- January 3, 2026
- 9:04 pm
- Israel
The key figure in the large-scale NABU and SAP investigation into corruption in the energy sector, Timur Mindich, who is accused of treason in Ukraine under martial law, has left the country and is in Israel. Sources in diplomatic circles confirm: the theoretical possibility of his extradition exists, but the path to it is complex, multi-step, and entirely depends on the legal competence of the Ukrainian side.
This is not about a purely political decision, but about a procedure in which evidence, formal requirements of Israeli law, and the position of the courts play a decisive role.
Israel is not rushing with extradition
Israel is traditionally extremely cautious about extraditing its own citizens. The basic principle is the protection of Israelis from being handed over to other states. However, this principle is not absolute. In exceptional cases, if it concerns serious criminal offenses and if the evidence meets high standards, extradition is possible.
Lawyers point out: having Israeli citizenship in itself does not guarantee protection from extradition. Especially if the investigation proves that the crimes were serious and had a transnational element, including actions on Israeli territory.
This is the scenario currently being discussed in the context of the Mindich case.
Revocation of citizenship as a factor
Under Israeli law, the state has the right to revoke the citizenship of a person who has committed serious criminal offenses. This mechanism is rarely applied, but it exists. If used, the legal position of the suspect weakens sharply: further extradition may be considered within the framework of international treaties and criminal cooperation.
However, everything here also depends on evidence. The Israeli side will not act based on political statements or media pressure.
NABU’s position
NABU Director Semyon Kryvonos stated directly that Israeli citizenship is not an insurmountable barrier.
“There are cases when Israel has extradited its citizens to other states. These are legally complex processes, but they are possible. We will work in this direction,” he noted in a comment to Radio Liberty.
Historical precedents
Extradition from Israel to Ukraine has already occurred. In 2010, Israel extradited its citizen to Ukraine, accused of murdering a police officer in Dnipro. The crime was committed back in 1997, and the final decision after lengthy legal proceedings was made by the Supreme Court of Israel.
This case shows: with sufficient evidence and properly formatted requests, the Israeli judicial system is ready to proceed with extradition.
But there are also reverse examples.
The failure of the Stavitsky case
The story of former Ukrainian Energy Minister Eduard Stavitsky remains a negative example for Kyiv. Having obtained Israeli citizenship under the name Nathan Rosenberg, he remained unreachable for Ukrainian justice for many years.
Despite requests from the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office, extradition never took place. The Israeli side considered that the materials presented did not prove guilt to the extent required by local standards. Later, the criminal proceedings in Ukraine were closed due to the statute of limitations, which finally removed the issue from the agenda.
The key moment — the prosecutor’s office
In extradition cases, the decisive link is the Israeli prosecutor’s office. It evaluates the evidence received from a foreign state and decides whether to refer the case to court.
The process then becomes purely judicial: Israeli prosecutors must prove that the charges are justified and meet the criteria of Israeli law. Even a positive decision by the Supreme Court does not automatically mean extradition — it must be approved by the Israeli Minister of Justice.
The finale — only by law
The extradition of Timur Mindich is possible only in one case: if the Ukrainian side can legally, not politically, prove his guilt. Without this, the case risks repeating the Stavitsky scenario — with years of requests, refusals, and reputational losses.
For Israel, this is a matter of the rule of law. For Ukraine, it is a test of the quality of the investigation and the prosecutor’s office.
This is precisely where the story of Mindich’s possible extradition stands today, closely watched in both Jerusalem and Kyiv. In this context, it is important to understand: decisions here are made not by politicians or the media, but by courts and prosecutors acting strictly within the framework of the law — as is customary in Israel and in international practice.
In the finale of this story, much depends on whether the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office can navigate this complex legal route without errors — because this is how real extradition works today, as regularly reported by NANews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency.
