The Supreme Court of Ukraine ordered the Prosecutor General’s Office to register proceedings against Arakhamia: it concerns possible payments to deputies for voting

The High Anti-Corruption Court ordered the acting Prosecutor General Anton Kovalsky to enter into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (URDI) information about a possible criminal offense by the head of the parliamentary faction “Servant of the People” David Arakhamia. The statement concerns the alleged transfer of funds to people’s deputies for supporting certain decisions in the Verkhovna Rada.

This was reported by the Anti-Corruption Center.

According to the public organization, on November 4, 2026, the investigating judge of the Supreme Court of Criminal Appeals Markiyan Galabala satisfied the complaint of the CPC about the inaction of the acting Prosecutor General.

The court ordered the authorized official to enter the relevant information into the URDI, which is a necessary procedural step to begin a pre-trial investigation.

Why did the CPC apply to the court

On October 19, the Anti-Corruption Center filed a statement with the Prosecutor General’s Office regarding the possible commission of a criminal offense by David Arakhamia.

The appeal concerned the alleged transfer of funds to MPs for voting in support of certain bills and other parliamentary decisions.

According to the CPC, Acting Prosecutor General Anton Kovalsky did not enter the relevant information into the ERDR, but instead sent an application to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.

The Prosecutor General’s Office explained this decision by saying that the circumstances described were already in the field of view of the NABU.

However, representatives of the public organization appealed against this procedure for considering the appeal.

The CPC emphasized that criminal procedural legislation provides for a special procedure for registering information about possible criminal offenses by MPs. The relevant powers belong to the Prosecutor General or a person performing his duties.

In addition, according to the organization, NABU confirmed that without entering information into the ERDR, the bureau does not have proper procedural grounds to investigate the circumstances set forth in the statement regarding Arakhamia.

What is known about the investigation of possible payments to deputies

At the end of December 2025, NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office reported the exposure of a suspected organized criminal group, which, according to the investigation, included current people’s deputies.

Law enforcement officers stated the possible systematic receipt of illegal benefits for voting in the Verkhovna Rada.

Subsequently, as part of the relevant investigation, five parliamentarians were informed of the suspicion.

According to the SAPO, the participants in the alleged scheme coordinated voting for individual bills and parliamentary resolutions.

In particular, the investigation reported that during November-December 2025, one of the defendants received more than 145 thousand dollars, which, according to law enforcement officers, were intended for further distribution among other people’s deputies.

What does the decision of the Supreme Court of Criminal Appeals mean

The decision of the investigating judge to enter information into the ERDR does not confirm the guilt of David Arakhamia and does not mean an automatic notification of suspicion to him.

This is about the implementation of the procedure provided for by law, which allows starting a pre-trial investigation and verifying the circumstances set out in the application.

The authorized law enforcement agencies must establish the presence or absence of the elements of a criminal offense within the framework of the relevant proceedings.

Currently, the above notification does not contain information about the announcement of suspicion to David Arakhamia under these circumstances.

According to the Constitution of Ukraine, a person is presumed innocent of committing a criminal offense until his guilt is proven in accordance with the law and established by a court verdict of guilty.