“Cases of top corrupt officials are pouring through the open register”: Serhiy Kryvonos on NABU’s demand to restrict access to the Federal Register of Criminal Investigations

The Ukrainian justice system faced a new challenge — leaks of information from court registers jeopardize the effectiveness of investigations and the justice of verdicts in cases of top corruption. The scandal surrounding the “Guarantee of Your Rights” law firm, which, according to the investigation, traded data from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions (USSR), revealed not only specific crimes, but also deep structural problems in the system of access to court materials. The public discussion clashed two positions: open justice as a guarantee of public control and the need to protect investigative secrecy. How does the state react to this? Can the case of “hacker lawyers” become a tipping point? Your vision of this situation expressed director of NABU Semyon Kryvonos.

The director of NABU believes that the activities of the advocacy group headed by Dmytro Borzykh created a huge threat to all anti-corruption investigations in Ukraine. He emphasized that the scale of the leak organized by the suspects was unprecedented — outsiders gained access to classified information and used it in the interests of those involved in the cases. According to Semen Kryvonos, this led to the concealment of evidence, especially in those cases when the suspects learned in advance about the planned searches. The leaks destroyed part of the pre-trial proceedings, it concerns dozens of cases involving billions in losses and high-ranking officials.

Kryvonos explained that a significant part of this situation became possible due to gaps in the Law “On Access to Court Decisions”. Until March 1, 2025, authorization in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions was carried out only by login and password. This allowed third parties to illegally see decisions on searches, arrests and other investigative actions, which were automatically entered into the open register. According to him, anyone who had a login could see the investigation strategy, which is absolutely unacceptable.

He is convinced that this state of affairs is incompatible with the effective work of anti-corruption bodies. Therefore, NABU insists on changing the legislation and restricting access to court decisions at least at the stage of pre-trial investigation. This case, Kryvonos emphasized, should show society the scale of the leak and the need for systemic changes. He also commented on the comparison of the current incident with last year’s case of Yury Golyk, when, according to suspicions, information from NABU got to Bankova. According to him, it is inappropriate to compare these two cases, because the scale and methods of the leak are significantly different. The current situation, in his opinion, is much more serious and systematic.

Kryvonos drew attention to the fact that information leakage can happen for various reasons. One source is the human factor: from accidental error to unscrupulous behavior. Another is the wide range of subjects participating in the investigation: experts, auditors, banks, State Financial Monitoring. He admits that no body can guarantee complete tightness.

Regarding the rumors about “his people” at NABU, who allegedly helped the organizer of the leaks, Kryvonos said that these are just rumors. He confirmed that one of the persons involved had a common professional past with NABU detectives, but this does not prove the existence of a conspiracy. If detectives sense a potential conflict of interest — for example, through familiarity with a suspect — they voluntarily report it and are removed from the group, he said.

At the same time, Kryvonos admitted that cases are theoretically possible when employees transfer data to third parties. He emphasized that this is the most difficult part of NABU’s work: identifying such persons requires great experience, as they are well disguised. However, he assured that the anti-corruption bureau systematically counters these risks.

In general, Semyon Kryvonos is convinced that the exposure of the advocacy group that gained access to court registers is only the beginning. This is a signal that the system needs to be changed in the legislative field, depriving outsiders of the opportunity to interfere in investigations involving high-ranking officials and large sums of money. Otherwise, the entire anti-corruption struggle will remain defenseless against technically literate manipulators with money and connections.

Semyon Krivonos believes that the activities of a group of lawyers who hacked the system of access to court decisions revealed the third — the deepest — level of information leakage. He said that currently, in parallel with the main investigation, NABU is studying other cases of illegal access to court documents, such as search or arrest warrants, and is analyzing whether there were leaks in individual units in each case.

He confirmed that it is clear to the detectives when they arrive for a search, it is always clear whether the person involved was warned. According to Kryvonos, such cases have been recorded more than once. The assessment of the damage caused to several dozen cases requires considerable time, especially since the facts of the compromise of electronic keys not only of judges, but also of law enforcement officers and officials who applied to the registry have already been established.

Kryvonos noted that the login and password are not yet proof of intentional transmission of information. The decisive factor is the use of the so-called “hard” key – a protected flash drive. Only if it is available, it is possible to establish exactly who exactly transferred access. Without it, it is difficult to prove the fact of violation. He also emphasized that judges often delegate registry work to their assistants, which adds another layer of complexity to establishing liability.

In his opinion, the introduction of authorization through the “Electronic Court” system was an important step, but before that there was a global information leak scheme. Citing the example of a judge who made more than 1,174,000 requests to the registry, Kryvonos emphasized: such volumes are not an exception, and it is already a disaster. He initiated a meeting with law enforcement officials to present the scale of the problem.

He confirmed that we are talking not only about NABU, but about the entire law enforcement system and all courts. According to him, the scope of the problem goes far beyond the limits of one criminal proceeding. Krivonos is convinced that the crimes committed by a group of lawyers are only the tip of the iceberg. They were able to be documented because they created an automated data collection system. But other law firms have also used access to the registry for unauthorized information gathering for years.

Speaking about further investigations, he noted that the data indicated hundreds of thousands, and in some cases more than a million requests made using the passwords of various officials. At the same time, the registry was accessed from thousands of different IP addresses — only one such user entered the system from 5,830 IP addresses. This, he said, points to systemic and widespread abuse.

Kryvonos said that NABU will transfer the collected information to the cyber police, as it is a systemic hole in protection that needs to be urgently eliminated. To the reply that the entire law enforcement system is bogged down in self-serving leaks, Kryvonos replied that it is not necessary to generalize — honest specialists remain in the system, and now the fact of abuses is obvious, so everyone will have to react.

Speaking about protection against leaks, he admitted that the problem should be solved at the level of the legislator. The legislator should either close the register or allow no data to be entered into it until the pre-trial investigation is completed. NABU supports the option when an investigator or a prosecutor can issue a resolution on the secrecy of a separate decision. The duration of the classification can be clearly defined in the law.

In response to the remark that in an unreformed law enforcement system, this could open the way to abuses, Krivonos emphasized that now it is about eliminating corruption risks in courts and law enforcement agencies, and not about limiting the rights of citizens. He stated that searches are procedural actions that none of the parties should know about before they are carried out. Otherwise, the entire criminal justice system will turn into a farce. Regarding the reaction of the legal community, which sharply criticizes the idea of ​​closing the registry, Krivonos noted that it is time to take off the rose-colored glasses – the real picture requires real solutions.

He reminded that draft law No. 7033-d, initiated by the head of the specialized committee, Denys Maslov, provides for changes that close this gap, but the draft is not moving because it contains provisions that some public organizations do not support. NABU, according to Krivonos, has long proposed to include restrictions on access to the court register in the plan to fulfill obligations to the EU. Even before the lawyers became suspicious, he raised this topic at a government committee.

Separately, Krivonos admitted that the problem of examinations is even more difficult. He confirmed that Maria Zelinska, who headed the Lviv Research Institute of Forensic Expertise, no longer works. He refused to comment on information about pressure on experts who were threatened with being sent to the front. At the same time, he believes that the solution to the problem of expertise is possible through the creation of an independent expert institution specifically for NABU affairs. Such an institution, in his opinion, should be accessible both to the defense and to investigators and prosecutors. He sees no rational reason to abandon this idea.

In his opinion, the Ministry of Justice should become the flagship of the reform and launch an independent institution with its own budget, salaries, and competition for management positions. Such a structure should be independent not only from the Ministry of Justice, but also from NABU or SAP. Its activity should be focused on big things, not on trivial requests.

As for the old institutions, he believes that it is time to honestly admit: the reform of forensic examination is long overdue. This is especially important in the post-war reconstruction period, when it will be necessary to assess damage and control costs in infrastructure projects. If the fight against corruption makes sense, the reform should have started yesterday. According to Kryvonos, the main obstacle is the lack of political will. He believes that high-ranking officials are afraid of losing influence on expert institutions, and that is why they are blocking changes. At the same time, he hopes that the lawyers’ case and the extent of the exposed systemic corruption will become a catalyst for reforms.

He admits that Bankova’s influence on the Ministry of Internal Affairs is excessive, in particular due to Oleg Tatarov, deputy head of the OP, but at the same time emphasizes that support from Western partners continues. According to him, the ambassadors of the G7 countries, with whom NABU recently met, are well informed and support anti-corruption initiatives. But the main support, Kryvonos believes, is civil society. It is it that is able to force the authorities to react, to pressure, to achieve changes and to control the process. He is confident that society will be able to protect NABU detectives, even if the SBI opens criminal cases based on NAAU statements. He emphasizes: the SBI has the right to investigate the activities of law enforcement officers, and if someone has complaints, let them investigate.

Summarizing, he clearly states that NABU has legal responsibility in this case and has not gone beyond its powers. He calls all accusations that NABU is becoming a monopoly an artificial narrative that is being spread to weaken the bureau. Kryvonos believes that NABU’s reputation as a structure with which it is “impossible to negotiate” is a compliment. And if one of the ten suspects is innocent, then there is the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court, which has already issued many acquittals. He emphasizes that NABU is not a pocket structure, but a mature body that needs the support of the legislator and time for improvement. Criticism from the public, he believes, is an incentive for action, because after all, Ukrainian society is the main employer for NABU.