formally notified Andrii Yermak, former head of the Presidential Office and one of the most influential figures in the country, of suspicion in a money laundering case involving UAH 460 million (roughly $11 million) routed through an elite residential complex in the village of Kozyn, outside Kyiv.
The case is connected to the broader “Midas” investigation.
Yermak is one of seven suspects, who also include a former deputy prime minister and a businessman previously identified as the leader of an organized criminal group. The case is connected to the broader “Midas” investigation, which has already implicated corruption schemes at state nuclear company Energoatom.
Ukraine just placed one of its highest-ranking corruption suspects under court-ordered custody
A major institutional stress
This case is more than another domestic political scandal. It is emerging as a major institutional stress test for the country’s anti-corruption architecture, democratic resilience, and trajectory of European integration during wartime.
The more difficult challenge has always been whether these institutions could act when investigations concern individuals connected to power.
Ukraine has already demonstrated that it can establish specialized anti-corruption bodies, adopt sophisticated legislation, and build formal institutional frameworks aligned with European standards. The more difficult challenge has always been whether these institutions could act when investigations concern individuals connected to the political center of power.
This moment represents a crash test for both the anti-corruption institutions themselves and the political leadership.
High stakes
For NABU and SAPO, the stakes are exceptionally high. Investigations involving actors from the highest levels of government remain relatively rare in Ukraine’s modern political history.
These institutions now face pressure to demonstrate that their independence is not merely formal or symbolic, but operational and practical—especially after the public mobilization that took place last year in defense of NABU and SAPO’s institutional independence.
In many respects, civil society effectively provided these institutions with a renewed public mandate.
The protests reflected a broader societal expectation that anti-corruption institutions must remain insulated from political influence even during wartime. In many respects, civil society effectively provided these institutions with a renewed public mandate: society defended their autonomy because it expected them to use it.
At the same time, the political leadership faces its own dilemma.
Any government naturally seeks to preserve political cohesion during Russia’s full-scale invasion. But the Ukrainian authorities also understand that any perception of political interference in high-level corruption investigations would carry enormous costs—domestically, by undermining public trust in wartime governance, and internationally, by damaging Ukraine’s credibility among Western partners whose support remains essential for the country.
Democratic accountability during the war
The wartime context makes the situation even more significant.
Historically, wars centralize power and weaken accountability mechanisms. Many observers expected that anti-corruption enforcement in Ukraine would become secondary under conditions of existential military threat.
According to the NACP’s 2025 research, in the first half of 2025 alone, NABU and SAPO opened 370 new investigations and secured 62 convictions.
Instead, Ukraine is attempting to demonstrate the opposite: that democratic accountability can continue even during war. According to the NACP’s 2025 research, in the first half of 2025 alone, NABU and SAPO opened 370 new investigations and secured 62 convictions, including a sitting deputy prime minister.
This directly counters Russian narratives that have long portrayed Ukraine as irredeemably corrupt in order to weaken international support—narratives that high-profile investigations targeting politically connected actors now actively complicate.
The case is also deeply connected to Ukraine’s European integration process.
Particular attention is paid to building a credible track record of investigations, prosecutions, and convictions in high-level corruption cases.
As Ukraine advances toward EU membership negotiations, European institutions are shifting focus from legislative reforms on paper toward measurable institutional performance in practice.
Within the Rule of Law Roadmap and Interim Anti-Corruption Benchmarks during the accession process, particular attention is paid to building a credible track record of investigations, prosecutions, and convictions in high-level corruption cases—a benchmark the EU has explicitly set for Ukraine.
Cases involving politically exposed actors, therefore, become institutionally symbolic far beyond the specific allegations themselves.
Partners are observing
European partners are observing not only whether individual suspects are prosecuted, but whether institutions are capable of acting independently when investigations reach politically sensitive territory.
Institutional accountability is not just a governance issue but a prerequisite for long-term credibility and stability.
For international donors and future investors in Ukraine’s reconstruction, institutional accountability is increasingly seen not just as a governance issue but as a prerequisite for long-term credibility and stability.
The real maturity of anti-corruption institutions is tested not when they investigate politically marginal actors, but when investigations reach the political center of gravity itself. On 11 May, that test began.
Editor's note. The opinions expressed in our Opinion section belong to their authors. Euromaidan Press' editorial team may or may not share them.
Submit an opinion to Euromaidan Press
