The Office of the Prosecutor General has announced suspicions against the former chairman of the board of a Ukrainian bank for receiving improper benefits. According to the investigation, the official turned internal financial monitoring from a protective mechanism into a paid service.
How the scheme worked
According to the case materials, the banker agreed with an entrepreneur on three things: unobstructed account opening, conducting risky operations without blocking, and avoiding internal financial monitoring. If the State Financial Monitoring Service initiated an inspection, the banker guaranteed "assistance" at that level as well.
The price of the agreement — 0.15% of monthly transaction amounts. This is not a fixed bribe, but a percentage of turnover: the more money that flows through, the more the banker receives. Essentially — a subscription fee for invisibility to the regulator.
According to the investigation, from July 2024 to February 2025, over 210 million hryvnias were transferred through accounts of at least five controlled companies. As Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko noted, "the banker received his share with each operation."
What investigators documented
The key evidence in the case is documented correspondence between the accomplices. According to Kravchenko, they verified amounts, agreed on transfers, and after each payment the entrepreneur sent payment confirmations. This is not a verbal agreement — it is documented accounting records of a corruption scheme.
"This is not just a violation of banking rules. This is the deliberate use of a bank as a tool for conducting suspicious financial flows that should have been stopped at the entry point."
Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko
In one of the photographs published by investigators, a branch of Oksi Bank is documented — an institution whose leadership changed in 2025. The prosecutor's office has not officially named the suspect.
Suspicion is not a verdict
The announcement of suspicion is the beginning of criminal proceedings, not its conclusion. At the time of publication, the question of choosing a preventive measure was still being resolved. The court will determine whether the collected evidence is sufficient for prosecution.
- Period of scheme: July 2024 — February 2025 (8 months)
- Volume of transactions: over 210 million hryvnias
- Number of shell companies: at least five
- Remuneration rate: 0.15% of monthly turnover
- Article: receiving improper benefits
If the investigation can prove that the scheme covered not just this entrepreneur but other bank clients as well, the scale of the case could grow significantly. A question for the NBU: did the regulator identify these transactions independently — or did it learn about them only after the investigation came with the materials?
