Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

11.5 million hryvnias from the National Guard fund: how "one hrynia at a time" added up to a massive theft and what's next

Minor deductions in payroll records were used to embezzle funds intended for 3,000 service members. We examine how the scheme worked, who will be held accountable, and why this matters for trust in the army’s provisioning system.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 6, 2026 · 2 min read

11.5 million hryvnias from the National Guard fund: how "one hrynia at a time" added up to a massive theft and what's next

The gist

The Darnytsia Specialized Prosecutor's Office for Defense has sent indictment papers to court against an accountant of a National Guard military unit and six civilian accomplices. According to the Office of the Prosecutor General, an organized scheme was put in place to embezzle funds from the fund for monetary support of servicemembers — in total almost UAH 11.5 million.

How the scheme worked

According to investigators, between 2020 and 2024 the accountant systematically underreported payroll accruals by about UAH 30–35 for roughly 3,000 servicemembers. Payment statements contained the bank details of third parties, to whose accounts these “saved” amounts were transferred. The money was then converted into cash and divided among the members of the group.

This mechanism illustrates a simple rule: small systematic deviations across a large base of payees and over several years produce a sizable financial effect. Elements of laundering and the use of third-party bank accounts added financial resilience to the criminal chain.

“During 2020–2024, when preparing payment statements she systematically underreported monthly accruals for approximately 3,000 servicemembers by UAH 30–35. In addition, the statements included the bank details of third parties, to whose accounts the funds formed as a result of such underpayments were transferred.”

— Office of the Prosecutor General

Consequences for servicemembers and accountability

At first glance UAH 30–35 may seem insignificant, but when multiplied by thousands of people and dozens of pay periods the result becomes material for the budget and for soldiers’ trust in the payment system. Members of the group were notified of suspicion as early as June last year. They are accused of fraud on a large and especially large scale and of legalizing proceeds from crime (Parts 4 and 5 of Article 190, Part 2 of Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). If convicted, the suspects face up to 12 years in prison with confiscation of property.

What this means for the support system

This case is not just a criminal episode. It raises questions about internal controls, payment digitization, and transparency of accounting in defense structures. Experts point out that to prevent such schemes from recurring, both technical measures (automated reconciliations, anomaly analytics) and organizational changes (division of duties, independent audits) are needed.

Now the ball is in the court: will the money be recovered, and will law enforcement and the supply system take the critical lessons needed to reduce risks for those defending the country?

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