On 4 November, NABU and SAPO announced that they had completed the pre-trial investigation in the Midas case. That is a significant procedural development in an alleged energy-sector corruption scheme, but it is neither a verdict nor proof that any person is guilty. The announcement establishes only that the anti-corruption agencies say they have finished their investigative work; the supplied reports do not specify which later procedural decisions, if any, have occurred.
According to NABU, the case concerns what investigators describe as a high-level criminal organisation that influenced strategic state-sector enterprises, including Energoatom. The bureau alleges that participants systematically received improper benefits from Energoatom contractors and enterprises managed by the Energy Ministry, worth 10% to 15% of contract values.
NABU also said that more than US$111 million and €12 million in cash from the energy sector were accumulated and moved through a separate office between 2020 and 2025. Investigators allege that cryptocurrency, securities and a foreign investment fund were used to launder money. If substantiated through due process, those claims would describe a potentially extensive corruption mechanism around a critical state sector.
The qualification matters as much as the allegations. The public announcement does not provide the complete evidentiary record, any defence response or a court’s assessment. An investigator’s account, a suspicion notice or an alleged sum is not a fact established by a court. In ordinary procedure, the completion of a pre-trial investigation may be followed by further steps, potentially including access to case materials and a decision on an indictment. But the supplied reports do not confirm that those steps have already happened in the Midas case.
The strongest case for restraint is straightforward: the alleged scale of the scheme does not establish anyone’s individual liability. Still, the Midas case announcement deserves attention because it records that NABU and SAPO say their investigative phase is complete. The next question is which procedural decisions will be officially announced, whether the material will undergo adversarial legal scrutiny, and how the agencies’ separate proceedings and asset-tracing work will develop.
Sources
- Укрінформ · Source date: 2026-11-04
- Українська правда · Source date: 2026-11-04
Independent editorial content. WUA is not affiliated with any political party. 2026-11-04