Law enforcement uncovered two bribery schemes in Kyiv Oblast. Investigators seized nearly $22,000 and qualified the actions of three suspects under corruption-related articles.
The Kyiv Defence Council discussed the project for creating water crossings and access roads. The choice of locations remains with the military command.
Detectives from the Bureau of Economic Security uncovered a smuggling scheme in which a father and son sold vehicles formally designated for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The Norwegian Prime Minister emphasised that the conversation with the Russian leader was professional and does not contradict European unity.
Investigators from the Obolon police department are probing the cruel treatment of a 10-month-old Maltipoo named Plush, whom the owner kicked and dragged by the collar.
Monitoring channels report a threat of a repeat missile strike using ballistic weapons against the capital and the region.
The supermarket premises on Chernihivska Street were damaged in the 26 October attack. No casualties were reported; reopening depends on a technical inspection.
Oleg Mitrokhin's companies received around 10 billion UAH from the state, yet their balance sheets list expensive cars, and the owner has purchased real estate near Kyiv.
The Supreme Court reviewed the procedural aspects of a criminal case concerning an 18-hectare land plot that was transferred out of state ownership in 2021. The court overturned the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the Higher Anti-Corruption Court (VACS), which had previously prevented the lessee from appealing the restrictions on the property. Currently, the seizure covers not only the disputed 18 hectares but also four additional plots with a total area of 139.4239 hectares, where the "Stolychnyi" wholesale market is located.
The key issue in this case was the company's ability to appeal a 2021 court decision. According to defence representatives, the lessee was not summoned to the hearing where the property seizure was decided, and a copy of the relevant ruling was not served to them. Later, the prosecutor insisted that the business had been aware of the decision through other sources, and therefore the appeal deadline had been missed. The VACS Appellate Chamber did not proceed to consider the appeal on the merits at that time.
The defence cited Part 3 of Article 395 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which establishes a special procedure for calculating deadlines for persons who were absent when the decision was pronounced. The Supreme Court supported this position, emphasising that the appeal deadline for such a person begins to run from the moment they receive a copy of the ruling, regardless of whether they could have learned about the decision by other means. The court also noted that there is no evidence in the case file that the document was served to the lessee.
Previously, in March, VACS Appellate Chamber judge A. S. Nikiforov also drew attention to the need to take into account judicial practice on this issue in his separate opinion.
The restrictions introduced back in 2021 had serious consequences for the company's financial condition. In April 2026, a bank refused the market a loan of UAH 110 million, which was intended for the construction of new trading pavilions. Business representatives claim that the financial institution was ready to reconsider the application after the seizure is lifted.
A separate episode of the conflict concerned the amount of bail for the market director. On 14 May, company representatives filed a motion with the prosecutor to reduce the bail. However, on the same day, Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor (SAPO) Rostyslav Batih filed a counter-motion to increase it from UAH 5 million to UAH 19,997,952. Among the prosecutor's arguments was a reference to the filing of an appeal, which he qualified as realising the risk of committing a new criminal offence. The court did not satisfy the request to increase the bail, and market representatives interpreted these actions as pressure in response to attempts to appeal the property seizure.
According to the defence, these four plots remain in state ownership, and the lessee is the enterprise that ensures the market's operation. Business representatives also claim that Prosecutor Rostyslav Batih confirmed in written explanations to the Supreme Court that these land plots have no connection to the criminal proceedings. The prosecutor's documents also stated that the seizure ruling does not restrict lease agreements or the enterprise's authority.
On 15 October, the Supreme Court sent the case for a new appellate review. This decision does not automatically cancel the seizure of the land plots, but it obliges the VACS Appellate Chamber to reconsider the lessee's appeal taking into account the noted procedural violations.
The business side insists that the seizure covers an area significantly larger than that directly related to the criminal case and hinders the development of trading infrastructure. Meanwhile, the final decision on the lawfulness of the seizure and the justification of the prosecutor's actions must be made by the court based on a full review of the case materials.
It is worth noting that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) have completed the pre-trial investigation in the criminal case regarding the appropriation of 18 hectares of state-owned land and its legalisation. The market value of these plots, located in the suburbs of Kyiv, exceeds UAH 160 million.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first!