‘Pour Acid on His Face’: NABU Tapes Reveal Plot to Attack Journalist Denys Bihus

The recordings allegedly reveal a criminal organization discussing violence against journalists, activists, and a veteran. The threats matter because they were linked to efforts to stop investigations into suspected illegal businesses and protection schemes involving officials.

After Bihus.Info investigated U420, suspects discussed beating Denys Bihus or pouring acid on his face. They also considered physically harming blogger Ihor Lachenkov, known online as Lachеn. The suspects questioned whether attacks would cause a major public reaction. They discussed offering activists money or ordering them to stop. A veteran who refused cooperation allegedly faced proposed acid attacks during protests or beatings with hammers.

NABU and SAPO released the recordings during Operation Carthage. The operation examines alleged fraudulent call centers, illegal businesses, and senior law-enforcement protection. The recordings do not establish that every discussed attack occurred. They do show investigators documenting alleged plans to intimidate critics. Their release increases pressure for accountability as the investigation continues.

The alleged targets were people who challenged or refused to assist the suspected criminal network. They included investigative journalist Denys Bihus, blogger Ihor Lachenkov, civil-society activists, and a veteran. Their different roles show that the alleged intimidation reached beyond one newsroom.

Bihus became a target after Bihus.Info investigated U420, a store chain suspected of selling psychotropic substances disguised as souvenirs. Lachenkov, known online as Lachеn, was also discussed as someone to harm. Activists began examining the alleged network after Bihus.Info’s reporting. The veteran reportedly refused to cooperate, prompting discussions about acid attacks during protests or beatings with hammers.

The suspected network allegedly responded with both coercion and attempted influence. Members considered offering activists money or ordering them to stop their work. The recordings portray journalism, activism, and personal resistance as perceived threats. The allegations remain part of Operation Carthage, rather than proven convictions.

Operation Carthage produced a large law-enforcement response. Ukrainian media, citing law-enforcement sources, reported approximately 70 searches across the country. NABU said a senior SBU official allegedly threatened detectives with a firearm and blocked access to a search area. SBU special forces also arrived, according to NABU.

The suspected U420 network was smaller geographically but rapidly expanding. The chain opened its first physical stores in Kyiv in spring 2025 and reached approximately 30 locations in the capital. It advertised in Kyiv’s metro and distributed leaflets offering so-called testers. U420 announced plans to enter Kharkiv, Lviv, Dnipro, and Odesa.

The figures show two different kinds of scale. Investigators pursued alleged networks across Ukraine, while U420 built a visible retail presence in Kyiv. The searches followed information reportedly extracted from a detained suspect’s phone. The investigation also pointed to alleged involvement by officials from several agencies.

NABU, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, investigates major corruption allegations. SAPO, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, prosecutes anti-corruption cases and works with NABU. Together, they form the specialized anti-corruption system involved in Operation Carthage.

The SBU is Ukraine’s Security Service, a broader state security and counterintelligence agency. It is not the same as NABU or SAPO. In this case, NABU accused a senior SBU official of threatening detectives and blocking a court-authorized search. The SBU confirmed searches were occurring and called for an objective and impartial investigation.

The distinction matters because agencies with different mandates may investigate related conduct involving the same officials or networks. The article describes tensions over jurisdiction and institutional independence. It does not provide a full legal comparison of each agency’s powers. It does show NABU and SAPO investigating alleged schemes involving senior SBU, police, and prosecutor’s office officials.

Criminal threats can damage accountability even before an attack occurs. Journalists may avoid sensitive investigations, activists may stop organizing, and witnesses may refuse to cooperate. The result could be less information about illegal businesses and alleged protection by senior officials.

The recordings provide concrete examples. Suspects allegedly discussed attacking Bihus after his investigation into U420, harming blogger Ihor Lachenkov, paying or ordering activists to stop, and assaulting a veteran who refused cooperation. These tactics combine violence, intimidation, and attempted influence. They could make criticism appear personally dangerous.

The article does not state that these threats have already stopped journalism or activism. It shows, however, why the allegations matter beyond the named targets. NABU and SAPO released the recordings while investigating Operation Carthage. Credible investigations, protection for critics, and consequences for threats would help preserve public scrutiny. Without them, alleged networks could operate with greater confidence.

The recurring conflict concerns jurisdiction, institutional independence, and investigations involving powerful law-enforcement figures. NABU and SAPO were created to pursue corruption cases through specialized institutions, while the SBU is a broader security agency. Their interests can collide when alleged networks involve security officials.

The article describes several flashpoints. In the current case, NABU accused an SBU official of threatening detectives and obstructing a search. In July 2025, the SBU accused NABU of employing people allegedly linked to Russia’s FSB. The government then tried to place NABU and SAPO under the Prosecutor General’s Office, a move that would weaken their independence and triggered nationwide protests.

The confrontation continued as searches reportedly targeted SBU officials and evidence pointed to senior officials across agencies. The article presents this as a prolonged struggle, not an isolated disagreement. Its outcome could shape which institution investigates alleged corruption and how independently anti-corruption bodies operate.

The rule of law depends on allegations being investigated through fair, independent institutions. If agencies cannot examine senior officials without pressure, threats, or interference, accountability may depend on rank rather than evidence. Independence helps ensure that suspected corruption is not protected by an institution’s power.

Operation Carthage illustrates the issue. NABU and SAPO investigated alleged fraudulent call centers, illegal businesses, and protection by senior law-enforcement officials. NABU later said evidence pointed to officials from the SBU, National Police, and Prosecutor General’s Office. It also accused an SBU official of threatening detectives and blocking a search.

The article does not determine guilt or establish how the case will end. It does show why institutional independence matters in practice. NABU and SAPO must be able to investigate and prosecute alleged wrongdoing involving powerful bodies. Objective investigations can test the allegations, protect due process, and strengthen confidence in public institutions.