Against the backdrop of an anti-corruption investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP), Rostyslav Gladishenko, former head of the supervisory board of the nationalized "Sense Bank," publicly refuted the allegations that the bank was used to process a suspicious payment of approximately 150 million UAH. According to him, the prosecution's theory of "manual" unauthorized interference with the bank's automated accounting systems is not supported by technical expertise and, in his view, renders the charges unfounded. The statement came amid a personnel decision by the Cabinet of Ministers, which prematurely terminated Gladishenko's term as head of the supervisory board.
The case in brief: Operation "Forest Gump" and the "Midas" bail episode
According to the prosecution's version, reported by NABU on 19 August 2026 as part of Operation "Forest Gump," a group of individuals "organized and facilitated the legalization of funds obtained through criminal activity." The criminal case materials reference a sum of 150 million UAH in cash: according to the investigation, the funds passed through a series of accounts of shell companies and were subsequently used to pay the bail for one of the members of the criminal organization in the "Midas" case. It is precisely this episode that, according to the anti-corruption authorities, is linked to transactions processed through the accounts of "Sense Bank" clients.
The defense's technical arguments: "automatic financial monitoring cannot be switched off manually"
As the defense states, the automated control processes referenced by the prosecution cannot technically be "switched off" or "stopped for maintenance" from the level of the supervisory board. Gladishenko emphasized that the head of the supervisory board has no access to the operational interface for authorizing client payments in the bank's software, and that all transactions undergo multi-level automated verification by the operations department and risk committees. According to him, any interference with the automated accounting systems leaves non-erasable traces in the system; however, no such expert examination of the bank was carried out before the charges were brought — which, in the defense's view, further casts doubt on the justification of the suspicions.
Who paid how much: a third through "Sense Bank," the rest through other banks
The former head of the supervisory board also pointed to the structure of the payment itself: according to his data, "Sense Bank" clients paid only a third of the bail amount from their accounts at the bank, while the remaining two-thirds were transferred by the same economic entities through other banking institutions. In addition, Gladishenko refuted the information about 150 million UAH in cash being deposited through the bank's branches: according to him, the funds were credited to client accounts as non-cash payments from other banks, and the origin of these funds is unknown to the bank. He added that the disputed payment went through the prescribed financial monitoring procedure and was promptly forwarded to the State Financial Monitoring Service, becoming the subject of the corresponding review.
Contradictory data
The positions of the prosecution and the defense diverge significantly on a number of key details. According to the NABU/SAP version, the case concerns 150 million UAH in cash processed through the accounts of shell companies and used to pay bail; the defense, however, asserts that the cash form through "Sense Bank" did not occur at all, and that the bank was involved only in a portion (about a third) of the non-cash payment. A separate discrepancy concerns the identification of the speaker: in the original text, citing RBC-Ukraine, the head of the supervisory board is named "Nikolai Gladishenko," whereas the verified procedural materials refer to "Rostyslav Gladishenko." In connection with this, the speaker is identified in the publication by surname and position, and the discrepancy in the first name is noted for the sake of completeness. Both versions remain the subject of the ongoing investigation.
Personnel consequences and procedural status
Amid the scandal, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine decided to prematurely terminate the powers of the head of the supervisory board of "Sense Bank," thereby depriving him of the right to hold that position. The decision was made in the context of the ongoing investigation. It should be emphasized that, at this point, the investigation materials are not a verdict: by virtue of the presumption of innocence, all of the prosecution's statements set out above reflect only its working version, while Gladishenko's statements reflect the position of the defense, and the final assessment of the actions of the bank and its officials will be given exclusively by the court.
