Corruption in Ukraine's energy sector (II)

Key actors

1. Tymur Mindich

   
   

   – Businessman and co-owner of the energy production company Kvartal 95. He reportedly left Ukraine ahead of a search of his apartment in Kyiv, as the investigation progressed.

   
   

   – He is alleged to play a central role in the so-called “shadow management” networks within the energy sector, facilitating informal procurement and kickback flows.

   
   

2. Herman Halushchenko

   
   

   – Formerly Minister of Energy and now (until his suspension and imminent dismissal) Justice Minister, he is reported in the investigation material to correspond to the codename “Professor”.

   
   

   – His residence was subject to searches; he has stated his intention to defend himself.

   
   

   – His involvement underscores how the corruption scheme penetrated the highest levels of energy-sector oversight.

   
   

3. The energy minister: Svitlana Hrynchuk

   
   

   – On 12 November 2025 Hrynchuk submitted her resignation from the post of Energy Minister amid the unfolding investigation into the energy sector. 

   
   

   – In her public statement she affirmed that “there were no violations of the law within the framework of my professional activities” and dismissed speculation regarding her personal relationships as “inappropriate”. 

   
   

   – Her resignation was solicited by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a matter of “trust” in the face of the investigation. Nevertheless later on 12 November 2025 Zelenskyy moved formally to dismiss her, suggesting that there may be evidence she is more heavily involved than previously thought.

   
   

   – Her departure marks a significant shift: the reintegration of senior political accountability into the energy corruption story rather than exclusively focusing on corporate or administrative actors.

   
   

4. Other supporting actors:

   
   

   – Ihor Myroniuk (codenamed “Rocket”) — advisor to Halushchenko and linked to offshore financial flows.

   
   

   – Dmytro Basov / Myaskovsky (codenamed “Tenor”) — executive at JSC NNEGC Energoatom (Ukraine's state nuclear power corporation) responsible for security/procurement oversight.

   
   

   – These actors illustrate the internal enabling structure of the scheme.

Suspected financial channels and mechanics of the scheme

• Contractors for Energoatom were allegedly obligated to pay kickbacks of about 10-15 per cent of contract value in order to retain supplier status or avoid payment delays.

  
  

• Decision-making within Energoatom (procurement, appointments, contract awards) is said to have been managed informally by persons without formal titles—indicative of a “shadow governance” construct.

  
  

• Money-laundering operation: Approximately US $100 million was reported to have been channelled through an office in central Kyiv linked to the family of former MP (now Russian senator) Andriy Derkach, using non-resident companies and black-ledger accounting.

  
  

• The addition of the Energy Minister’s resignation signals that the informal network reached the level of ministerial oversight and creates the potential that ministerial decisions (or omissions) may now be subject to scrutiny.

Potential impact on Ukraine’s EU accession process and international implications

• External partners (notably the European Union) regard the fight against corruption as central to Ukraine’s accession and integration trajectory. The resignation / dismissal of an Energy Minister and a Justice Minister in the midst of a major probe is both a risk and an opportunity:

  
  

  • A risk if they are perceived as evidence of deeply rooted patron-client systems and insufficient reform.

    
    

  • An opportunity if the dismissals reflect genuine accountability and paves the way for substantive governance change.

  
  

• For Ukraine’s ongoing reconstruction and energy-sector resilience during wartime, ministerial instability may raise concerns among donors over continuity and credibility. Investors and bilateral donors may apply stricter conditionalities.

  
  

• Politically, the fact that two Cabinet ministers have been dismissed increases the stakes: the anti-corruption institutions (NABU, SAPO) now face heightened pressure to secure prosecutions and demonstrate independence. The outcome will signal whether accountability reaches the top or remains symbolic.

  
  

• Domestic governance: The ministerial departures may initially restore public trust, but if reforms stagnate or prosecutions fail, the opposite effect (public cynicism) could ensue, weakening the war-time home-front and reform momentum.

Key questions and risks ahead

• Will the investigation lead to formal charges and convictions of the major figures (Mindich, Halushchenko, Hrynchuk and their networks)? The ministers' departures do not guarantee accountability.

  
  

• Will the state manage to recover assets tied to the alleged laundering (c. US$100 million) and redirect them into public benefit?

  
  

• How will the executive handle the transition in the Energy Ministry? The appointment of an interim or new minister will be watched for signs of independence from the old patronage networks.

  
  

• Will the ministerial departures provoke a backlash among entrenched oligarchic and political interests within the energy sector that may resist reform?

  
  

• Will Ukraine’s donors and the EU interpret the ministerial departures as evidence of reform progress (thus maintaining or increasing support) or as the tip of a deeper governance iceberg (thus increasing caution)?

  
  

• Will wartime imperatives (energy infrastructure under attack, need for rapid reconstruction) conflict with the slower pace of rigorous anti-corruption reform? Balancing urgency and governance will be critical.