Corruption scandals surrounding “Sense Bank” have been flaring up, subsiding, and flaring up again for a year and a half. The bankʼs case is extremely complicated. Obviously, the bank has become a zone of interest for many people from different groups.
It is difficult to present everything that is known about the “Sense Bank” case, because it combines several parallel plots. In this article, we will focus on one of them, i.e. on the lawsuit of the former owner of the bank against Ukraine.
The former owner of the bank is a structure of Russian oligarch Mikhail Fridman and his partners. Two and a half years ago, they filed an arbitration claim against Ukraine. Since then, Fridmanʼs side has been closely monitoring what is happening with the bank, as can be seen from the press releases it regularly publishes.
In the arbitration, Fridmanʼs side will try to prove that the Ukrainian government pushed through a law specifically "sharpened" for the nationalization of “Sense Bank”. It calls this "expropriation" and explains the governmentʼs motives as follows. It was done specifically so that state officials could establish shadow control over the bank and use it in their "schemes". The price of the issue is more than $1 billion, which Fridmanʼs side is trying to collect as compensation.
The prospects of this case depend primarily on whether Fridmanʼs side can prove the "artificiality" of the bankʼs nationalization. What happened to the bank after nationalization is a secondary issue in this case.
However, the latest corruption scandal will definitely strengthen this part of Fridmanʼs position in the arbitration. Before Iryna Mudraʼs exposure, Fridmanʼs side did not have direct and irrefutable evidence that senior officials used the bank in their "schemes".
Now they will be able to refer to the words of the deputy head of the Presidentʼs Office (OP), recorded by NABU, if they manage to include them in the case.
Here are the details of this international arbitration.
1
Two and a half years ago, at the end of December 2023, “ABH Holdings” — a company registered in Luxembourg — filed an arbitration claim against Ukraine. The company belongs to a group of shareholders. Among them is Russian businessman Mikhail Fridman, who has been under European Union sanctions since the start of the full-scale war.
The arbitration claim is being considered by the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The Center’s head office is located in Washington. It is part of the World Bank Group and is engaged in the settlement of investment disputes (arbitration) between states and private investors.
The World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C., where the ICSID offices are located. "Sense Bank" central office in Kyiv.
Wikimedia; xoffice.pro
The Russian businessmen chose the international treaty between Ukraine and Luxembourg, signed back in 1996, as the basis for the lawsuit. Babel found the full text of the arbitration petition that Mikhail Fridmanʼs party filed with ICSID. This document is not the main one: in addition to it, the plaintiff also files a separate memorandum.
However, it is in the petition that the factual circumstances on which the lawsuit is based are set out. In it, Mikhail Fridmanʼs party formulated a list of statements that it intends to consistently prove during the arbitration proceedings.
First of all, Fridman’s side portrays the “pre-war ʼSense Bankʼ” as one of the best banks in Ukraine: reliable and transparent, with leading market positions, a Western corporate governance system, and excellent development prospects. Then, Friedman’s side outlines the general context, characterizing Ukraine as “one of the most corrupt countries in the world”.
After that, Fridman’s side moves on to the main argument: Ukraine allegedly adopted a number of laws specifically to “expropriate” one specific bank — “Sense Bank”. As the factual basis for its claim, Fridman’s side cites, among other things, comments made by Ukrainian officials and politicians to the media in 2022–2023.
Fridmanʼs side outlines the general context, characterizing Ukraine as "one of the most corrupt countries in the world". The main argument: Ukraine allegedly adopted a series of laws specifically to "expropriate" one specific bank.
italaw.com
Proceedings in ICSID can last for years. This arbitration dispute against Ukraine is no exception: it is still ongoing, and the consideration of the merits of the case has not even begun. Mikhail Fridman’s side is closely following the events in Ukraine.
Of course, it has not ignored the series of corruption scandals that have erupted during this time. Fridman’s side supplemented its position with more recent comments from Ukrainian officials and politicians — as they emerged.
For example, on May 5, 2026, the “Sense Bank” case was heard for more than two hours by the Temporary Investigative Commission (TIC) of the parliament. The bank’s managers — the chairman of the board Oleksiy Stupak and the chairman of the supervisory board Mykola Hladyshenko — were invited to the hearing.
The reason for the hearing was the “Mindich recordings”. They show two people behind the scenes coordinating independent candidates for the bank’s supervisory board — which clearly discredits the principles of corporate governance and, probably, violates the law.
However, during the TIC hearings, they talked not only and not so much about the supervisory board. Two MPs immediately stated that the conversation should be about the broader picture and, first of all, about how the state nationalized “Sense Bank”. These were the head of the Finance Committee Danylo Hetmantsev and a member of the committee Nina Yuzhanina.
If we summarize the main points of the speeches of these two MPs as briefly as possible, they are the following: the state purposefully nationalized “Sense Bank” in order to later use it in corruption schemes. They said that the law on the basis of which the bank was nationalized was written specifically for this bank.
Two days after the hearing, on May 7, 2026, “ABH Holdings” issued a press release about the hearing.
“The details disclosed indicate that the bank […] was transformed into a structure created to service and profit from criminal activity,” Fridman’s side writes.
Under the rules of arbitration, Fridman’s side may also use new evidence. In particular, include “fresh” statements in the case file that it believes strengthen its position. As early as May 15, 2026, Fridman’s side asked the arbitration court to include new evidence in the case, and it allowed it to do so.
And on August 19, 2026, NABU exposed Iryna Mudra. Investigators recorded her talking about how in June 2026, informal control over “Sense Bank” passed from Tymur Mindich to employees of the Presidentʼs Office (OP). According to Mudra, this happened after the bank began to be blackmailed.
Firstly, (Iryna Mudra tells the story on the “recordings”), two people came to the bank managers one by one, independently of each other. It was “David” and the head of one of the Verkhovna Rada committees.
They offered the bank managers an informal agreement: “They will not wreck the bank, but the bank must cough them up [for money].”
The bank managers told the “owner” [Tymur Mindich] about this. He called a high-ranking official of the Presidentʼs Office and asked him to look after the bank. The investigation does not name the high-ranking official, but, based on the context of all the conversations (and taking into account the OP’s official hierarchy), it can be assumed that it was the head of OP Kyrylo Budanov.
After that, the OP employees (including Iryna Mudra) met for a “conceptual conversation” with the bank managers. They were the chairman of the board Oleksiy Stupak and the chairman of the supervisory board Mykola Hladyshenko. They agreed that the bank managers would fulfill the “request”.
The “request” did not take long to come. The bank managers helped the deputy head of OP to transfer part of the bail for the former Minister of Energy Herman Halushchenko (who is currently being held as a suspect in another case) to the account of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC).
To do this, they (this is already known from the conversations of the former deputy Maksym Mykytas and his close confident, recorded by NABU) put the intra-bank financial monitoring system on service, and the transfer went through the bank automatically (although it should have been checked manually).
The hearings in the international arbitration will begin on November 30, 2026. Fridmanʼs side has three months to add new data about the bank to the case — these ones voiced by Iryna Mudra and Maksym Mykytas.
2
Key events in the "Sense Bank" case
-
The European Commission has imposed personal sanctions against Mikhail Fridman and Petro Aven.
-
The United Kingdom imposed personal sanctions against Fridman and Aven.
-
The Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on the nationalization of systemically important banks in the event of their being declared insolvent.
-
Mikhail Fridman returned to Russia.
-
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed personal sanctions against Fridman and Aven.
-
Schemes reported that the company "Alfa Insurance", co-owned by Fridman, insures the transport of the Russian Guard.
-
The Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on the nationalization of systemically important banks whose owners are under sanctions.
-
The National Bank of Ukraine withdrew “Sense Bank” from the market, after which the government nationalized it.
-
A new supervisory board has been formed at the “Sense Bank”, with Sevki Acuner as its chairman.
-
The US Treasury Department imposed sanctions against Fridman and Aven.
-
“ABH Holdings” filed an arbitration claim against Ukraine.
-
Ukrainska Pravda published the first article about Vasyl Vesely (the person who so-called "watching" of the “Sense Bank”).
-
NABU has begun publishing recordings in the "Midas case".
-
Ukrainska Pravda published "Mindich recordings" related to the “Sense Bank”.
-
The MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak held a hearing of the Temporary Investigative Commission in the “Sense Bank” case.
-
NABU published Iryna Mudraʼs conversations about “Sense Bank”.
It will probably be easy for Fridmanʼs side to prove that the state used the bank in dirty schemes. However, to win the case, it first needs to prove a more complicated thesis, for instance, that in 2023 the state adopted a nationalization law "sharpened" for one specific bank.
To what extent do the circumstances of the nationalization confirm this version?
Ideally, we should completely recreate the history of what happened to the “Sense Bank” since the beginning of the Great War. However, it is not yet possible to do this in a truly objective manner (with dates, names, and documents). Information about the bankʼs operations constitutes banking secrecy.
After the bank was nationalized, its internal activities were investigated by an international private company — it conducted a so-called forensic audit. Its results, as well as the results of other audits, were transferred by the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) to law enforcement agencies and the State Financial Monitoring Service.
The Board of NBU, the main regulator of the banking market, presented its own picture of what happened at the “Sense Bank” before and after the nationalization. It did not do so in a press release, but in an “official position”. This means that the members of the Board are personally responsible for its reliability. Here is what they explain about the “Sense Bank”.
At the beginning of the full-scale war, no one knew which systemically important bank might fall under Western or Ukrainian sanctions. In this context, “Sense Bank” was not the only bank at risk. For example, a subsidiary of the Austrian “Raiffeisen Bank” continued to operate in Russia, paying taxes there.
Therefore, its Ukrainian “daughter company” could also fall under sanctions. The law on nationalization was not adopted for any specific bank, but in case the National Bank had to respond promptly to such sanctions.
In the case of the “Sense Bank”, it was nationalized after the National Bank conducted a stress test of the banking system. “Sense Bank” was one of five banks that failed it. Its capital was overvalued, the forecast for the next three years was disappointing, and the number of sanctions imposed on its owners was only increasing. In the summer of 2023 — immediately after the nationalization — the National Bank approved the new composition of the “Sense” supervisory board and began to look into its entrails.
The inspections showed that, contrary to the picture that the Fridman side paints in its petition, “Sense Bank” was neither reliable nor transparent. Before nationalization, it was managed by a shadow structure (with informal managers, committees, and meeting minutes), and its real financial condition differed significantly from the official one. Even before the Great War, “Sense Bank” served the gambling business, which minimized taxes through the so-called “miscoding”.
At the same time, the gambling business was closely connected with the microcredit business: people who lost in online casinos were offered microcredits at thousands of percent per annum.
“Sense Bank” was not the only bank involved in such schemes. After NBU fined “Ukrgasbank" and “Sense Bank”, liquidated “Concord" and “Ibox Bank", and revoked the license of the LEO payment system, the gambling business began to emerge from the shadows.
Within a year, taxes paid by the gambling business to the budget increased thirteenfold — from UAH 750 million to UAH 10 billion. In the first years of the full-scale war, these funds became a tangible contribution to the state budget.
So, in the context of the events of 2022-2023, the laws on nationalization, and then the nationalization of the “Sense Bank”, look logical and necessary. The bankʼs forensic audit materials may also play into Ukraineʼs hands if the Ukrainian side uses them.
3
In the “Sense Bank” case, the most prominent critic of the bank itself and NBU, as the main banking supervision body, is the head of the parliamentary finance committee Danylo Hetmantsev.
On several occasions, including during the TIC hearings, he has stated that the state “drove the gamblers” into “Sense Bank” in order to “dictate conditions to them”. He blames the head of NBU Andriy Pyshny for “Sense Bank” becoming part of dirty schemes.
After NABU published recordings of Iryna Mudraʼs conversations, which mention (without a name or surname) the head of the parliamentary committee, Danylo Hetmantsev stated that he "never discussed [with anyone] the issue of control over “Sense Bank”.