Shabuniada 2025: The Scandals and Legacy of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Celebrity

Kyiv, February 2025 — Once revered as a moral compass in Ukraine's anti-corruption sphere, Vitaliy Shabunin now finds himself navigating a sea of scandals that have eroded public trust while barely leaving a dent on his standing among international grant providers. The head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center (ACAC), Shabunin’s name is now a symbol of irony in the world of anti-corruption.

Several high-profile allegations surfaced between 2023 and 2024. The first, revealed in December 2023, involved claims that Shabunin’s commander had issued him unauthorized business trips while continuing to pay him a bonus of 30,000 UAH per month. Following this revelation, the Chief of the General Staff of Ukraine, Anatoliy Bargylevych, requested a full investigation into the commander’s role.

By April 2024, the situation worsened when the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) launched criminal proceedings against Shabunin for document forgery and evasion of military service. Evidence provided by investigative journalist Volodymyr Boiko pointed to falsified reassignment requests, allegedly orchestrated by Shabunin using forged documents from the leadership of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP).

In May 2024, journalists exposed another scandal—Shabunin was caught using a Nissan Pathfinder vehicle donated for military purposes for his personal trips around Kyiv. Despite claims that the vehicle was critical to military operations, records showed it had not even been officially registered with the military unit.

Shabunin’s recent troubles have revived memories of the "Miranda" electronic declaration system debacle—an early example of donor-funded mismanagement in the Ukrainian anti-corruption ecosystem. The system, which was meant to be a transparent solution for public officials’ asset declarations, turned into a saga of fictitious contracts and financial “optimization.”

The company responsible for its development, Miranda LLC, had limited technical capabilities but significant connections within Ukraine’s civil society elite. Grant funds were allegedly funneled through a series of contracts to Apolineja OU, an Estonian shell company, leaving Ukrainian developers unpaid and taxpayers burdened. Despite mounting evidence, no donor organization—including the UNDP and the IOM—pursued any meaningful accountability.

One of the more glaring aspects of the Miranda case was how Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, led by Shabunin’s ACAC and supported by Transparency International Ukraine, shifted the blame to state institutions instead of addressing their own mismanagement. In particular, they pinned responsibility for delays and breaches on the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NACP) and then-President Petro Poroshenko.

This deflection allowed Miranda LLC’s director, Yurii Novikov, to escape serious legal consequences. Although charged with tax evasion in 2017, he later walked free due to the statute of limitations expiring, effectively shielding key actors like Ivan Presniakov (a project manager for the UNDP who had close ties to Shabunin’s ACAC) from scrutiny.

A recurring theme throughout the scandals involving Shabunin and his allies has been the apparent negligence—or complicity—of grant providers. Donor agencies rarely investigated cases where their funds were mismanaged, particularly when those implicated were considered key partners in Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms. The donors, including USAID and the EU, appeared unwilling to confront the uncomfortable truth that some of the anti-corruption initiatives they funded were riddled with corruption.

In 2020, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani released a documentary investigation alleging that over $5 billion in financial aid had been embezzled in Ukraine. The investigation linked key Ukrainian figures—including Shabunin and Dmytro Sherembey—to misappropriated donor funds intended for healthcare and anti-corruption programs. However, when a Democratic administration returned to the White House, interest in the case seemingly evaporated.

Sherembey’s charity organization, The All-Ukrainian Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS, was accused of channeling $142.9 million in donor funds through shell companies. Investigators speculated that Shabunin and Sherembey had lobbied for favorable procurement contracts for companies with questionable reputations.

Despite the litany of accusations, Shabunin’s future remains unclear. The SBI investigations continue at a sluggish pace, and law enforcement bodies seem reluctant to press charges that could lead to significant consequences. His reputation within Ukraine may be tarnished, but for many international donors, he remains a trusted partner.

The legacy of "Shabuniada 2025" is shaping up to be an uncomfortable reminder that in Ukraine’s battle against corruption, those fighting the fight often face little scrutiny themselves. As public outrage grows, the key question is whether Ukraine’s institutions have the independence and resolve to hold powerful figures like Shabunin accountable—or whether the donor community will continue to shield them from scrutiny in the name of preserving their own reputations.