On November 6, 2026, Ukraine’s Supreme Anti‑Corruption Court ordered the detention of First Deputy head of the Security Service of Ukraine’s (SBU) Department for the Protection of National Statehood, General Sergey Duka, and set a bail of 65 million hryvnias ($1.4 million). TASS reports that the court’s decision followed a petition from the National Anti‑Corruption Bureau (NABU) and is now a central element of the ongoing Carthage case.
Background on the Carthage Case
The Carthage case, named after a fictitious construction company that allegedly served as a front for illicit operations, has been a focus of Ukrainian anti‑corruption efforts for several months. In a statement released on November 4, the Specialized Anti‑Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) noted that the National Anti‑Corruption Bureau had uncovered a new criminal organization allegedly supported by high‑ranking officials from the SBU, the National Police, and the Prosecutor General’s office. The group is said to run fraudulent call centres and to be involved in drug trafficking, the production of counterfeit currency, kidnappings, and extortion.
According to the SAP’s Telegram report, the investigative judge of the Supreme Anti‑Corruption Court considered the detectives’ petition and imposed a preventive measure in the form of detention with the alternative of posting a 65 million hryvnias bail for the former first deputy head of the SBU’s department.
"On November 6, 2026, the investigative judge of the Supreme Anti‑Corruption Court considered the petition of detectives from the NABU and imposed a preventive measure in the form of detention with the alternative of posting a 65 million hryvnias [1.4 million] bail for the former first deputy head of one of the departments of the Security Service of Ukraine," the Specialized Anti‑Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) said on Telegram.
Earlier on November 4, the NABU conducted dozens of searches, and the SBU dismissed two high‑ranking unnamed employees. The exact nature of the alleged collaboration between Duka and the criminal network remains to be clarified as the investigation continues.
The case’s name—Carthage—derives from an alleged fake real estate company that was used to facilitate money laundering and other illicit activities. While the prosecution has yet to name specific individuals beyond Duka and the two unnamed SBU employees, it has linked the network to multiple fraud and smuggling operations across Ukraine.
Implications and Open Questions
Ukraine’s security apparatus—particularly the SBU, which traditionally has been a key pillar of the country’s fight against corruption—now faces scrutiny for alleged internal collusion. Analysts see the arrest of Duka as a significant signal that the anti‑corruption drive extends into the upper echelons of the intelligence services.
Legal experts point out that preventing the bail of 65 million hryvnias, equivalent to about $1.4 million, could be a punitive measure intended to protect the public interest, especially given the alleged scale of the criminal organization. The magnitude of the alleged fraud, coupled with drug trafficking and extortion, has raised questions about the potential impact on Ukraine’s international standing.
The NABU’s statements raise the possibility that high‑ranking officials might have been complicit in creating a network capable of counterfeit currency production. However, the court has not yet confirmed the identities of all participants, and investigators must still demonstrate how Duka specifically aided the network in running fraudulent call centres and facilitating smuggling.
Meanwhile, the SBU’s dismissal of two unnamed high‑ranking officers may indicate an internal disciplinary action, but it could also be part of a broader strategy to prevent leaks during ongoing investigations. The procedure used in the dismissal was not publicized in detail, leaving officials and the public to speculate about the internal mechanisms at play.
Politically, the Court’s action underscores a broader trend of accountability for former officials who had previously used their positions for personal gain. It reflects a shift in the Ukrainian anti‑corruption narrative from the earlier emphasis on prosecuting lower‑level officials to addressing systemic corruption at the highest levels. Some commentators, however, caution that the case’s development may provoke institutional fallout within the SBU and challenge the chain of command in Ukraine’s security services.
For now, the Supreme Anti‑Corruption Court’s detention of General Duka remains a significant development in the Carthage case, but as investigations broaden, the Ukrainian public and international observers will be watching closely to see whether the alleged collusion will be substantiated and what impact this could have on Ukraine’s domestic governance and the functioning of its security institutions.
