Andriy Yermak, the former chief of staff and close aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has become the central figure in Ukraine’s largest corruption investigation since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. On Monday, Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) named him a suspect in an alleged organised money-laundering scheme tied to a luxury residential development outside Kyiv.
Prosecutors say the scheme involved roughly 460 million hryvnias (about $10.5 million). They are seeking preventive measures that include bail set at about $5.4 million while the investigation continues. Yermak, who resigned from his presidential role in November, has rejected the allegations, calling them unfounded and saying he will defend his name and reputation. At a Kyiv hearing he told reporters he owns only one apartment and one car; his lawyer has labelled the charges groundless and blamed public pressure for the case.
NABU director Semen Kryvonos has defended the decision to issue formal notices, saying authorities move only when they believe they have sufficient evidence to support charges in court. The bureau and prosecutors say the inquiry is part of a broader anticorruption operation known as “Midas,” which has already implicated other senior figures.
Other figures caught up in the widening probe include businessman Timur Mindich, a former entertainment associate of Zelenskyy’s who left Ukraine for Israel after corruption allegations surfaced. Mindich was publicly accused in November of orchestrating a $100 million kickback scheme involving the state nuclear operator Energoatom; he denies the charges.
Rustem Umerov, head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council and a former defence minister, has also been drawn into the investigation as a witness. Umerov is Zelenskyy’s principal envoy in US-backed diplomatic efforts to end the war with Russia.
Zelenskyy himself is not under investigation. Nevertheless, the accusations have brought the shadow of corruption closer to the president than at any point since the war began, prompting concern at home and abroad about Ukraine’s institutional integrity.
Why the case matters
The probe comes at a sensitive moment for Ukraine. Kyiv is asking Western partners for sustained military and financial support while simultaneously seeking to reassure EU governments that it is committed to fighting corruption and strengthening the rule of law as part of its eventual European Union accession bid.
Last summer, the government attempted to pass legislation that would have curtailed the independence of NABU and SAPO—institutions created after the 2014 pro-democracy uprising to tackle high-level graft. That move sparked mass protests and bipartisan criticism internationally, and the law was quickly replaced with measures intended to restore the agencies’ autonomy.
US senators and foreign officials have repeatedly warned that perceived backtracking on anticorruption reforms could undermine support for Ukraine. In July, Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Lindsey Graham urged Kyiv not to take actions that would weaken progress against corruption, noting that corruption is often cited as a reason to scale back backing for Ukraine.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has also said Ukraine cannot be admitted quickly to the EU, citing the ongoing war and concerns about corruption among key issues that need resolution before accession can proceed.
Domestic reaction and implications
The case has divided opinion inside Ukraine. Opposition politicians say the accusations have reached a level that President Zelenskyy cannot ignore. Some anticorruption advocates, however, view the investigation as evidence that Ukraine’s checks and balances are functioning. Olena Halushka of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre said the probe demonstrates that independent law-enforcement institutions can operate professionally and resist political pressure.
Public sentiment is strained: a Kyiv International Institute of Sociology survey conducted on May 6 found that 54 percent of Ukrainians regarded corruption as a bigger threat to the country than the war with Russia.
What happens next
Investigators continue to build the case. Formal charges against suspects, additional interviews and court hearings are possible as NABU and SAPO pursue the Midas operation. The political fallout will depend on the strength of the evidence presented in court and how the government responds to calls for transparency and accountability.
For Ukraine’s Western partners and EU hopefuls, the critical question will be whether Kyiv’s institutions can investigate and hold officials to account impartially while maintaining unity and capacity to prosecute the war. Supporters of the anticorruption agencies say this investigation is precisely the sort of independent scrutiny needed to reassure allies; critics warn that high-profile graft allegations against presidential associates risk damaging Ukraine’s diplomatic and reform agenda if not handled openly and fairly.