On 14 September, Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko stated that he had signed a notice of suspicion against NABU Director Semen Kryvonos. According to him, the official is suspected of forging official documents to obtain an unlawful benefit on an especially large scale. There was no separate official response from the NABU at the time of the initial statement.
Briefly about the main points
- Kravchenko announced the signing of a procedural document concerning the head of the NABU.
- The Prosecutor General referred to the body of evidence gathered during the proceedings.
- The specific documents and the amount of the alleged benefit were not disclosed publicly.
- Kravchenko did not specify whether the case was linked to the paternity allegations.
What are the limits of the information disclosed?
About the solution Kravchenko he said in a video address. He stated that he had based his conclusions on the evidence gathered, expressed confidence in the case file and his readiness to make it public.
At the same time Attorney General He did not provide a detailed account of the proceedings, did not specify the list of documents, nor did he state the amount of the alleged unlawful benefit in question. A notice of suspicion is a procedural step and does not imply a finding of guilt: the final decision is made by the court.
Is this suspicion linked to the old story about paternity?
In the spring of 2026, the former prosecutor of the SAP Stanislav Bronevytskyi, former MP Boryslav Bereza and a number of media outlets were circulating claims that Kryvonos registered paternity regarding the child, in order to take advantage of an amnesty in an old criminal case, and subsequently had his name removed from the records as the child’s father through the courts.
In media reports, this case has been referred to as a «sham adoption» or «sham parenthood». Kravchenko’s statement does not specify whether it relates to the latest allegations. Some anti-corruption campaigners had previously described such reports as an information campaign against the leadership of the NABU.
Kryvonos had previously spoken about the possibility of persecution
Kryvonos had previously stated that he had heard about the possible preparation of a charge, and told journalists that he was not afraid of such a turn of events.
In February, a parliamentary committee discussed reports that charges were allegedly being prepared against the heads of the NABU and the SAP. At the time, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) reported that, as of 23 February, its investigators were not conducting any criminal proceedings against Kryvonos or the head of the SAP, Oleksandr Klymenko.
The statement was made during a public row between government departments
In early September, the NABU and the SAP announced that they had uncovered a criminal organisation which, according to their account, was headed by an official from one of the structural units of the Office of the Prosecutor General. The anti-corruption authorities claimed that the case involved the systematic receipt of money from fraudulent call centres and the laundering of illegally obtained assets.
Kravchenko then spoke about the political nature of the dispute surrounding the Prosecutor General’s Office. In his statement, he also referred to the «Carthage» case and claimed that there had been alleged attempts to gain access to materials held by the Office of the Prosecutor General concerning the leadership and staff of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO); according to him, some of the materials may have been seized.
The next procedural steps will determine the substance of the case
The investigating authorities are to disclose the legal classification of the offence, a more detailed account of the facts, and the evidence on which the suspicion is based. It will also become clear whether the prosecution will apply to the court for a preventive measure and whether the proceedings will have any implications for Kryvonos’s continued tenure in office.
The content of the procedural document should clarify exactly which documents the investigation considers to be forged, what benefit is at stake, and whether the proceedings are linked to the previous paternity case.
