Shevtsova’s case: Out-of-court sanctions dismantling trust in Ukrainian cause

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a decree imposing another set of sanctions of the National Security and Defense Council. The penalties primarily target ex-President Viktor Yanukovych’s management team of ‘high-scorers’: the former head of the National Bank Serhiy Arbuzov, former MP Serhiy Kluyev, businessman Viktor Polischuk. The fourth person among the mentioned culprits stands out. NSDC sanction-slapped the former owner of iBox Bank Alyona Shevtsova, and the experts question this move. Primarily because the Council is suspected of terrorizing the banker as the court cases against Shevtsova are nothing but a failure.

Shevtsova herself claimed the responsible parties for the sanctions are several former and incumbent officials, including Artem Shylo, the former chief of the SBU’s Main Directorate of Counterintelligence responsible for the protection of the financial interests of the state, head of the Main Detective Unit of the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine (BEB) Oleksandr Tkachuk, and the ex-deputy prosecutor general Dmytro Verbytskyi. Shevtsova intends to appeal the sanctions in court, deeming them unlawful and unsubstantiated.

Sanctions or raider attack?

Unsurprisingly, the NSDC sanctions implementation mechanism has been oftentimes called the selective out-of-court pressure tool. Two months before Shevtsova was put on the sanctions list, the same fate has befallen the former President and MP Petro Poroshenko, and entrepreneur Kostyantyn Zhevago. Poroshenko said that sanctioning him is “nothing but means of political strife”; Zhevago believes his appearance on the list is retaliation for him owning the TV station ‘Espresso’ that doesn’t serve the needs of the central authorities.

In a way, Shevtsova’s case is rather similar. According to her, the imposed sanctions are merely an attempt of certain authorities to rid the businesswoman of her enterprise. She continues: “I built a company that has been employing around a thousand people until 2023. The company that later became a bank, one of the best 10 banks of Ukraine no less. My question is obvious: why do they do it? Just because someone’s eyeing my business for themselves?”

Many experts tend to agree the sanctions are undoubtedly tied to Shvetsova’s business success. Yevhen Mahda, Director of the Institute of World Policy, says it like at is: “IBOX Bank’s nature means there’s a lot of cash moving around, which does not really amuse the incumbent officials, who are preoccupied with the future elections – life or death elections without exaggeration. Therefore, the Bankova Street gang thought lumping Shevtsova and those ‘Yanukovych boys’ together is a valid solution.” Financial reporter Serhii Liamets is convinced that sanctions were imposed when the politicians failed to prove Shevtsova’s guilt in courtroom. “She waged the courtroom war, and succeeded in it too much to their liking”, he says.

The co-chair of the European Solidarity party Iryna Gerashchenko said it two years ago: “In Ukrainian realities of today, this means there’s room for targeted pressure and raider attacks.” The West feels pretty much the same. Namely, the reputable American publication The Hill wrote the following: “If wartime sanctions abuse proliferates and becomes an excuse to settle accounts, or subvert business competition, neither Ukraine nor the West benefits.”

Case of iBox Bank

It begins in March 2023. The National Bank revoked the license of iBox Bank, and set it to be liquidated without an option of securing new investors or a possible re-launch. The National Bank accused iBox Bank of violating the financial monitoring requirements. The media speculated that was exactly the reason why the national regulator eliminated any chance of saving the bank through urgent liquidation.

Other market players were almost unanimous in their assumption that the elimination of iBox Bank was a show-off to force other financiers to cut their ties with gambling enterprises and other dubious ventures, which tend to hold back on their taxpaying duties and failing to acquire the mandated licenses. The official reports say that iBox Bank, at the time of its liquidation, was cash-fluid and functioned properly. In 2022, the shareholders increased the bank’s share capital by 2.9 times to 759.3m hryvnias. As a result, the bank’s own capital rose to 1.4b, which doesn’t happen to banks on the brink of foreclosure.

In a couple of months after the decision to sell off the bank, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine (BEB) charged Shevtsova with unlawful legalization of almost 5 billion hryvnias of clandestine online casinos.

Meanwhile, the BEB investigation was dragging months on end, grossly exceeding the statutory terms of examination, while the courts sided with the bank repeatedly. One would think that it was done and dusted on December 5, 2024, as the Supreme Court found the BEB detectives’ actions illegal. However, on March 13, 2025, Volodymyr Marmash, the judge of the Lychakivskyi District Court of Lviv, granted the motion of the BEB detectives to carry out a special, pre-trail investigation against Shevtsova. “What’s happening to iBox Bank right now is nowhere near justice; this is political blackmail in attempt to squash the bank in blatant disregard for the ruling of the Supreme Court”, wrote George Tuka, ex-governor of Luhanska Oblast.

Artem Svytka, attorney for iBox Bank, believes the judge violated all the procedural norms in place. “The legality of such a decision is purely rhetorical”, added the lawyer.

At the moment, the bank’s owners keep fighting in courts against the money laundering charges, whilst filing a suit to lift the ungrounded sanctions. “I will appeal the illegal rulings against me in court, for it is the court’s duty to determine the culpability, not a bunch of terrified corrupted draft dodgers”, said Alyona Shevtsova.

Unholy trinity

Should you examine those Shevtsova claims to be the brains behind the whole smearing operation, the case grows even more peculiar. Of the three – Shylo, Verbitskyi, Tkachuk – two are currently investigated by the NABU, the National Anti-Corruption Agency of Ukraine.

Artem Shylo, the former head of Main Directorate of Counterintelligence responsible for the protection of the financial interests of the state, is suspected of large-scale fraud with Ukrzaliznytsia’s 94.8 million hryvnias. The media also reported that his wife purchased nine real estate properties in Dubai worth $4.3m between December 2021 and June 2022 – right when her husband was an advisor to the Presidential Office.

Ex-deputy prosecutor general Dmytro Verbytskyi’s case is simpler: his greed forced him to join the Justice Department corruptors. His was investigated by the reporters of “Skhemy”. Soon, the National Agency of Corruption Prevention got really interested in the said gentleman. With the NABU opening a possible illegal enrichment case, too. Verbytskyi left his Prosecutor General’s job rapidly, relocated to Odesa attempting to evade the NABU, and publicly “does charity” to somehow whitewash his tarnished reputation.

NABU is yet to open a case against the Head of the Main Detective Unit of the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine (BEB) Oleksandr Tkachuk, mind the “yet”. In July 2024, Tkachuk committed a traffic incident with fatal consequences, with Tkachuk himself getting away clean. According to reporters’ findings, Tkachuk systemically pressured the detectives investigating the illegal production of cigarettes. He is also suspected to partake in grain trade corruption. Also, there have been reports regarding Tkachuk pressuring the Lychakivskyi District court judges. That’s exactly the court handling the Shevtsova’s case, keep that in mind.

The experts believe that fair trial will put a rightful stop in this case. “This sort of far-fetched accusations is a time bomb, placed under President Zelenskyy and society as a whole by some 5-6 ‘effective’ managers”, says Liamets. Mahda echoes that statement. “I think she will first go to the Supreme Court, and should its decision not please her, she’ll take it to the European Court of Human Rights”, said Yevhen in one of his latest podcast appearances.

Furthermore, the out-of-court sanctions mechanism for persecuting citizens poses a mounting number of questions throughout the West. Mainly, the proof of violations is kept secret and is not shared when the legitimacy and credibility of the sanctions are questioned. This undermines trust on the part of Ukraine's European and American partners, the assistance of whom is vital for Ukraine.

Share this article: