Zelenskiy names Anton Kovalskyi acting prosecutor general after Kravchenko resigns amid anti-corruption probe
Coveragetap to expand ▾Spectrum: Mostly Center🌍Asia: 1 · Other: 1
- Zelenskiy removed former prosecutor general Ruslan Kravchenko by decree earlier in the week and lawmakers approved the removal in a vote on Tuesday.
- Anton Kovalskyi, 42, has headed the regional prosecutor's office in the Khmelnytskyi region since July 2025.
- Ruslan Kravchenko resigned after an anti-corruption probe by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) reached his office.
- NABU and SAPO alleged that a subordinate of Kravchenko organised a ring to cover up call centres that defrauded Ukrainians and foreigners.
- Kravchenko denied any involvement, has not been charged, and accused NABU chief Semen Kryvonos of falsifying documents and a faked adoption; NABU and SAPO denied his claims.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has removed prosecutor-general Ruslan Kravchenko after the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) said investigators raided Kravchenko’s offices and accused him of taking bribes to shield fraudulent call centres.
Zelensky published a government decree and urged parliament to approve the dismissal without delay, signaling the administration wants swift legal closure. Kravchenko has denied the accusations, told officials he is outside Ukraine and has launched legal action accusing NABU of falsifying documents; those claims stand unproven in the publicly available account.
The sequence here is clear in the reporting: NABU’s raid and bribery accusation preceded and precipitated Zelensky’s decree to fire Kravchenko (per straitstimes.com). The government's public move frames the dismissal as an urgent integrity step; Kravchenko frames NABU’s evidence as fabricated and is pursuing judicial remedies from abroad (per straitstimes.com).
How parliament responds to Zelensky’s request to approve the dismissal will determine whether Kravchenko’s removal becomes final or triggers protracted litigation; the source does not report parliamentary timing or votes.
At stake are immediate questions about prosecutions overseen by the prosecutor-general’s office and whether NABU’s investigative methods and evidence will withstand court scrutiny—Kravchenko’s lawsuit specifically alleges falsified documents, a claim the bureau has not rebutted in the cited account (per straitstimes.com).