Who Lied to the Temporary Investigation Commission: Two Versions of How the Right Advisor Came to Be Have Emerged in the “Sens Bank” Case
10 September 2026 18:44Andriy Pyshnyy, the head of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU), personally recommended Vasyl Veselyi for the position of advisor to the Supervisory Board of “Sens Bank” on matters related to interaction with government agencies. This was stated on September 10 at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada’s Temporary Investigative Commission by Shevki Adzuner, the bank’s former chairman of the Supervisory Board.
For reference: Vasyl Veselyi is a Ukrainian businessman, lawyer, former commercial director of Ukrposhta, and assistant to People’s Deputy Andriy Ivanchuk. From 2023 to 2025, he served as an advisor to the chairman of the Supervisory Board of Sens Bank. After the bank’s nationalization in July 2023, Veselyi worked as an advisor to Shevki Adzuner, who headed the Supervisory Board of the state-owned bank.
It is precisely his appointment at “SENS Bank” that is currently being discussed by the parliamentary temporary investigative commission: according to Adzuner, Veselyi was recommended as a liaison with government agencies during discussions with the leadership of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU).
Separately, Vesely’s name appeared in the published materials of the so-called “Mindich tapes,” which, among other things, discussed the formation of Sense Bank’s Supervisory Board.
In June 2026, his premises were searched as part of a criminal investigation into possible money laundering; Vesely was not detained, and his status in this case should be distinguished from any assumptions regarding his involvement in other proceedings.
According to Adzuner, the idea to bring in Vesely for “communication with government agencies” came specifically from the National Bank. And the name of the future advisor was revealed to the international members of the Supervisory Board directly during a meeting at the NBU building—on the floor where its management was located.
Yaroslav Zheleznyak emphasized that officials, including the National Bank’s leadership, had previously described these events quite differently:
“At the last TSK meeting, we asked several government representatives, including the head of the National Bank, several times about Vesely’s appearance and how they met him, and the accounts given there were completely different.”
There will be “problems with the authorities”: how the Supervisory Board of “SENS Bank” recommended the right person
Following the nationalization of “Sens Bank” (formerly “Alfa-Bank”) the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine, acting as the representative of the state owner, formed and approved the composition of an independent Supervisory Board, headed by Shevki Ajuner, the former head of the EBRD’s representative office in Ukraine. However, the work of the new governing body was quickly blocked: due to the lack of new appointments to the Supervisory Board, a quorum deficit was artificially created, which deprived it of the ability to make legitimate decisions.
During this period, a series of consultations took place between the international members of the Supervisory Board and the leadership of the National Bank of Ukraine. During these discussions, foreign experts were led to understand that a special communications advisor was needed to resolve issues with the state authorities regarding “SENS Bank.”
Yaroslav Zheleznyak, chairman of the Temporary Investigation Commission, described in detail this mechanism of obstruction and subsequent pressure on the bank’s independent management:
“A Supervisory Board is appointed to the bank—as I understand it, the Ministry of Finance, as the owner, invites its members. Then the Supervisory Board’s quorum drops sharply, and new appointments are blocked. It effectively becomes incapacitated. A meeting takes place with the National Bank, where, one way or another, they convey to the Supervisory Board that they are having problems communicating with government authorities. And that someone needs to be appointed to take responsibility for this.”
A Meeting on the Floor: How Vasyl Veselyi Came to Be
At previous TSC meetings, the invited officials unanimously testified that there was no pressure whatsoever regarding the appointment of Vasyl Veselyi. But this time, Shevki Adzuner, the former chairman of the Supervisory Board of “SENS Bank,” did confirm that the recommendation to bring in a specific advisor came directly from the National Bank’s leadership. The discussion about bringing in an outside person to “facilitate communication with government authorities” took place right inside the NBU building—on the floor where the regulator’s top management offices are located.
Summarizing Adzuner’s testimony, TSC Chairman Yaroslav Zheleznyak detailed the circumstances of this meeting, during which the name Vasyl Vesely was mentioned to the Supervisory Board:
“A few days later, a face-to-face meeting took place on the floor where the National Bank’s leadership is based, and where they recommended appointing Vasyl Veselyi.”
Vasyl Vesely was most effective at communicating with the Ministry of Finance and the Office of the President. After all, he successfully completed an internship, and as a result of his improved communication skills, he was appointed to a permanent position. Communication with the NBU was more difficult, even though it was National Bank Chairman Andriy Pyshnyy who introduced Shevki Adzuner to Veselyi.
“Communication with the NBU requires adherence to clear guidelines regarding the content, timing, and format of reports, so I conclude that communication with the Ministry of Finance and the Office of the President was more active,” Adjuner explained, emphasizing that after this appointment, Vasyl Vesely had no involvement in the bank’s financial or strategic decision-making, but served solely as an intermediary:
“Let me be absolutely clear: Mr. Vesely made no contribution to the bank’s operational or financial decisions and did not influence the members of the Supervisory Board. He performed only one function—he served as a one-way channel of communication with stakeholders regarding the bank’s affairs.”
How Oleksiy Stupak Came to Be at the Nationalized Bank
Again, following the nationalization of “Sens Bank,” there was a need to replace the executive management. The first chairman of the board stepped down for health reasons, after which Oleksiy Stupak took the helm; at that point, he had already been working at the bank for over four years. He joined the team back in June 2019, during the time of the Russian shareholders (Alfa-Bank), and held the positions of director of corporate business and head of the corporate and investment division.
Screenshot from a TSK meeting
In fact, a member of the middle and upper management from the “Alfa” era not only retained his position after the financial institution’s nationalization but was also promoted to head the entire bank. As of today, Stupak is an official suspect in the NABU and SAPO case regarding the alleged laundering of 150 million hryvnias as part of the “Forest Gump” investigation.
Shevki Adzuner admitted that he did not like Stupak from the start:
“Regarding Mr. Stupak’s appointment: he was not on my list of top candidates for two reasons. First, he was a holdover from the previous owners, and I feared this would lead to a conflict of interest and the emergence of hidden problems. Second, I didn’t see in him the leadership qualities necessary for the bank’s development. There were rumors that he had personal ties to shareholders and stakeholders and enjoyed their support.”
The Shadow of Bankova: Who Lobbied for Stupak’s Appointment
But despite all the concerns regarding his past and lack of necessary experience, Oleksiy Stupak’s candidacy was quickly approved for the position of chairman of the board, particularly by the National Bank. At a meeting of the Temporary Investigation Commission, members of parliament asked Adjuner who exactly facilitated this appointment and why the Supervisory Board’s opinion was not decisive.
The former head of the Supervisory Board noted that Stupak’s promotion was supported by high-ranking officials from the Office of the President:
“Based solely on rumors, I can speculate that it might have been Mr. Shurma, as the person responsible for economic affairs in the Office of the President, or Mr. Yermak. The support he was counting on came precisely at that level, and it likely played a decisive role. Please keep in mind that these are merely my logical conclusions and assumptions, not direct evidence.”
The Connection to Mindich: The Role of Rostyslav Shurma and Andriy Yermak
The Temporary Investigation Commission emphasizes that personnel decisions at “SENS Bank” were part of a broader system of political influence over the state financial sector. According to the investigation, former Deputy Head of the Office of the President Rostyslav Shurma and Head of the Office of the President Andriy Yermak were key figures who provided political cover for appointments at the bank.
Meanwhile, People’s Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak specifically highlights whose business interests the OPU officials were advancing through this bank:
“The first chairman of the board was allegedly dismissed for health reasons, and another was immediately appointed—one who had a host of problems and ties to the previous leadership. But he was appointed because of his connections to Andriy Yermak and Rostyslav Shurma. Let me remind you of what I’ve said many times before: At that time, Rostyslav Shurma represented the interests of a certain informal figure named Mr. Mindich. Perhaps he still does.”
A Blind Spot: The Blockade of the Supervisory Board Gave the Management Free Rein
The artificially created lack of a quorum on the Supervisory Board of “Sens Bank” had very specific practical consequences. When the independent governing body lost the ability to make legitimate decisions and oversee the Management Board’s operations, the financial institution effectively found itself in a “blind spot.”
For government agencies and the regulator, this created a window of opportunity to implement key decisions without consulting external international observers. It was precisely during this paralysis of the supervisory body that large-scale financial flows passed through the bank—flows that required strict financial monitoring but did not receive it.
Yaroslav Zheleznyak, chairman of the Temporary Investigation Commission, explained the real purpose behind this hiatus in the Supervisory Board’s work:
“When the Supervisory Board’s quorum drops sharply, it becomes incapacitated. At that point, control over the bank passes entirely to the management board and the people who oversee it. This is done so that, during a certain period when there is no full-fledged oversight, transactions and decisions can be carried out that, under normal circumstances, no independent supervisory board would ever have approved.”
Internal corruption: the bank undercharged “select” companies
In addition to conducting questionable transactions, a scheme involving preferential pricing for companies serving the gambling industry was uncovered at “Sens Bank.” An independent analysis initiated by the Supervisory Board revealed that commissions and fee schedules under contracts with these providers were deliberately set too low. As a result, the state-owned bank lost millions in profits, which ended up in the accounts of private firms.
Shevki Adzuner, the former chairman of the Supervisory Board, said that after these violations were uncovered, the official responsible for pricing was fired, and attempts were made to raise the rates to market levels:
“We analyzed the rates and found that the prices in contracts with certain providers had been artificially lowered. The person responsible for this pricing at the bank was immediately fired. But as soon as we tried to revise these terms and raise the rates to a fair market level, systematic pressure was immediately brought to bear on the Supervisory Board.”
Yaroslav Zheleznyak, chairman of the Temporary Investigation Commission, explained further—it was precisely this attempt to cut off financial flows that became a turning point for international oversight at the bank:
“The bank was deliberately forgoing huge sums of money by handing over its margin to private entities. As soon as the Supervisory Board intervened in this fee structure, exposed internal corruption, and attempted to recover the bank’s profits, its fate was sealed—a systematic campaign to dismantle independent oversight began.”
The Purge of International Experts
Shevki Adjuner, who has over 40 years of experience in the financial and banking sector and long served as head of the EBRD’s representative office in Ukraine, served as chairman of the Supervisory Board of “SENS Bank” for about a year. He then stepped down from the position.
The composition of the bank’s governing bodies also changed. Some of the independent experts were barred from further participation in competitive selection processes, and other candidates—including Oleksiy Golobutsky—began vying for key positions.
Yaroslav Zheleznyak summed up how the experiment with “independent oversight” at the nationalized bank actually ended:
“We invite international experts with a 40-year track record, such as Şevki Aduner, to demonstrate transparent corporate governance to our Western partners, and then, in less than a year, we effectively get rid of them. We get rid of them at the very moment they start asking uncomfortable questions, blocking the withdrawal of funds, and shutting down schemes. As a result, the bank was simply switched to manual control by bringing in people who are trustworthy and loyal.”
Earlier, at a meeting of the Temporary Investigative Commission, officials from the NBU, the Ministry of Finance, and state-owned banks answered questions about the appointment of the supervisory board of “Sens Bank,” telephone agreements regarding candidates, bailouts worth millions, and decisions the regulator had made regarding the bank over the years. One of the key moments of the hearing was the testimony of Vjesturs Liegis, the head of Amrop Ukraine. It was this international HR firm that conducted the selection process for candidates to the supervisory board of the state-owned “Sens Bank.”
According to Lieģis, the company evaluated 111 applicants and compiled a shortlist. However, after that, the then-chair of the Nomination Committee, Iryna Mudra—who was also the deputy head of the Office of the President—called and asked that the list be expanded to include Ukrainian candidates from the “long list.” The recruiters themselves had not recommended these candidates.
