Semen Kryvonos, Iryna Mudra, Ruslan Kravchenko: What Unites Them

The stories of Semen Kryvonos, Iryna Mudra, and Ruslan Kravchenko are different. But they are united by a circumstance that today arouses particular public interest: they all held positions directly tied to law, oversight, and the state's responsibility. This is discussed in an article on the Fromua website.

In the case of the current NABU director the questions reach back to the year 2009. At that time Kryvonos was accused of obstructing the exercise of voting rights by means of bribery by prior collusion of a group of persons. The case involved students of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv and about 90 thousand hryvnias. According to the case materials, the remuneration could have been about 200 hryvnias per vote or per participation in the campaign. There was no guilty verdict: on 25 June 2009 Kryvonos was relieved of criminal liability by amnesty. The reason given was a minor child in his care. This is where the most controversial part of the story begins. The boy Maksym Khomchenko was born in May 2008. But Kryvonos’s paternity was registered only in June 2009. A birth certificate listing Kryvonos as the father was issued on 17 June. Eight days later he received amnesty as the father of a minor child. And six years later a DNA test showed a 0,00% probability of his biological paternity. Later the paternity record was annulled. The boy’s mother in 2026 stated that she had no relationship with Kryvonos. According to her, the paperwork was completed after a request through an intermediary who explained that the child was allegedly needed by him “for work.” Therefore today a version is being discussed about a possible link between the registration of paternity and the amnesty. However, the motive itself must be proven in the manner prescribed by law. And this is not the only old episode. In 2014 Kryvonos headed the registration service of the Obukhiv City and District Justice Department. In a criminal land case there were 0,25 hectares in Tarasivka and $72 thousand. The published materials described a possible scheme of registering a plot in the name of a front person with subsequent sale.

Kryvonos denies everything: he emphasizes that he was a witness, did not receive any suspicions, and the proceedings were closed. Meanwhile the country is watching the raiding case over 150 million involving Iryna Mudra and the resonance around Ruslan Kravchenko, who fled Ukraine after the start of Operation “Carthage,” which is investigating the General Prosecutor’s Office’s alleged cover-up of illegal scam call centers. Mudra denies the charges brought against her. So today the question is no longer only about three surnames. What happens to the system when serious questions arise about its own overseers?