Ukraine’s top prosecutor flees abroad amid escalating anti-corruption feud

Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko left the country in an official car on the night of 13–14 September, crossing the border into Lithuania at 02:30 on a business trip he says aims to “brief international partners about the true state of affairs within Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies.” The departure has ignited a fresh crisis in Kyiv’s already fraught struggle between law enforcement bodies and anti-corruption watchdogs — a fight with direct consequences for Ukraine’s EU accession talks and Western financial support.

Kravchenko confirmed his absence on Telegram on 14 September, writing: “I am currently on a business trip abroad, during which a number of meetings are planned… I intend to brief international partners about indications that unchecked influence is becoming concentrated in the hands of anti-corruption agencies, and the risks this poses to Ukraine’s national sovereignty, the rule of law and democratic institutions.” Ukrainska Pravda sources in law enforcement placed him in Lithuania as of 14 September source 1.

But the circumstances of his exit have drawn sharp allegations from the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), a leading watchdog. AntAC claimed that Kravchenko signed a notice of suspicion against Semen Kryvonos, head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), in exchange for permission to leave the country. The group further stated that such a departure was only possible with the “consent and authorisation of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy” source 2.

Before crossing the border, Kravchenko released a video accusing Kryvonos and a person close to the head of the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) of committing crimes. That video appeared to be part of a broader offensive: Kravchenko had earlier claimed that NABU and SAPO had seized materials from proceedings against their own employees during searches conducted under “Operation Carthage” — a joint operation between the Security Service of Ukraine and NABU that has become a flashpoint in the institutional infighting.

The row escalated further after President Zelenskyy called on parliament to “urgently support Kravchenko’s dismissal” — a move that would require a vote in the Verkhovna Rada. Zelenskyy’s intervention suggests that the president has sided with the anti-corruption camp against his own prosecutor general, a rare public break that underscores the stakes.

Why this matters

Kravchenko’s departure — and the manner of it — comes at a delicate moment for Ukraine. The European Commission is set to evaluate Kyiv’s progress on anti-corruption reforms as part of the EU accession framework later this year. The United States and other G7 donors have tied long-term military and budget support to demonstrated independence of institutions such as NABU, SAPO, and the High Anti-Corruption Court.

If AntAC’s allegation that Kravchenko traded a suspicion notice for an exit visa is true, it would suggest that the top law enforcement official was acting under duress or in a quid pro quo arrangement — a scenario that would severely damage public trust in both the Prosecutor General’s Office and the presidency. Conversely, Kravchenko’s own narrative — that anti-corruption bodies are becoming “unchecked” power centres — plays into fears that Ukraine’s watchdog agencies themselves need oversight.

Neither Kravchenko nor the presidential office has responded to the allegation that Zelenskyy authorised the overnight border crossing. As of 19 September, Kravchenko has not returned to Ukraine, according to available records. The Rada has not yet scheduled a vote on his dismissal.

What remains unclear, and what international partners will want to know, is whether Kravchenko’s meetings in Lithuania will produce any evidence to back his claims — or whether his absence simply deepens the impression of a system in which the rule of law is bent for those at the top.