Why did Zelensky remove the prosecutor general?
President Zelensky issued a decree dismissing Ruslan Kravchenko after the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) completed raids on the prosecutor general’s office. Investigators said they uncovered a network that accepted payments to protect telephone scam operations and to launder millions of dollars. The president stated that dismissal was the only remaining option and asked parliament to confirm the decision without delay. The sequence began when Kravchenko announced in early September that he intended to leave the post, yet the president moved forward with the decree after the raids concluded. Zelensky posted a Telegram video declaring that the general prosecutor had only one path left, which was dismissal, and he urged lawmakers to act immediately. The presidential website published the formal decree right after the video statement, making the removal official.
What specific charges does the NABU investigation raise?
NABU reported that the prosecutor general’s office provided cover for call centers running telephone fraud schemes. Bribes were allegedly used to buy real estate, jewellery and other high-value assets. According to the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, roughly 60 000 people work in such centres in Ukraine, generating up to one billion dollars a month. The figures represent about two-thirds of employment in the country’s banking sector. The raids revealed that the office received payments to shield the operations and to help legalise proceeds from the fraud. Investigators documented purchases of property and luxury goods funded by these bribes, pointing to systematic protection rather than isolated incidents. The scale described by the GI-TOC places the scam centres among the largest employers outside traditional sectors, highlighting how deeply the activity is embedded in the economy.
How has Kravchenko responded to the accusations?
Kravchenko had already announced in early September that he planned to step down. He rejects all allegations and posted a video on Telegram claiming he is on an overseas mission. He said he intends to inform international partners about an “uncontrolled concentration of influence” inside anti-corruption services and the risks this creates. He also filed a criminal complaint against NABU director Semion Krivonos, accusing him of forging official documents. In the same Telegram message he described his departure as part of a mission abroad and vowed to present the full picture of internal conflicts within the anti-corruption apparatus to Ukraine’s Western partners. The complaint against the NABU director alleges that official records were falsified, framing the investigation itself as politically motivated.
What does the episode reveal about Ukraine’s anti-corruption system?
Corruption has remained a persistent challenge in Ukraine for years, with new cases surfacing after the Russian invasion, including inside the armed forces. In 2025 Zelensky attempted to place NABU under the prosecutor general’s authority, which would have removed the bureau’s independence. The plan was withdrawn after protests from Ukrainian civil society and Western allies. The current dismissal follows the same pattern of tension between political control and institutional autonomy. The episode shows that attempts to centralise oversight have repeatedly met resistance both domestically and from international supporters who view an independent NABU as essential for reform credibility. The 2025 reversal demonstrated that public and allied pressure can force the president to back down when institutional independence appears threatened.
What happens next for Ukraine’s justice institutions?
Parliament must now vote on the decree. The episode leaves open questions about the balance of power between NABU and the prosecutor general’s office. Observers will watch whether the investigation produces further indictments and whether Kravchenko’s complaints against NABU lead to any proceedings. The vote will test whether lawmakers align with the presidential decree or seek to delay confirmation, while any additional charges emerging from the NABU probe could widen the scope of implicated officials. Kravchenko’s counter-complaint may trigger parallel inquiries that complicate efforts to present a unified front on anti-corruption progress.
Frequently asked questions
Did Kravchenko admit any wrongdoing?
No. He has denied the charges and filed a complaint against the NABU director.
Was the dismissal immediate?
Yes. Zelensky published the decree on the presidential website shortly after his Telegram statement.
How large is the scam-call-centre industry in Ukraine?
The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime estimates 60 000 people work in these centres and that they can generate up to one billion dollars a month.
Did Zelensky try to limit NABU’s independence before?
Yes. In 2025 he proposed placing the bureau under the prosecutor general, but reversed the plan after domestic and international criticism.
What role does parliament play now?
Parliament must approve the dismissal decree for it to take full legal effect.
