Ukraine’s Sense Bank scandal tests faith in wartime anti-corruption drive

Ukraine’s anti-corruption drive has been rocked by allegations that a state-owned bank seized from sanctioned Russian owners was captured by a politically connected influence network tied to one of the country’s largest corruption investigations. The affair has also fuelled concerns that the bank could be used to launder money.

The claims centre on Sense Bank, formerly Alfa-Bank Ukraine, which was nationalised by Kyiv in July 2023 after Russia’s full-scale invasion. Ukrainian authorities argued at the time that removing the bank from the control of sanctioned Russian businessmen was necessary to protect the financial system and enforce wartime sanctions policy.

But newly released recordings, known in Ukraine as the “Mindich tapes”, have cast doubt on whether the state’s takeover ultimately served the public interest. Investigators say the conversations suggest that figures linked to a broader corruption network influenced appointments at the bank after nationalisation, raising questions about governance, sanctions enforcement and oversight of western-backed institutions in Ukraine.

The recordings, published in instalments by Ukrainian media outlet Ukrainska Pravda in 2026, are alleged to document discussions between businessmen and political intermediaries over appointments to Sense Bank’s supervisory board. In one conversation dated May 2025, Vasyl Vesely, described by investigative journalists as an informal overseer of the bank with links to the presidential administration, allegedly discusses preferred board candidates with Oleksandr Tsukerman, whom investigators identify as a key figure in an alleged money-laundering structure connected to businessman Tymur Mindich.

According to the recordings, Vesely says “five or six” members of the nine-seat board should be “ours”. Forty days later, Ukraine’s cabinet approved six appointments matching the names discussed in the call.

The allegations have intensified scrutiny of a wider corruption probe surrounding Mindich, a businessman reportedly close to influential figures in President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inner circle. Ukrainian prosecutors are examining an alleged $100mn corruption scheme involving the state nuclear company Energoatom. Several people have been charged, while other senior officials, including former ministers and presidential aides, are reported to be under investigation or politically exposed by the affair.

Sense Bank’s origins make the scandal particularly sensitive for Kyiv’s western allies. Before nationalisation, the lender belonged to Luxembourg-based ABH Holdings, whose main shareholders included Russian billionaires Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and Andrey Kosogov. Ukraine imposed sanctions on the shareholders after the 2022 invasion, while the EU, UK and US later followed with their own restrictions against Fridman and Aven.

On July 20, 2023, Ukraine’s central bank removed Sense Bank from the market, citing the sanctions status of its owners and alleging attempts to circumvent restrictions. The following day, the government nationalised the lender for a symbolic one hryvnia (three euro cents).

ABH Holdings has challenged the move in international arbitration, filing a claim worth more than $1bn at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes in Washington. The company has described the seizure as discriminatory and disproportionate.

The new allegations could complicate Ukraine’s defence in that case. Legal experts say evidence suggesting political interference or corrupt influence after nationalisation may weaken Kyiv’s argument that the takeover was conducted solely in the public interest and for legitimate sanctions-enforcement purposes.

The affair has also revived questions about the intersection of wartime sanctions policy and political influence. At the time of the bank’s nationalisation, Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington, Oksana Markarova, was among Kyiv’s most active advocates for tougher western sanctions against Russian financial elites, including Fridman and Aven. Investigative reports later alleged that her husband had undisclosed business interests connected to Ukraine’s financial sector, though no formal wrongdoing has been established.

Ukrainian authorities have begun responding to the fallout from the tapes. Mykola Hladyshenko, chairman of Sense Bank’s supervisory board and one of the names discussed in the recordings, suspended himself in May pending clarification of the circumstances. He denied any ties to Mindich or Tsukerman, although he acknowledged knowing Vesely.

Ukraine’s National Bank has launched reviews into whether board members and senior management meet independence and qualification standards. Meanwhile, a parliamentary temporary inquiry commission has summoned senior officials and requested investigations into possible external influence over the bank’s management.

The controversy comes at a difficult moment for Kyiv, which remains heavily dependent on European financial and military support. Since Russia’s invasion, Ukraine has framed anti-corruption reforms as central both to wartime resilience and to its long-term ambitions of joining the EU. Western governments and international lenders have repeatedly stressed that continued support depends on transparent governance and credible institutional oversight.

The affair has also intensified concerns among Ukraine’s western partners that a state-owned lender operating under compromised governance could become a conduit for money laundering, including potentially the diversion of EU financial assistance flowing into Ukraine.

Those concerns carry implications well beyond Kyiv. If suspicions that western aid was channelled through the bank into private accounts were ultimately proven, Ukraine’s international partners would face pressure not only to reassess oversight mechanisms but also to pursue recovery efforts and legal accountability. European officials have repeatedly justified wartime financial support for Ukraine as both a strategic and values-based investment; any evidence that aid was siphoned through politically connected networks would strike directly at that argument.

The scandal also exposes a broader dilemma. Many officials privately argue that pursuing politically sensitive corruption cases during wartime risks destabilising institutions at a moment of national emergency. Yet post-conflict experience from other countries suggests the opposite danger may be greater: corruption networks left untouched during periods of crisis often become entrenched in the structures of the state itself.

Diplomats and governance specialists warn that allowing the Sense Bank affair to linger unresolved risks handing ammunition to critics of western sanctions policy and opponents of continued aid to Kyiv. In that context, the short-term disruption caused by transparent investigations and institutional accountability may prove less damaging than the longer-term political cost of perceived impunity.