NABU alleges 100,000-tonne fuel diversion at Ukrnafta worth UAH 2.88bn

Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) said on 15 September that they had exposed an organised group that allegedly misappropriated 100,000 tonnes of petroleum products valued at more than UAH 2.88 billion from the state-controlled oil producer Ukrnafta and laundered the proceeds. The NABU statement describes the first episode of the alleged scheme as running from 2017 to 2020. NABU says the volume was nearly 20 per cent of all fuel sold at Ukrnafta filling stations during that period.

How the scheme allegedly worked

According to NABU, the products were first transferred to a controlled company under commission agreements. A portion was then passed to affiliated firms that sold it through retail and wholesale channels, including a network of filling stations. The proceeds went to companies controlled by the group, some of them abroad. Investigators say offshore companies in Cyprus, Belize, Saint Kitts and Nevis and the British Virgin Islands were used to hide the ultimate beneficial owners, as the statement sets out.

The statement describes the suspects by role rather than by name:

• a higher-level organiser, described as one of the leaders of a prominent business group;
• a lower-level organiser, a shareholder in several group-controlled companies, who is said to have coordinated participants and concealed the activity;
• the chairman of the board and the deputy chairman for commercial affairs of joint-stock companies controlled by the group;
• a foreign national who previously served as a vice-president of Ukrnafta, for whom documents were sent abroad for service through international legal cooperation.

The suspicions are brought under Part 5 of Article 191 and Part 3 of Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the statement says. It refers to 2017 to 2020 as the first episode of criminal activity and does not describe later episodes, but NABU adds that investigators are examining the seizure of Ukrnafta property in later periods, particularly after martial law was imposed. The statement does not name the business group. It notes that a person is presumed innocent until a court finds otherwise, and it mentions no court hearing, preventive measure or asset freeze.

A leak inside the investigation

The statement also reports a problem within the investigation itself. NABU says the pre-trial investigation was conducted with operational support from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), and that its detectives uncovered leaks of confidential pre-trial investigation data. It says a high-ranking SBU official whose unit provided that support may be involved in the leaks. That aspect is under separate investigation, according to NABU.

The wider test for Ukraine

The case touches several points that the EU has made conditions of Ukraine's accession talks. The rule-of-law benchmarks in the EU's common position on the fundamentals cluster, document AD 18/26 of 12 June 2026, ask Ukraine to increase the number and overall value of seized, frozen and confiscated assets and to show tangible progress towards high-level convictions. The internal market position adopted for the cluster opened on 13 October sets, as a closing benchmark for the free movement of capital chapter, that Ukraine "has fully aligned with the EU acquis in the area of prevention of money laundering".

NABU's own figures give the scale of its caseload. For 1 January to 30 September 2026 the bureau reports 577 cases initiated, 84 indictments covering 180 individuals sent to court, and 86 guilty verdicts covering 116 persons that took effect. The bureau's news page lists other September cases involving public bodies, including alleged embezzlement of UAH 137.5 million in the delivery of subway cars for Kyiv Metro and a bribery and money-laundering case over drone supplies that involves a State Border Guard Service official and a private company owner, as it describes them. Whether the Ukrnafta case reaches a court, and how a leak investigation involving a security service official proceeds, are questions the NABU statement leaves open, because it gives no date for either.