What happened
On December 27 the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) announced the results of an undercover operation: according to the investigation, a group operated in parliament whose members systematically received undue benefits in exchange for votes. The outlets ZN.UA and Ukrainska Pravda publish the names of the suspects, although their lists differ somewhat.
According to ZN.UA, suspicions were handed to Servant of the People MPs Yevhen Pyvovarov, Ihor Nehulevskyi and Yurii Kysel. Ukrainska Pravda, citing sources in law-enforcement bodies and the faction, adds Olha Savchenko to the list.
Who is accused and of what
The MPs were notified of suspicions under Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — acceptance of an offer, promise or receipt of an undue benefit by an official. ZN.UA also notes that the court ruling mentions Articles 255 (creation or leadership of a criminal organization) and 369 (offer or giving of an undue benefit to an official), and these episodes may be added when deciding on preventive measures.
According to ZN.UA, NABU wiretapped Kysel’s office; it was there, allegedly, that envelopes with money were passed. At the same time, publications note that Yurii Koriavchenkov (Yuzik) was not currently planned to be notified of suspicion — NABU itself denied that official searches were conducted at his place, but the outlet’s sources claim he left the country.
"During the undercover operation a criminal group was exposed that included sitting members of parliament. According to the investigation, members of the group on a systematic basis received undue benefits for voting in the Verkhovna Rada."
— NABU / SAP press service
Context and consequences
Why this matters. Corruption scandals in parliament undermine citizens’ trust in institutions, complicate work on reforms and become an argument for international partners who assess progress in the fight against corruption. Anti-corruption experts note: if the investigation’s version is confirmed, it will signal systemic problems in voting procedures and risks to legislative processes.
On the other hand, law-enforcement agencies say this was an undercover operation — not a one-off "stunt" but an attempt to document a scheme. For the state, such an operation is a test of the authorities’ ability to act quickly and with an evidentiary basis.
What’s next
Next steps — deciding on preventive measures, possible expansion of the list of suspects and transfer of materials to court. At the same time, it is important to observe the presumption of innocence: a suspicion is not a verdict. For the faction and the party this is an opportunity to show how ready they are for internal cleansing and transparency.
Now the ball is in the courts’ and other institutions’ hands on which public trust depends: whether these suspicions will turn into real judicial decisions or remain another episode in political battles — the questions remain open.
Sources
Media reports: ZN.UA, Ukrainska Pravda; official statements: NABU, SAP.
