From the NACP to Kolomoyskyi: Who Else Is to Blame for the Problems Facing the Scandal-Plagued Former Prosecutor Verbytskyi?

Dmytro Verbytskyi, the “most principled” former prosecutor, continues to try to salvage his reputation. After a series of interviews, explanations regarding his wealth, and a charity segment featuring a TV for a hospital, he seems to have finally identified the mastermind behind the media campaign against him. Spoiler: it’s not the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NAZK), not journalists, and not even a calculator.

One has to admire Verbytsky’s persistence. He works tirelessly and stubbornly every day to salvage his reputation, as if that were his sole purpose. Recently, by the way, Dmytro Verbytskyi told 1+1 journalists that he earns money by providing legal assistance to those who have “run into trouble with law enforcement.” An interesting turn of phrase from a law enforcement officer—albeit a former one—isn’t it? It immediately brought to mind the soundtrack from *The City That Isn’t*.  

But let’s talk about Verbitsky’s latest claim: this time, he stated that the media smear campaign against him was ordered and paid for by… Ihor Kolomoyskyi. The very same oligarch in whose cases the former deputy prosecutor general once played an important role.

Dismissing the media attention as personal revenge is certainly a convenient explanation, but no less pathetic for that. After all, Verbytsky has blamed just about everyone for his own illicit enrichment: the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NAZK), his wealthy parents, his rich friends, and even a calculator that law enforcement officials clumsily used while verifying the former prosecutor’s financial disclosures. Now Kolomoyskyi has been added to this list. But that hasn’t made the uncomfortable questions about Verbytskyi’s substantial wealth any fewer. Even if there really is a conflict between Kolomoyskyi and Verbytskyi, it doesn’t in itself explain the origin of the former prosecutor’s assets.

As a reminder, the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NAZK) found evidence that Verbytsky’s assets totaling over 30 million hryvnias were of unexplained origin. These include real estate, vehicles, and other property whose origins have piqued the interest of anti-corruption agencies and journalists. Verbytsky, for his part, insists that he has documents refuting the allegations and complains that the media refuses to report his explanations.

It is particularly interesting that Kolomoyskyi himself did not even mention Verbytskyi during the most recent court hearings. Nevertheless, he is now being blamed for Verbytskyi’s reputational problems. It remains to be seen whether Kolomoyskyi is aware that he is, it turns out, also orchestrating a media campaign against the former deputy prosecutor general.

As a reminder, the history of Verbytsky’s confrontation with Kolomoyskyi did not begin yesterday. As far back as a press conference in April 2024 (a month before “Schemes” published an investigation into Verbytsky’s illegal wealth and properties), the former prosecutor complained about alleged pressure from the businessman. At that time, he claimed that the indictment against Kolomoyskyi had been submitted to the court and referred to the businessman himself as a man who was in “prison.”

Kolomoyskyi’s attorney publicly denied these claims. He called the information about the indictment being submitted to court false. As for the businessman’s whereabouts, according to statements released at the time, Kolomoyskyi was being held in custody at the SBU’s Pre-Trial Investigation Department. His lawyers also stated their intention to file a lawsuit against Verbytsky to protect his honor, dignity, and business reputation.

And we cannot overlook a recent charitable story in which Verbytsky and his girlfriend, Khrystyna Ilnytska, brought a television worth 19,000 hryvnias to a hospital. Undoubtedly, it was a good deed. But the TV was given to a man confined to bed (who, in an attempt to impress his girlfriend, had unsuccessfully jumped into the water from a height), for whose treatment Ilnytska herself had called for donations on Instagram the day before.

The next question begs to be asked. If a person needs money for treatment, why give him a TV instead of helping him pay for medical services? He probably needs the TV so he doesn’t get bored. But I’d like to understand who exactly decided that, in this situation, the TV is more important than money for treatment.

We also can’t overlook the contrast in the cost of the accessories and clothing on Ilnytska Street during the ceremonial delivery of the TV to the hospital room: a total of about 100,000 hryvnias. In other words, the cost of his wardrobe turned out to be more than five times higher than the price of the charitable gift. Of course, expensive clothing in and of itself isn’t proof of anything illegal, but amid a public outpouring of charity, the visible designer labels look a bit out of place. Although, in her Instagram Stories asking for donations to help pay for her husband’s treatment, Ilnytska was also pictured wearing Dior accessories. No surprise there.  

The main point here is that charity doesn’t dispel questions about wealth, and a TV costing 19,000 hryvnias doesn’t answer questions about assets worth tens of millions. Even if one is very eager to shift the conversation from one topic to another.

Meanwhile, Dmytro Verbytskyi continues to work on bolstering his reputation. Articles about how principled he is, how he’s being persecuted, and why all critical publications supposedly share a single, major motive that’s deeply offensive to him continue to appear in various online publications. In at least one such piece, the author defends the former prosecutor so zealously that by the end, he shifts from journalism to a trite reminder of the former prosecutor’s authority.

Quote: “There’s no such thing as a ‘former law enforcement officer’”—Verbytskyi, they say, has hardly lost his influence within law enforcement agencies and has serious supporters, particularly among the military, whom he assists. And therefore, “a one-sided game definitely won’t work.” It feels like a throwback to the gangster-ridden ’90s, doesn’t it?

Perhaps the author simply wanted to emphasize the hero’s merits. But it turned out interesting: they started with a story about Kolomoyskyi’s alleged media revenge and ended up, in effect, reminding readers of Verbytskyi’s own potential influence. It’s a sort of reputation management service: we’ll not only explain why our hero is a victim, but also delicately remind readers that he’s not someone to be underestimated.

We won’t claim—without evidence—that this piece was actually paid for by Verbytsky. But the diligence with which the author defends the former prosecutor—and even highlights his connections and potential—deserves attention. Because somehow, the piece doesn’t come across as being about justice. It feels more like some kind of revenge.
In any case, you can ask about all of this in person. From Kolomoyskyi, for example. UA.News journalists will attend the next court hearing to ask Igor Valeriyovych directly why he’s badmouthing former prosecutor Verbytskyi. 
You can read the full chronology of Dmytro Verbytskyi’s scandals here: The Story of Dmytro Verbytskyi