Image source: Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash
By Oleksandra Yaroshenko
Corruption cases in Ukraine rarely remain “purely legal.” They almost always become a test for institutions, political will, and the media environment. The scandal surrounding Timur Mindich, now known as “Mindichgate”, was just such a test: large-scale, painful, revealing, and at the same time one of the most important stories about the role of journalism in wartime Ukraine.
Timur Mindich is a Ukrainian businessman, known primarily as a close associate and long-time friend of the current President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as one of the co-owners of the studio “Kvartal 95” — one of the largest entertainment content production companies in Eastern Europe, including the series Servant of the People, in which Zelensky played the lead role and which launched his political career. His name recently made international headlines in connection with a high-profile anti-corruption investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), dubbed Operation Midas. The situation took a turn when, on November 10, 2025, just hours before the planned searches, the businessman hastily left Ukraine, raising questions about systemic corruption at the highest levels of Ukrainian government and the challenges facing the country’s anti-corruption agencies in a war zone.
Corruption during the war
The investigation by NABU (the law enforcement agency that investigates corruption crimes committed by top officials) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO, which exercises procedural oversight of NABU investigations and supports prosecutions in court in high-level corruption cases), which escalated into a public scandal in November 2025, is based on more than 1,000 hours of audio recordings, dozens of searches, and the exposure of multimillion-dollar corruption schemes in the energy and defense sectors. The first mentions of the existence of “tapes” with conversations between the figures involved appeared as early as the summer of 2025, but it was only after the searches on November 10 and the publication of excerpts from the recordings that the case became the central topic of public and political attention.
According to the investigation, businessman Timur Mindich, a long-time partner in show business and representative of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s inner circle, coordinated a kickback system at the state-owned Energoatom (a Ukrainian state-owned company that operates all Ukrainian nuclear power plants and is the largest electricity producer in the country). This involved 10-15% of contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars: funds that during the war should have been used to strengthen critical infrastructure and ensure the safety of nuclear power plants. This is why the scandal caused such a stir: against the backdrop of Russian attacks on the energy sector and the constant risk of a nuclear threat, corruption in the defense and energy sector is not just an economic crime, but a direct threat to national security.
In addition to Timur Mindich, a number of high-ranking Ukrainian officials and individuals associated with them are involved in the scheme. Among them is Herman Galushchenko, former Minister of Energy and, at the time of the case’s exposure, Minister of Justice. He was removed from office on November 12, 2025; but he denies his guilt and says he intends to defend himself in court. The investigation materials also mention Oleksiy Chernyshov, former Deputy Prime Minister, who is involved in a separate case of illegal enrichment, and former Energy Minister Svitlana Grynychuk, whose name appears in the recordings released by NABU. Two key figures, Igor Myronyuk, former advisor to Galushchenko, and Dmytro Basov, former head of the physical security department at Energoatom, have been arrested with the possibility of bail. Another suspect, Oleksandr Tsukerman, is wanted along with Mindich. According to some public reports, other high-ranking officials may also be involved in the case. In particular, MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak stated that in the recordings released by NABU, the head of the President’s Office, Andriy Yermak, appears under the code name “Ali Baba.” Official authorities have not yet confirmed this information, and the investigation is ongoing. [Editor’s note: After this article was published, on November 28, Andriy Yermak resigned.]
“Golden toilet” and blacklists
The most alarming discovery for the media was the dossier on journalists found in the group’s so-called “back office,” which investigators link to the scheme. This refers to an informal workspace — a network of conspiratorial premises, including an apartment in an elite building in the center of Kyiv, which, according to reports, was distinguished by its ostentatious luxury, in particular a “golden toilet”. The apartment was linked to Timur Mindich because it is registered to his mother, who, according to journalists, acquired two more apartments in Kyiv between 2020 and 2023. In addition, oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, whom Slidstvo.info journalists had previously associated with Volodymyr Zelenskyi’s election campaign, also owned property in the same building. Volodymyr Zelenskyi also had an apartment in the same building, as discovered by investigative journalists from Bihus.info back in 2019. This “back office” was used for meetings of the internal team of people who ensured the functioning of the corruption scheme.
There, detectives found the personal data of investigative journalists: the editor of Nashi Hroshi, Yuriy Nikolov, his colleague, the late Oleksiy Shalaysky, and other media figures who regularly write about anti-corruption issues. The dossier contained residential addresses, passport details, and work information that could have come from closed law enforcement databases. Such accumulation of sensitive data is not just an attempt to gather compromising information. It is the creation of a tool for potential pressure on independent journalists, control over their activities, and possible blackmail or discrediting. In fact, it looks like a reversal of professional roles: corrupt officials are conducting “investigations” into those who investigate them. Yuriy Nikolov’s reaction is ironic but symptomatic: the publication of information about the existence of a ‘profile’ on him is a kind of “distinction” from the corruption scheme. He wrote: “Thank you for the nomination for such a prestigious award, where the fighters against corruption are determined by the corrupt themselves…”, hinting that being an investigative journalist means being in the crosshairs. In the war for public justice, journalists find themselves in a situation where they perform socially important work but become targets.
In this case, the role of journalists is not secondary. It is the investigative media that have been documenting corruption risks in the energy sector and defense procurement for years. Recent years have brought a series of high-profile investigations into corruption in the defense sector: from the scandal with “eggs for 17 hryvnia” and the Grynkevych case to embezzlement in drone procurement and the “Dzvyn” project. It was investigative journalists who were the first to write about Mindich’s influence on government decisions, long before the “Midas tapes” appeared. Back in the summer of 2025, investigative journalists from Bihus.Info reported on the construction of four luxury estates in the suburbs of Kyiv, which, according to their information, was carried out during a full-scale invasion by people associated with the Chernyshovs. It is therefore not surprising that journalists became one of the targets of surveillance, pressure, and personal data collection. And this is the key lesson of this story: where there is independent journalism, there is corruption that fears it.
How Telegram channels, the Ukrainian Single Telethon, and Western media reacted
Telegram in the Ukrainian context is no longer just a “social network,” but a field of hybrid warfare, where corruption investigations turn into a crisis of Ukraine’s legitimacy. Anonymous channels are becoming a tool for putting pressure on investigators, politicians, activists, and journalists. And although the owners of the channels are technically “anonymous,” the specific individuals and schemes behind their funding are informally known. One of Ukraine’s largest anonymous Telegram channels, Truha, reacted to the corruption scandal rather cautiously: they published several short messages about the searches and Zelensky’s appeal for the need to investigate corruption. The very next day, the channel pretended that nothing had happened and did not cover the topic anymore. Other representatives of the anonymous segment of Telegram presented the case as “a blow to Zelensky from Washington” — a narrative that completely ignores the facts and replaces them with conspiracy theories.
The Ukrainian Yedyny Telemarafon, funded by the state budget, did not initially name the individuals involved in the case in its reports. Timur Mindich, a businessman and long-time partner of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s inner circle, was hardly mentioned in the marathon, or was mentioned without any explanation of his role and relationship with state structures. Comments by Serhiy Leshchenko, an adviser to the head of the President’s Office, further emphasized that Mindich’s ties to President Zelenskyy had no influence on current state processes.
Leading Western publications focus on something else: the resilience of Ukrainian anti-corruption institutions. For the international audience, it is important that NABU and SAPO are investigating corruption at the highest level, doing so during wartime, and making public even facts concerning the inner circle of the current government. In other words, where Russian channels invent “conspiracies,” Western media see the development of democracy. Reuters emphasises that the scandal occurred at a time when the Ukrainian army is under pressure on the front lines and the population is suffering from large-scale power outages. Journalists emphasise that evidence of corruption could undermine international support for Ukraine. Bloomberg notes in a more conceptual article that corruption in wartime is not surprising for a post-Soviet state, but the effectiveness of NABU and SAPO is a sign that democratic checks and balances are working. Le Monde analyzes the political consequences for the president in detail, emphasizing that the scandal “shook Zelensky” and forced him to call for the resignation of two ministers. Le Figaro focuses on the fact that Mindich used his “privileged relationship” with Zelensky and presents the case as a manifestation of the power struggle within the Ukrainian government. Corriere della Sera compares the Ukrainian scandal to “Mani Pulite” (“Clean Hands”) — large-scale anti-corruption investigations in Italy in the 1990s — calling the current events an “earthquake” that forced Zelensky to change his communication style and publicly support the investigation. La Repubblica focuses on the ties between Zelensky and Mindich and suggests that the latter may have been warned about the upcoming searches. Politico provides a comprehensive overview of the year-and-a-half-long investigation and notes that the scandal is a logical continuation of the crisis surrounding the Office of the President’s attempts to limit the independence of anti-corruption agencies in July 2025.
The scandal involving journalistic dossiers in this case shows that freedom of speech in Ukraine is not an abstraction. It is a very practical security issue: journalists must be protected from illegal surveillance; from personal data leaks; from smear campaigns on anonymous networks; from political pressure on sensitive topics. Mindichgate is not a story about crime, but about how society reacts to it. The scandal became a stress test for everyone: the authorities, anti-corruption agencies, the media, and the public. It revealed weaknesses—the influence of informal groups, the vulnerability of the media to pressure, and anonymous networks as a tool of propaganda. But at the same time, it also demonstrated strengths: journalists continue to investigate corruption; anti-corruption agencies work independently of the authorities; society reacts rather than remaining silent. Freedom of speech is a daily, institutional, and personal struggle, and it is in such trials that society demonstrates its ability to resist corruption and defend democratic values even in difficult times.
This article was first published on: https://ua.ejo-online.eu/ The original article can be accessed here: https://ua.ejo-online.eu/9347/media-i-politika/yak-koruptsiinyi-skandal-oholyv-mezhi-vplyvu-sylu-rozsliduvan-i-tysk-na-svobodu-slova
Opinions expressed on this website are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views, policies or positions of the EJO or the organisations with which they are affiliated.
