Based on materials provided by the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) filed a lawsuit with the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) to recognise as unjustified the assets of an official of the State Agency for Development of Reclamation, Fisheries and Food Programs (State Fisheries Agency) worth over UAH 9 million.
The case concerns three two-room apartments in a residential complex in the capital, each with an area of about 70 sq. m. One of them was acquired by the Deputy Head of Directorate – Head of the Fisheries Patrol Department of the Azov Basin Directorate of the State Fisheries Agency under his own name in February 2025. Two more were registered under the names of his former wife and sister in August of the same year. At the same time, the price of the apartments specified in the purchase and sale agreements was significantly lower than their minimum market value.
During lifestyle monitoring of the official and based on materials independently collected by the SAPO prosecutor, it was established that despite registering part of the real estate under relatives, the official himself actually disposed of it. Specifically, he independently listed the apartments for sale from his account, stating himself as the owner, communicated with potential buyers, and organised renovations. He also paid for construction materials and furniture. Apartment viewings for buyers were conducted by his son. Meanwhile, the former wife and sister, under whose names the apartments were registered, took no part in their sale or furnishing.
Based on the analysis of the income and expenses of the official and his relatives, it was established that they lacked sufficient lawful income to acquire these assets.
Having learned about the lifestyle monitoring conducted regarding him, the official sold one of the apartments owned by him while the monitoring was still underway. However, this did not prevent the SAPO prosecutor from filing a lawsuit with the court to recognise parts of two apartments as unjustified and forfeit their corresponding value to the state budget, as well as to recognise the apartment registered under the former wife as fully unjustified and forfeit it to the state budget.
