Зміст публікації
This article examines how a support Division within the Prosecutor General’s Office, led by a witness in the Magamedrasulov case, has evolved into a tool for exerting pressure on political opponents and business interests. The cases against the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, Kudrytskyi, and major business owners are presented as an illustration of the Prosecutor General’s priorities and interests.
A Russian influence within the senior leadership of the Prosecutor General’s Office, questions concerns over the integrity of key department heads, and attacks on anti-corruption institutions are only the outward reflection of the situation inside the Prosecutor General’s Office.
There is also an internal side of the story that sheds more light on what Kravchenko’s Office is actually doing behind closed doors.
The focus is on a Division that was supposed to handle high-profile and complex cases under Kravchenko’s personal oversight. Instead, it has pursued cases against activists, individuals seen as inconvenient to the authorities, and Ukrainian businesses.
The Division is headed by Aydyn Khudiev, who has held the position since Kravchenko’s appointment as Prosecutor General.
But firstly, a few words about Khudiev and his connection to Kravchenko.
A former military prosecutor with a lavish lifestyle: an undeclared 2025 BMW X5 and a $60,000 jewelry collection
Aydin Khudiev began his career at the Central Region Military Prosecutor’s Office, where he worked from 2016 to 2020. Kudiev’s boss, in the position of deputy head of the unit from 2019 to 2020, was Ruslan Kravchenko. After leaving the military prosecutor’s office, Khudiev worked at NABU and the ESBU. He later became an advisor to Kravchenko – first when Kravchenko headed the State Tax Service and later when he served as Prosecutor General.
Kravchenko and Khudiev jointly exercised procedural supervision in one of the criminal proceedings and Kravchenko is also saved in one contact list under the name “Ruslan Aydin”.
The Anti-Corruption Action Centre has claimed that, as a witness in the proceedings against NABU detective Ruslan Magamedrasulov, Khudiev was involved in what it describes as the fabrication of the case.
Photo from a joint meeting in July 2019: two deputy heads – Ruslan Kravchenko and Maksym Krym (current Deputy Prosecutor General) are seated at the head table; in the first row – Head of Department Aydin Khudiev.
Despite having spent nearly his entire career in public service, Aydin Khudiev has managed to maintain a luxurious lifestyle. On the prosecutor’s wife’s Instagram, we see a 2025 BMW X5 gifted to her, which, however, is not listed in his financial declaration. The vehicle is registered under her company, Virtual Assets Agency LLC, so the assets listed there are entirely real. The cost of a similar car is over $120,000.
In August 2024, Khudiev proposed with a Cartier 1895 Solitaire ring, estimated to be worth around $22,000 – approximately one and a half times his annual salary at the time, when he served as head of the ESBU’s detective department.
In her social media posts, Khudiev’s wife showcases premium jewelry from Graff, Cartier, Bulgari, One Cliff, and Tiffany & Co., with a total market value exceeding $60,000, as well as luxury clothing, vacations, and attendance at high-end social events.
None of these assets, however, appear to be reflected in the prosecutor’s asset declaration. Nevertheless, this has not prevented Kravchenko from continuing to promote Khudiev through the ranks.
What does Khudiev’s division do?
The Division for supporting the exercise of the Prosecutor General’s powers in criminal proceedings is a structural component of the Department of Organisational and Supervisory Activities of the Prosecutor General’s Office, which reports directly to the Prosecutor General.
This division is intended to handle proceedings either under the Prosecutor General’s personal supervision or classified as high-profile and complex cases. Its functions include analysing case materials, monitoring the progress of investigations, organising prosecutorial oversight, and, where necessary, forming or participating in groups of prosecutors.
Until 2026, prosecutors from this division were not mentioned in court decisions, suggesting that it primarily performed an organisational and support function for the Prosecutor General, as originally intended. However, following the appointment of Kravchenko and Khudiev’s leadership, the division has reportedly become more actively involved in both prosecutorial supervision and conducting or leading investigations.
At the same time, our sources within law enforcement bodies report that this division has repeatedly requested the transfer of high-value cases for its own investigation, effectively removing investigative bodies from those proceedings.
It is important to note that the function of prosecutors is to oversee the legality of investigations and proceedings, not to conduct them directly. Since one cannot simultaneously investigate a case and supervise their own work, investigative powers were removed from prosecutors’ remit as part of the 2019 reform. The inadmissibility of prosecutors assuming investigative functions has also been emphasised by Aydyn Khudiev himself in a podcast of the Prosecutor General’s Office.
Having analysed around 150 court rulings across 14 criminal proceedings, we found that the vast majority of cases involving Khudiev’s subordinates are political in nature or relate to high-value financial matters including tax evasion, alleged real estate fraud, as well as activities involving crypto exchanges and trading platforms.
So what exactly are the Prosecutor General’s priorities? Spoiler: this is not about the protection of children’s rights – something the head of the Prosecutor General’s Office often highlights in public statements.
Political cases: proceedings against the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, the High Qualification Commission of Judges, the State Agency for Restoration, and Ukrenergo under the leadership of Naiem and Kudrytskyi
Below are four criminal proceedings initiated by the Prosecutor General’s Office. In these cases, prosecutors obtained court orders for temporary access to documents which they themselves executed without the involvement of investigative bodies. This may indicate that the investigations were effectively conducted independently by prosecutors, likely due to the political sensitivity of the cases and an apparent desire to avoid “unnecessary eyes”.
Reopening of a 10-year-old case against the Anti-Corruption Action Centre
In March 2016, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine launched an investigation into the activities of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, specifically concerning its receipt of donor funding from the U.S. government for criminal justice reform (criminal proceeding № 42016000000000688 dated 16 March 2016). At the time, the General Prosecutor of Ukraine argued that prosecutors themselves should have received these funds for reform purposes. After parts of the organisations’ financial documentation were leaked to pro-government media outlets, the case was closed in late May 2016, and the last known court ruling in the proceedings dates back to the same year.
This remained unchanged until Kravchenko’s appointment. In March 2026, in the same criminal proceeding, a subordinate of Aydyn Khudiev obtained a court order for temporary access to documents held by the U.S. Embassy regarding the implementation of the above-mentioned donor programme. As a result, the case against the activists which was closed a decade earlier was effectively reopened.
This appears to be a form of retaliation by the Prosecutor General’s Office in response to sustained criticism not only of the Prosecutor General and his deputies, but also of Khudiev himself, as well as heads of regional offices.
Proceedings concerning the competitive selection of appellate judges conducted by the High Qualification Commission of Judges.
Another case in which prosecutors from Khudiev’s division obtained a court order for temporary access later executed by themselves is criminal proceeding № 42025000000000999 dated 28 October 2025, opened by the Prosecutor General’s Office.
The case summary indicates that the investigation concerns the circumstances of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine conducting a competition to fill vacant positions in appellate courts. The court order granted access to information on calls and messages linked to a specific mobile phone number.
While the text of the ruling contains limited detail, it should be noted that, as part of a broader pattern of pressure on the High Qualification Commission of Judges – an institution responsible for judicial selection and evaluation, law enforcement bodies aligned with the authorities have repeatedly opened criminal proceedings on questionable grounds.
An interesting detail is that Aydyn Khudiev himself once participated in a competitive selection conducted by the High Qualification Commission of Judges, although for a position in a local court.
Whether this particular proceeding belongs to the same pattern remains to be seen, but it is difficult to place much faith in the goodwill of Kravchenko and his associate Khudiev.
Proceedings concerning the State Agency for Restoration under the leadership of Naiem and Ukrenergo under Kudrytskyi
A month after the so-called “Mindichgate” explosion – a corruption scandal involving the closest circle of President Zelenskyy related to alleged money laundering intended for the construction of protective structures for energy facilities of Energoatom, the Prosecutor General’s Office on 7 November 2025 registered two criminal proceedings in the energy sector (№ 42025000000001059 and № 42025000000001060).
However, investigating the activities of the President’s associates, as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) does, is unlikely to be within the capacity of politically aligned prosecutors. Instead, the cases focus on unidentified officials of the State Agency for Restoration and National Power Company Ukrenergo, who in 2023–2024 signed contracts for the construction of energy infrastructure protection at allegedly inflated prices.
What is most notable in the case file concerning the State Agency for Restoration is the way the alleged overpricing was determined by the prosecutor: “The State Agency for Restoration concluded contracts without tenders ranging from 154 to 500 UAH million … In some cases, these are structures visually similar to those ordered by ‘INFORMATION_3’, however the cost of the specified protective structures ranges from 89 to 162 million UAH.” This suggests that the subordinate of Khudiev identified allegedly inflated prices purely on visual comparison, without measurements, material cost assessments, or expert examinations.
Meanwhile, the case file concerning Ukrenergo does not contain any reference to prices or estimated damages at all.
It should be noted that during the relevant period, National Power Company Ukrenergo was headed by Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, who was dismissed in September 2024. At the time, two independent members of the supervisory board described his dismissal as politically motivated and unfounded. A year later, the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), which is widely seen as politically dependent, served suspicion notices to the former head of Ukrenergo over events dating back to 2018, this proceeding also described by experts as a form of political retaliation.
The State Agency for Restoration was, during the same period, headed by Mustafa Naiem, who was dismissed in June 2024 following a conflict with the leadership of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Office of the President.
Financial cases: alleged tax underpayments by developers, crypto exchanges, and Kyiv real estate
According to sources within law enforcement, so-called high-value cases are a particular focus of Kravchenko’s subordinates.
It should be noted that we neither exonerate nor accuse the individuals involved in these investigations. The aim is to highlight the priorities of the Prosecutor General’s Office and point out that overstepping procedural authority during investigations such as breaches of jurisdiction rules or prosecutors conducting de facto investigations may often have a corrupt underlying motive.
Such collection of materials outside proper jurisdiction may also lead to evidence being declared inadmissible, potentially undermining the prosecution of individuals within the competence of the relevant investigative bodies.
We will not describe all ten proceedings, but will focus on several illustrative examples.
Failure to pay taxes by the Kyiv developer Geos
For three years the National Police has been investigating a tax evasion case involving the Geos group of companies, which invests in residential developments in Kyiv, (criminal proceeding №12023000000000035). In March 2026, following a motion filed by a subordinate of Aydyn Khudiev, a court ordered the seizure of funds belonging to the GEOS INVEST Fund held in its bank accounts. Several points should be highlighted here:
– the case should be investigated by the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine (ESBU), as the core allegation concerns tax evasion.
– the freezing of company accounts, especially without a notice of suspicion, is a particularly severe measure that can significantly disrupt business operations and effectively paralyse economic activity (and may therefore be used as a form of pressure on businesses);
– the court ruling notes that the company collects investor contributions for the construction of residential complexes, raising questions as to whether funds contributed by property buyers were also frozen.
These issues appear unlikely to have been a priority for the procedural prosecutors who filed the motion to freeze the assets.
The following month, the seizure of funds was lifted upon a motion by the defence.
The Lama_Cash Cryptocurrency Exchange Case
In criminal proceedings № 42025000000000707, registered by the Prosecutor General’s Office, the National Police is investigating the activities of the Lama_Cash cryptocurrency exchange network. According to a court ruling, the network allegedly operates without a legal entity and evades tax obligations. In this case, prosecutors from Khudiev’s division also sought court orders to freeze assets.
The situation becomes even more intriguing given that Khudiev’s wife owns a company operating in the virtual assets sector – LLC Virtual Assets Agency whose registered business activities include “other auxiliary activities in financial services” and “brokerage services in securities and commodities transactions.” In other words, the sphere of virtual assets is hardly unfamiliar to the prosecutor’s family.
As in the previous case, the case should be investigated by the ESBU. Yet, judging by the circumstances, cooperation in such proceedings may be easier with unreformed law enforcement agencies. Once again, Khudiev’s subordinates appear to have overlooked jurisdictional issues, while providing another illustration of the types of cases that the Prosecutor General considers a priority.
The same division is also responsible for prosecutorial oversight or, in some cases, direct investigative involvement in proceedings concerning the alleged forgery of documents related to the lease of land designated for the Lisova Mall shopping centre, the alleged unlawful acquisition of premises belonging to the Stolychnyi Market (not to be confused with the separate case in which NABU detectives issued notices of suspicion), alleged tax underpayments involving a co-owner of Respublika Mall, tax evasion by the Stovpynski Kovbasy retail chain, and money-laundering schemes involving the Kit Group cryptocurrency exchange network and the WhiteBIT crypto exchange, among other cases involving substantial financial interests.
Taken together, the activities of this division (which is formally tasked with analysing and coordinating work on the most high-profile cases) suggest a different reality. On the one hand, Kravchenko entrusts his loyal subordinate Aydyn Khudiev with some of the most politically sensitive proceedings. On the other hand, Khudiev gains access to investigations involving significant financial interests.
The creation of what increasingly resembles a pocket investigative division operating under the direct authority of the Prosecutor General serves as yet another reminder of why the head of the Prosecutor General’s Office should be selected through an open and competitive process.