Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

House Worth 48 Million Under Arrest Since 2021 — Still Occupied by Strangers

ARMA discovered people with a "sublease agreement" that has no legal force at the former interior minister Zakharenko's estate. This is the second scandal surrounding the property: previously, a former minister Galushchenko, who is suspected of corruption, was secretly living there.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 10, 2026 · 2 min read

House Worth 48 Million Under Arrest Since 2021 — Still Occupied by Strangers
Фото: АРМА

On April 1, 2026, employees of the National Agency for Finding and Managing Assets came to inspect a property in Kyiv's "Tsarskoe Selo" and discovered unauthorized people there. They presented a sublease agreement. ARMA classified the document as invalid and notified law enforcement.

A House That Supposedly Didn't Exist

The estate on Dobrovolchykh Batalioniv Street — formerly Panfilovtsi Street — belongs to Vitali Zakharchenko, interior minister during the Yanukovych era, who is hiding in Russia. Four land plots with a total area of a quarter hectare and a two-story residential building. The estimated value as of June 2025 was 48.48 million hrn. An arrest was imposed back in 2021.

Despite this, the property has effectively existed outside state control for years. As documented by the Anti-Corruption Center, ARMA had no official manager for it for several years. The first tender to appoint a management company failed due to lack of applications.

"He Paid 130 Dollars a Day to Some Guy"

In February 2026, at a VACS hearing, it became clear that Herman Halushchenko — former energy and justice minister, suspected in the "Midas" case concerning corruption around Energoatom — had been living in this house without hindrance. Halushchenko was detained on the night of February 15 while attempting to cross the border.

"I learned about Zakharchenko from the media… The house was freely accessible. It was offered through real estate agents"

Herman Halushchenko, at a VACS hearing

When asked if he knew about the asset seizure, the former minister said he had arranged the rental not with ARMA, but through a person who showed him a "relevant agreement." "What difference does it make to me?" said Halushchenko.

Acting ARMA Director Yaroslava Maksimenko confirmed at a parliamentary anti-corruption committee hearing that the agency had not established physical control over the property and had not taken the keys.

A Scheme Easy to Repeat

The April incident is structurally identical. An unidentified person concludes a "sublease agreement" with residents of seized property that the state nominally controls but physically does not. ARMA qualifies this as a violation of Article 388 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — illegal actions regarding property subject to seizure — and initiates entry into the unified registry.

  • The arrest has been in effect since 2021 — over four years
  • The property had no official manager for several years
  • Two different "tenants" in two different scandals cited an intermediary with a "contract"
  • ARMA learns about residents only after the fact

The key question is not who exactly lived in the house this time. The question is how many other seized objects under ARMA's management are currently just as "freely accessible through real estate agents" — and whether the agency will develop a tool for physical control before a third such incident occurs.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026