Money Down the Drain? Assessing the Effectiveness of NABU

In the decade since the formation of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the agency has faced ongoing scrutiny regarding the outcomes of its high-profile cases. Media reports have at times compared NABU's activities to recreational fishing: suspects are caught, evidence is publicized, but convictions or substantial legal consequences remain elusive. This process, which involves significant resources, is funded by taxpayers, including those from the U.S. and EU.

In the last two years, the agency received approximately $20 million from foreign donors. Over a decade, the total international funding amounts to hundreds of millions. The U.S. has supported NABU through multiple programs, including efforts to counter high-level corruption and reform criminal justice. In 2024 alone, NABU received 120 million hryvnias in international funds, and additional funding continues in 2025. While this is only about 2.5% of NABU's 2025 budget (2.1 billion hryvnias), concerns persist regarding the efficiency of expenditure.

NABU has been criticized for its handling of certain investigations. For instance, there have been allegations that detailed intelligence regarding the "Big Construction" schemes was leaked, potentially allowing suspects to evade accountability. Additionally, NABU detective Andrii Denysiuk, who was investigating procurement issues, left the agency due to reported difficulties in carrying out his work.

Such developments have led some anti-corruption activists to express skepticism. Investigative journalist Yuriy Nikolov remarked: "The Bureau is done. My old jokes that it would be better to kick everybody out and sell the premises are jokes only in part." At one point, a petition to terminate NABU was submitted to the website of the President of Ukraine, though it failed to secure the necessary votes.

NABU's Performance Metrics

NABU measures its effectiveness by the number of opened criminal cases. The agency also highlights its role in High Anti-Corruption Court rulings, though it tends to focus on successful cases rather than those that did not lead to convictions. This emphasis on case volume has raised concerns about investigative practices, including potential procedural issues.

Ukraine's corruption challenges remain significant. Some critics argue that NABU's approach has not led to meaningful reductions in corruption and that improvements are necessary. As Nikolov has suggested, there are concerns that some investigations stall or result in settlements rather than robust legal consequences.

One notable case involved Volodymyr Orlov, the former deputy head of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Military Administration, who was accused of seeking a bribe related to land allotment. The case raised procedural questions, as Orlov was not responsible for signing land allocation documents, and subsequent legal proceedings have been scrutinized.

Controversies and Investigations

Orlov's case began in early 2024, when an acquaintance named Oleksii reportedly approached him regarding a quarry deal and land allocation. The land in question had an existing development, and securing official ownership would have legitimized its use. However, Orlov reportedly declined multiple times. Following his resignation in July 2024, NABU accused him of seeking a $200,000 bribe, leading to a High Anti-Corruption Court decision setting his bail at 15 million hryvnias, later raised to 22.7 million.

Recordings from July 2024 reportedly show Orlov rejecting Oleksii's proposal multiple times. However, much of the case relied on the testimony of Oleksii, who was later revealed to be a NABU agent. Questions have been raised about the investigative approach, particularly regarding entrapment concerns, as per Article 370 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

NABU's operations and effectiveness remain under review. In late 2024, Ukraine initiated an extensive audit of NABU, and in early 2025, the United States announced plans to reassess its funding to the agency. European taxpayers may also evaluate the impact of their contributions to anti-corruption efforts.

For Ukraine to make meaningful progress against corruption, anti-corruption agencies must ensure accountability and effectiveness. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy previously suggested equating corruption with state treason in terms of legal severity. Ultimately, the true measure of success is not just the number of cases opened but the reduction of corruption itself and the enforcement of meaningful consequences.