Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office finds former chief committed disciplinary misconduct over foreign trip

Why it matters

The investigation formally establishes administrative responsibility for the circumstances of Kravchenko’s departure while leaving any possible criminal assessment to NACP and SAPO. It documents improper use of a Council of Europe invitation, a self-prepared travel order, the office seal, and a refusal of state protection. The office reported no material damage, limiting the internal consequences to disciplinary responsibility and possible further legal review. The findings also clarify that Kravchenko had already been removed through a resignation-based procedure before the investigation ended.

What happened

The Office of the Prosecutor General completed and signed an internal investigation into former prosecutor general Ruslan Kravchenko on 2 November. Investigators found that he committed a disciplinary misconduct by arranging and using a foreign invitation without proper grounds for a business trip abroad. Kravchenko personally prepared and signed his travel order instead of involving the international cooperation department, and the order was not printed by the department’s employees.

The investigation also found that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe invitation was initially addressed to Deputy Prosecutor General Viktor Lohachov. Lohachov declined the invitation, and the prosecutor’s office told the Parliamentary Assembly that Ukrainian representatives would not attend. Investigators found that Kravchenko had obtained the prosecutor’s office seal on 11 September and kept it, while the seal and a signed travel order were later found in his office on 14 September. He had also refused state protection in writing before leaving Ukraine and did not use the prosecutor’s office vehicle when crossing the border.

The office found no material damage or losses caused by Kravchenko’s actions. His dismissal from the post of prosecutor general on 15 September followed the Verkhovna Rada’s vote and his resignation, not the internal investigation. A possible criminal assessment remains with NACP and SAPO under the “Carthage” operation; Kravchenko is not directly a suspect in that case in the context in which he was questioned, and no formal charges have been brought against him.

How Ukrainian sources describe it

Ukrainian reporting focuses on the internal findings about Kravchenko’s travel paperwork, use of the Parliamentary Assembly invitation and official seal, refusal of state protection, and the prospect of disciplinary responsibility. It consistently distinguishes his resignation-based dismissal from the later internal investigation and places any criminal assessment with NACP and SAPO. The coverage also gives substantial attention to the “Carthage” operation, Kravchenko’s allegations against NACP director Semen Kryvonos and a person close to SAPO chief Oleksandr Klimenko, and his denial of any involvement in shielding unlawful call centers.

Where reporting differs

Law-enforcement sources said Kravchenko was initially held at the border because of NACP and SAPO markings and released after a call from Kyiv. The State Border Guard Service denied that his departure followed a call from Kyiv. Kravchenko said he was traveling to participate in a Parliamentary Assembly hearing, while the Council of Europe said the organizers had not invited him to the event, although he could theoretically have applied to attend. Reports also differ on the date of his departure, placing it on 13 September or in the night before 14 September, with some sources specifically reporting the crossing on 14 September.

Background

Kravchenko resigned as prosecutor general on 7 September and left Ukraine through the Shehyni–Medyka crossing point on 14 September. The Verkhovna Rada supported his removal by 317 votes on 15 September, after which President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed the dismissal decree. His departure followed the launch of the NACP and SAPO “Carthage” operation targeting a suspected scheme that shielded fraudulent call centers. Kravchenko said he had filed suspicions involving Kryvonos and a person close to Klimenko and denied involvement in protecting unlawful call centers.