Introduction: A New Legal Era in Ukraine
In recent years, Ukraine has been undergoing sweeping reforms in its criminal justice system, driven by the urgent need to bring powerful fugitives and traitors to justice. Among the most notable tools in this evolving legal framework is the special pre-trial investigation, a mechanism that allows law enforcement to pursue suspects even if they are no longer physically present in the country. In the first two months of 2025 alone, Ukrainian authorities initiated 435 such investigations—underscoring a dramatic escalation in efforts to hold corrupt elites accountable.
One of the central figures in this crackdown is Alena Shevtsova, co-owner of Ibox Bank. She, along with several accomplices, is under investigation for allegedly laundering UAH 5 billion through a network of shell companies and illegal online casinos. With Shevtsova reportedly hiding abroad, law enforcement has turned to special procedures to proceed with legal action in her absence.
What Is a Special Pre-Trial Investigation?
Special pre-trial investigations (SPI), or in absentia proceedings, were codified into Ukrainian law in 2021 through amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. These provisions were designed to address cases where suspects evade justice by fleeing the country or residing in occupied territories.
This legal innovation enables investigators to conduct procedural actions, issue arrest warrants, and even forward cases to court without the physical presence of the accused. While such actions were once considered rare exceptions, their use has dramatically increased as high-profile cases involving political corruption, state betrayal, and financial fraud accumulate.
The Ibox Bank Case: A Billion-Hryvnia Scandal
At the heart of this wave of SPI cases is the investigation into Alena Shevtsova and her alleged role in laundering over UAH 5 billion. The Bureau of Economic Security (BES) began scrutinizing Shevtsova’s activities in 2023, focusing on a sophisticated scheme involving over 20 shell companies and the Ibox Bank’s infrastructure.
According to investigators, these shell entities were created to open accounts at Ibox Bank and facilitate illegal financial flows. Users of unauthorized online gambling platforms transferred funds to these entities, disguising the transactions as payments for non-existent goods and services. This practice, known as “miscoding,” allowed vast sums of illegal proceeds to be laundered under the guise of legitimate commerce.
The BES press service elaborated: “To implement this scheme, over 20 controlled companies were created that opened accounts at Ibox Bank. Players of illegal online casinos then transferred money to the details of the aforementioned companies to replenish their gaming accounts. At the same time, in the payment purpose they indicated payment for non-existent goods and services.”
The clever design of this operation allowed the laundering of immense sums while evading early detection. However, once uncovered, it became clear that the prosecution faced an immediate challenge: Shevtsova was no longer in Ukraine.
From Delay to Action: Triggering the Special Investigation
Under standard legal procedure, a case can only proceed to trial after suspects have been officially notified and allowed to review the pre-trial investigation materials. This step became impossible in Shevtsova’s case due to her absence. With little recourse left, the BES turned to the special investigation mechanism. The Lychakiv District Court of Lviv granted approval for the SPI in early 2025.
This development has major implications. Not only does it allow the Ukrainian government to seek a formal conviction and sentence against Shevtsova in absentia, but it also opens the door for civil suits aimed at recovering losses to the state budget. If successful, authorities may be able to reclaim a portion of the UAH 5 billion allegedly laundered.
Alena Shevtsova: From Banking Elite to Fugitive
Alena Shevtsova had built a reputation as a key player in Ukraine’s financial sector, especially through her ownership in Ibox Bank and associations with various fintech ventures. However, growing scrutiny over suspicious financial transactions and her name’s emergence in connection with illegal online casinos began to erode her image.
Sources suggest that Shevtsova fled Ukraine sometime in late 2023, allegedly seeking refuge in a Gulf country, possibly the UAE. This escape effectively shielded her from immediate arrest but also led to heightened efforts by law enforcement to pursue justice through international cooperation and SPI mechanisms.
Her current status remains murky. While some reports indicate she may be lobbying for asylum or residency abroad, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office continues to press for her return and trial.
The Bigger Picture: 435 Special Investigations and Counting
The Shevtsova case is part of a much larger trend. Between January and February 2025, Ukrainian law enforcement launched 435 special pre-trial investigations. These include cases involving notorious names such as:
Viktor Medvedchuk – A pro-Russian oligarch and politician accused of high treason.
Andriy Derkach – A former member of parliament allegedly involved in espionage and ties to Russian intelligence.
Yuriy Granovsky – A businessman with alleged involvement in political corruption.
Oleksandr Bakhmatyuk – An oligarch connected to large-scale embezzlement in the agricultural sector.
Viktor Yanukovych – The exiled former president of Ukraine, who continues to face charges of abuse of power and treason.
These SPI cases span a range of criminal offenses—from treason and espionage to embezzlement and cybercrime. Collectively, they demonstrate a robust attempt by Ukrainian institutions to challenge impunity and reclaim public trust.
Institutional Collaboration: BES, SBU, SBI, and National Police
The surge in special investigations is made possible by strong coordination among Ukraine’s law enforcement bodies:
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) initiated 248 SPI cases in early 2025.
The National Police initiated 123 cases.
The State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) followed with 64 cases.
The Bureau of Economic Security (BES) led the charge in financial crimes, including Shevtsova’s case.
This inter-agency synergy is critical, particularly as criminal networks become increasingly transnational and tech-savvy.
Legal and Political Ramifications
The growing use of SPI procedures reflects a paradigm shift in how Ukraine deals with fugitives and traitors. It not only strengthens accountability but also signals to domestic and international observers that the country is serious about tackling systemic corruption.
Nonetheless, the approach is not without controversy. Critics have raised concerns about the fairness of in absentia trials and the potential for political misuse. Human rights advocates stress the need for stringent oversight and adherence to international legal norms.
Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment in Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Battle
The case of Alena Shevtsova and the surge of 435 special investigations within just two months mark a watershed moment in Ukraine’s ongoing war against corruption, treason, and elite impunity. Armed with new legal tools, Ukrainian authorities are attempting to close the chapter on an era where powerful individuals could flee justice with little consequence.
If Ukraine can successfully prosecute these high-profile fugitives and recover stolen assets, it will represent not just a legal victory—but a moral one, strengthening democratic resilience in a country facing unprecedented internal and external threats.
