Genocide of Ukrainians as an INSTRUMENT for Building a Mafia State

An Analysis of the Failure of Anti-Corruption Reform and Its Consequences

Abstract

This article analyzes how the high-profile “Midas” case exposed the systemic dysfunction of Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies. Based on open sources, it argues that NABU, SAPO, and the HACC (VAKS), operating outside the constitutional field, have become instruments in a war of clans and an “incubator” for the mafia elite. NABU’s conscious inaction regarding the protection of the energy sector is examined as facilitating sabotage and the willful allowance of the genocide of the Ukrainian people. The article proves that the mechanisms of “plea deals” and selective justice have become tools for legalizing the theft of public property and finances and for building a mafia state in Ukraine.

Introduction: The Two Levels of Corruption

NABU’s high-profile “Midas” operation (the “Energoatom” case) was not so much proof of a fight against corruption as it was a symptom of the complete dysfunction and corruption of the law enforcement system itself. It perfectly illustrates the two-tiered system of plunder built in Ukraine:

1. Systemic (Legalized) Corruption: The adoption of laws on the privatization of strategic infrastructure, the corporatization of state-owned enterprises (like “Energoatom”), receiving financial loans on international markets under state guarantees, creating fictitious “markets” for gas and electricity, and introducing the institute of “independent” supervisory boards. This is legalized plunder of national wealth, which the anti-corruption bodies consciously ignore.
2. Symptomatic (Criminal) Corruption: The actions of an individual official who stole from a tender (as in the “Midas” case) or took a bribe (as in the Kniaziev case). It is at this level that NABU imitates a fight.

This article is an analysis of how the materials from the “Midas” case and other high-profile cases prove that the anti-corruption system has become an instrument that, by fighting symptoms, legitimizes systemic plunder and ensures the “purchase” of officials, deputies, law enforcement officers, and judges.

The “Midas” case has become a perfect cross-section, showing how, by “imitating the fight” against symptomatic corruption (kickbacks), NABU consciously ignored the systemic threat (the destruction of the energy sector), which led to the catastrophe.

Part 1: A Planned Catastrophe. Genocide for “Hype”

The most terrifying evidence captured on NABU’s tapes is not the theft itself. It is the direct conversation among the scheme’s participants about their conscious refusal to build protective structures for energy facilities because they “were sorry about the money” (“zhalko deneg”).

This means that NABU, which documented this for 1.5 years, knew about the lack of protection. It knew there would be missile strikes. It knew that in winter, this would lead to a lack of electricity, heat, and water in hospitals, schools, and the apartments of millions of Ukrainians, and it was aware of the risk of mass death of thousands of Ukrainians from cold and hunger as a result of a total collapse of the energy system.

But instead of immediately stopping the crime and saving lives, NABU chose the tactic of “observation.” It was “cultivating” the case, collecting “hype” material (tapes, videos) for a loud press conference and a political battle.

When the lives of millions of people, and the risk of their mass death, are consciously put at stake for political expediency and a flashy special operation, this is no longer a “tactic.” This is a planned genocide, where law enforcement officers, for whom large sums of money became a temptation and political struggle a priority, became accomplices.

In legal terms, this inaction qualifies at minimum as facilitating sabotage (Art. 113 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and service negligence causing particularly severe consequences (Part 2, Art. 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) under martial law. However, considering that NABU officials were aware of the danger, foresaw the catastrophic consequences (including mass death), and consciously allowed them to happen for their own political goals and “hype,” their actions bear the hallmarks of a crime committed with indirect intent (dolus indirectus). Therefore, the public’s assessment of this act is unequivocal: the willful allowance of genocide.

This inaction appears even more criminal given that NABU, as proven by the Kniaziev and Salnikov cases, knows how to act instantly and effectively when there is political will or pressure from an internal whistleblower. This means the “observation” of genocide was not a necessity, but a conscious, selective decision, demonstrating a complete absence of morality and any concept of honor among those who were supposed to protect the state, but were instead preoccupied only with their own political and financial interests.

Part 2: Palaces Instead of Protection. Proof of “Buying” Officials

NABU’s tapes prove a direct link between two top cases: the “Energoatom case” (Mindich) and the “Chernyshov case” (former Vice Prime Minister). The “back office” of Energoatom, managed by Timur Mindich (“Karlson”), directly financed the construction of luxury estates in Kozyn, transferring hundreds of thousands of dollars to Oleksiy Chernyshov (“Chegevara”).

Analysis of Corruption: The money that did not go to protective structures (because they “were sorry about the money”) was purposefully channeled into the construction of personal “palaces” for the country’s top leadership during the war. This proves the system is not just corrupt; it operates as a single mechanism where some steal, and others legalize and “launder” the money.

Part 3: The “Russian Trace” and “Buying” Deputies

The proven “Russian trace” adds particular severity to the “Midas” case. The scheme’s key executor, “Roket” (Ihor Myronyuk), is a former assistant to Andriy Derkach—a long-time Russian agent, now a senator in the Federation Council of Russia. The “laundromat” (black cash office) for the scheme, according to Bihus.Info, was located on premises belonging to Derkach’s family. This moves the case into the realm of high treason (Art. 111 of the Criminal Code).

Analysis of the System’s Defense: This connection explains the summer attack by the authorities (President’s Office, Verkhovna Rada) on NABU. As confirmed by the released audio recordings and expert analyses, this attack had nothing to do with a real fight against corruption. It was an open fight between mafioso clans for control over financial flows and the protection of their schemes.

This fully confirms the thesis presented in the analysis “The Anti-Corruption Trap“: “party leaders have long ceased to represent the interests of the people, working instead for oligarchic clans and foreign structures.” In this instance, the deputy corps was used as an instrument by one clan (the President’s Office) to protect its share of “symptomatic” corruption from attacks by the “anti-corruption” vertical. Meanwhile, as proven in the same analysis, this vertical (NABU/SAPO) is itself unconstitutional, operates outside of Ukrainian sovereignty, and is controlled by external forces, ignoring “systemic” plunder (privatization, supervisory boards) and focusing only on the redistribution of criminal flows.

Part 4: Proof of “Buying” Law Enforcement and Judges

The fundamental proof of the system’s complete merger with the mafia is the fact that NABU, SAPO, and the courts themselves demonstrate signs of systemic corruption, making justice impossible. This is proven by both official statistics and an analysis of specific mechanisms.

The Illusion of Effectiveness in Numbers: Official NABU and SAPO reports for 2023 confirm the imitative nature of the fight. Detectives investigated about 900 criminal proceedings, but only 133 indictments were sent to court. The total “economic effect” (4.7 billion UAH) is minuscule compared to the established damages, which run into tens of billions (e.g., over $5.5 billion in the “PrivatBank” case). Only a meager percentage of what was stolen is returned to the state.

1. Selectivity (War of Clans): Why did NABU “not notice” the Derkach-Myronyuk scheme in Energoatom for years, while at the same time selectively persecuting Naftogaz (the Kobolev case) and “not noticing” corruption in Ukrenergo (the Kudrytskyi case)? This indicates the law enforcement body acts not in the interest of the law, but selectively—either as part of a “war of clans” or by eliminating only those who haven’t “bought” loyalty. This is proven by practice: The Bureau brilliantly documents and implements cases (like the Kniaziev, Salnikov, Orlov cases) when there is an internal whistleblower or a political green light. But it “doesn’t see” systemic schemes in that same Energoatom for years, despite public investigations and reports. This selectivity is the main proof that the Bureau is an instrument, not an institution.
2. “Cultivating” the Mafia (Proof of Merger): The mafia system acts like an octopus, its tentacles penetrating all spheres. It is common knowledge (from numerous media investigations) that systemic corruption schemes have existed for years at all major state-owned enterprises—Energoatom, Naftogaz, Ukrzaliznytsia (Ukrainian Railways), Centrenergo. Billions of hryvnias are stolen from these companies every month. It is precisely these billions that form the mafia’s “black cash fund,” which goes toward the systemic bribery of officials, judges, and law enforcement officers themselves.Instead of immediately “chopping off” these tentacles, NABU, it seems, has been “cultivating” them for years, turning into the mafia’s “gardener.” The war has only intensified and accelerated this process, providing a perfect cover for systemic plunder. Market experts accuse anti-corruption bodies of using a “business model”: opening a case (like the 4-year “observation” of Energoatom), blocking it from other agencies, and receiving an “subscription fee” for inaction.This is no longer a supposition, but a proven fact: the existence of numerous criminal proceedings (opened by the SBI and SBU) regarding corruption, bribery, and “leaking” information concerning NABU detectives and even its leadership is direct proof of the complete merger of the “anti-corruption” system with the mafioso structures it was supposed to fight. Furthermore, the fact that these proceedings also do not reach real court verdicts only confirms our thesis: this is not a fight for the law, but a war of “kompromats” between mafioso clans. It is a vicious circle where the entire law enforcement system imitates a struggle, but in reality, protects itself.
3. “The Deal” (Indulgence and a New Crime by NABU): Even if a case reaches court, there is the institute of plea agreements. Legally, this mechanism was “perfected” by new legislation that removed plea deals from the oversight of the Prosecutor General’s Office. This, in essence, eliminated the last safeguard.Analysis: The cynicism of the mechanism is embedded directly in Art. 472 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. As the text of the norm implies, the agreement must contain not an obligation of full compensation, but “conditions for partial release… from… compensating the state for damages.” This legally legitimizes the possibility of not returning stolen funds, turning the duty of compensation into a bargaining chip. As a result, “helping the Armed Forces” has become a legalized way to “buy” freedom. But this is not just an “indulgence”; it is a new crime committed by NABU/SAPO.Official SAPO reports on the transfer of 2.9 billion UAH over 3 years, or the recent report of 44 million UAH to the private Sternenko Foundation, are proof of this. Funds recovered in criminal proceedings (bribes, damages) are state property (budgetary funds). By transferring them directly to private foundations, bypassing the State Budget and legally established procedures, the leadership of NABU and SAPO is arbitrarily disposing of state assets.

   Demonstration of NABU/SAPO’s “Feudal” Status: This point requires separate legal analysis. A “public servant” is fundamentally different from a “feudal lord” in that, according to Art. 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine, they are obliged to act only in the manner explicitly provided by law. The laws of Ukraine, particularly the Budget Code, clearly define the only legal way to handle state funds: they must be credited to the State Budget. When a NABU or SAPO official, by a unilateral decision (within a plea deal), directs these state assets to a private foundation, they are acting in a manner not provided by law. This is a direct violation of the Constitution. This is the very proof of their role as “feudal lords”—individuals who stand above the law and act at their own discretion, rather than as public servants bound by the law. This is yet another proof that this entire vertical operates outside Ukraine’s constitutional field.

   A textbook example is the case of the former Head of the Supreme Court, Kniaziev. His intermediary, lawyer Oleh Horetskyi, “turned in” his accomplice, agreed to a plea deal, paid about 50 million UAH to the Armed Forces, and in return received a 5-year suspended sentence in a case involving a $2.7 million bribe. This is the official price list for freedom.

Part 5: The Constitutional Trap: Independence from the People, Dependence on Donors

The fundamental problem is that the entire “anti-corruption vertical” (NABU, SAPO, VAKS) was built outside the constitutional field of Ukraine.

1. Violation of the Constitution: The creation of these bodies directly contradicts Articles 5 (the people as the sole source of power), 6 and 19 (separation of powers and the duty to act only within the limits of the Constitution), and 131-1 (the prosecutor’s monopoly). A parallel, unconstitutional prosecutor’s office (SAPO) and an executive body (NABU) not subordinate to the Cabinet of Ministers were created.
2. External Governance: The public was sold the idea of “independence.” But this is independence from the Ukrainian people, who no longer control these structures through their representative bodies (Parliament, Government). Instead, a system of complete dependence on external donors (USAID, etc.) and affiliated NGOs was created. This was most clearly manifested in the formation of the VAKS, where “international experts” had the decisive vote.

Consequence: This system, by definition, cannot protect national interests. It ignores “systemic plunder” (privatization, extraction of assets by transnational corporations, receiving international loans secured by state guarantees and shares in strategic enterprises), but it is the perfect instrument for controlling local elites and redistributing “symptomatic” corrupt flows.

Conclusions: The Mafia Elite Incubator

The “Midas” case demonstrates that the anti-corruption system is not just “ineffective.” It doesn’t work by definition. It is an imitation.

When officials build palaces with money stolen from energy defense; when deputies protect this scheme; when law enforcement officers consciously watch high treason for years, thereby facilitating the genocide of the Ukrainian people through cold and hunger, because “hype” and political battles are more important to them; and when courts prepare to “sell” plea deals—this is the collapse of the system.

This proves that a mafia system (an “octopus”) has been built in Ukraine, and law enforcement agencies, through their silent consent, have allowed it to grow. But NABU and other law enforcement bodies have transformed into “gardeners” who purposefully “cultivate” the tentacles of this octopus—Ukraine’s thieving elite. The “Midas” case shows how this “incubator” works in the executive branch. In parallel, the case of the former Supreme Court Head Kniaziev demonstrates the same process in the judiciary: the system tolerated the growth of a bribe-taker from $500 in Mykolaiv to $3.2 million in Kyiv, turning him into the head of an entire branch of government. This proves the “incubator” operates systemically at all levels.

The mechanism is simple: “top thieves” (corrupt officials), protected by immunity from NABU, steal tens of billions with impunity. This money allows them not only to become “respectable” political figures (top officials, deputies, presidential candidates), but also to “buy” entire parliamentary factions to pass the laws needed to legalize their plunder. They become “puppet masters” who run this entire circus, because the law enforcement agencies, which should serve the Ukrainian people, serve the dollar and the euro. No one touches them. This has created a “premier league of thieves” in the country, and the main goal of smaller criminals is to get into it, as it provides complete immunity.

This system has created direct incentives for every official to steal as much as possible: either to move up to the “league of untouchables,” or, at a minimum, to steal enough for a comfortable retirement and to provide for their descendants for several generations.

The practical prognosis for such “high-profile cases” is always the same.

Will the real organizers be brought to justice? Answer: No.

Will the “small-fry” executors be punished? Answer: Possibly.

Will the stolen billions be returned? Answer: No.

For the sake of media “hype” and political struggle, the entire anti-corruption vertical (NABU, SAPO, VAKS) consciously endangers the lives of millions of Ukrainians.

This solidifies a cynical “system of justice” in Ukraine’s mafia state: if you stole a lot (tens of billions)—you become a respected, untouchable political figure; if you “didn’t steal enough” and got caught in a show operation—you get a short sentence, are released, and live the rest of your life in luxury abroad on the money NABU allowed you to steal.

The process of imitation is already underway: as of November 13, while the top managers (“Karlsons”) are abroad, the VAKS has set bail amounts for the detained executors (“Roket” / Myronyuk and “Tenor” / Basov) that are deliberately paltry compared to the billions stolen (126 million and 40 million UAH).

This process is not just an imitation; it is a blatant buyout. As investigative journalists (“Skhemy”) discovered, the total bail of 37 million UAH for the “smaller fry” (Ustymenko and Zorina) was paid by a single company—LLC “Vangar”. This firm has all the hallmarks of a “shell company”: it was created only in May 2025, its charter capital is 1,000 UAH (approx. $25), and it conducts no real business activity. The fact that a fictitious company with a 1,000 UAH capital instantly finds 37 million in cash to buy out “back-office workers” (one of whom is accused of laundering 145 million) is the final proof. This is not justice; it is a mafia operation to legalize money stolen from Ukrainians and to buy out their own accomplices. The very fact of such a financial transaction is an obvious act of corruption and money laundering. NABU, which should immediately open a new case based on this fact, “doesn’t see” this, and neither does the court (VAKS), which, by accepting such bail from fictitious companies, effectively acts as an instrument for the judicial legitimization of the robbery of Ukraine.

They did not just “provide cover” for criminal activity—they facilitated a humanitarian catastrophe. The public demand is not for another “scapegoat,” but for a complete change of this imitational structure.

Ways Out: Reclaiming Sovereignty

True corruption cannot be defeated by cosmetic reforms from above. The only way is to build a new system of governance from the bottom up, starting with genuine local self-government, where territorial community members themselves control their resources and directly manage their communities, instead of delegating all power to deputies. Only after the revival of power at the local level can the rotten institutions of state administration be changed.

At the same time, we must demand:

1. A Constitutional Challenge: The entities empowered to do so (the President of Ukraine, at least 45 People’s Deputies, the Supreme Court, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights) must submit a joint petition to the Constitutional Court regarding the unconstitutionality of the entire “anti-corruption” vertical.
2. An Independent Legal Audit: A deep audit of the anti-corruption bodies’ activities must be conducted—not one funded by their own sponsors, but a genuine, national one. Ukrainians must know the truth: how many reports were filed; how many times investigations were refused (a direct indicator of sabotage); how many cases reached court, and what their results were.
3. Establishment of a Temporary Special Commission (TSC): The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine must immediately create a TSC to investigate the facts of inaction by NABU leadership in the “Midas” case, which led to a threat to national security, and to verify the facts of money laundering through the posting of bail by fictitious companies (LLC “Vangar”).
4. Formalization of this Analysis: Given the facts presented, which indicate signs of crimes under Art. 111 (High Treason), Art. 113 (Sabotage), Art. 367 (Service Negligence), and Art. 364 (Abuse of Power) by officials of NABU, SAPO, and VAKS, this analysis must be officially registered as a Report of a Criminal Offense and submitted to the competent pre-trial investigation body (the SBI or SBU) for a legal assessment.

Therefore, our call to citizens is: unite, take power into your own hands in your local communities in accordance with the Constitution, and build a new country. The defense of sovereignty begins with your territorial community.

List of Sources and Materials Used

The conclusions of this analysis are based on a collection of information obtained from open sources, including:

1. Briefing Materials from NABU and SAPO: Official releases, audio, and video recordings published as part of the “Midas” special operation (November 10-13, 2025).
2. Investigative Journalism: Specifically, materials from “Bihus.Info” and “Skhemy” (RFE/RL), which identified the participants, exposed the link between the “Energoatom” case and the construction in Kozyn, established the connection to Andriy Derkach, and identified LLC “Vangar” as the company that posted bail.
3. Public Interviews with Experts and Whistleblowers: Including analysis of NABU’s tactics from experts (Viktor Kurtiev) and direct testimony from whistleblower Oleksiy Honchar (cases of Kniaziev, Salnikov, Orlov).
4. Announcements from the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO): Official data regarding plea agreements and the transfer of funds to the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (including 2.9 billion UAH and 44 million UAH).
5. Publications from leading Ukrainian Media: “Ukrainska Pravda,” “Ekonomichna Pravda,” “Suspilne,” “NV,” “TSN,” “UNIAN,” and others, which covered the bail hearings at the VAKS on November 12-13, 2025.
6. Data from Open Registries: Information regarding the company that paid the bail (LLC “Vangar”) and its charter capital.
7. Analytical Article: Morgun, V. (2025). «Антикорупційна пастка: Як реформи стали інструментом грабунку» (The Anti-Corruption Trap: How Reforms Became an Instrument of Plunder). Available at: https://moy-dom.org/uk/antykoruptsiina-pastka-yak-reformy-staly-instrumentom-hrabunku