2.5 years without any charges or new court rulings: UA.NEWS submitted a request regarding the status of the investigation into Dmytro Verbytskyi’s assets
The UA.NEWS editorial team sent an official request for information to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), requesting details on the procedural status of the criminal investigation into the possible illegal enrichment of former Deputy Prosecutor General Dmytro Verbytskyi.
The investigation has been ongoing for more than 2 years and 5 months, yet for over 21 months there has been a complete lack of publicly visible procedural activity.
Criminal proceeding No. 52024000000000231 was initiated on May 13, 2024, under Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. As early as July of that same year, the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NAZK) added to the case file a substantiated conclusion regarding the discovery of unexplained assets totaling 37,582,621 UAH belonging to Verbytskyi and individuals associated with him, the legality of which was subsequently confirmed by the Kyiv District Administrative Court. Despite the existence of an official finding regarding his demonstrated wealth, the anti-corruption authorities have, throughout this entire period, failed to issue any of the final decisions provided for by criminal procedure law—neither a formal notification of suspicion nor a decision to close the case.
A Procedural Lull in the Court Registry
An analysis of the Unified State Register of Court Decisions shows that the last public action taken by the investigating judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court in this case dates back to January 2025. At that time, the High Anti-Corruption Court overturned the rulings by the NABU investigator and the SAPO prosecutor denying the defense’s motions and ordered a reconsideration of the requests to question notaries and appraisers.
Since then—for more than 21 consecutive months—there has been a complete standstill in the proceedings regarding this case, and there are no new rulings in the Registry. Such a prolonged pause calls into question compliance with the principle of reasonable time limits for the investigation of a former high-ranking official of the prosecution service.
The Editorial Board’s Demands to Anti-Corruption Agencies
Given the exceptional public interest, UA.NEWS demands that NABU and the SAP provide a summary of the current status of the proceedings without disclosing the confidentiality of the pre-trial investigation.
Specifically, the editorial team asks whether the investigation is currently ongoing, whether it has been suspended or closed, and whether charges have been filed against at least one person in the case. In addition, the journalists are interested in whether the High Anti-Corruption Court’s rulings regarding the defense’s motions have been carried out, whether the composition of the team of investigators and prosecutors has changed, what specific measures are being taken to ensure reasonable timeframes, and when exactly a procedural decision is expected.
Separately, the inquiry raises the question of whether the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) has considered filing a petition with the High Anti-Corruption Court for the civil forfeiture of Verbytskyi’s assets totaling 37.5 million hryvnias based on the National Agency for Corruption Prevention’s (NAZK) findings.
The UA.NEWS editorial team is monitoring developments and will publish the official response from the anti-corruption agencies as soon as it is received.
Earlier, the controversial former Deputy Prosecutor General Dmytro Verbytskyi, whom the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) suspects of illicit enrichment, launched a wave of self-exoneration through online media.
This self-exoneration effort was preceded by a loss in the Kyiv Administrative Court, where Verbytsky had filed a lawsuit against the NACP seeking to have the court declare the NACP’s conclusion “null and void” and prohibit the agency from investigating his personal affairs. But the judges gave Verbytsky a categorical “no”: the NACP has every right to account not only for the prosecutor’s own money but also for property he registers in the names of his mistresses, nephews, or mother.
