Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

$653,000 in a garage: DBR checks the declaration of the acting head of the State Environmental Inspectorate

The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) did not believe the official's explanation about his grandmother's inheritance — the case is already with the Office of the Prosecutor General. This is more than a story about money: it is about trust in the declaration system during the war.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 19, 2026 · 2 min read

$653,000 in a garage: DBR checks the declaration of the acting head of the State Environmental Inspectorate
Фото: НАБУ / САП

What happened

The Office of the Prosecutor General has handed materials to the State Bureau of Investigation regarding the declaration of acting head of the State Environmental Inspection Oleksandr Subbotenko. The referral followed a full check by the NACP of the 2024 declaration, which listed $653,000, the origin of which raised serious doubts for the regulators.

"The Office of the Prosecutor General on 3 February 2026 registered a criminal proceeding [...] on the basis of a reasoned conclusion of the NACP, compiled as a result of a full check of the 2024 declaration."

— Office of the Prosecutor General

Official's explanation and NACP's objections

Subbotenko stated that he found the cash in the garage of his deceased grandmother, which he inherited, and that part of the funds were allegedly earned by the family abroad. He also claims that documentary evidence existed but was lost during evacuation from Kharkiv or destroyed.

"I found banknotes in the garage I inherited"

— Oleksandr Subbotenko, acting head of the State Environmental Inspection

The NACP and lawyers who reviewed the materials point to several key facts: according to her employment record book the woman retired as early as 1984, the family's official incomes over the past 20 years do not support the possibility of accumulating such an amount, and the legal regime for foreign-currency operations in the 1940s–1980s made the mass accumulation of dollar cash in Ukraine impossible. The agency's conclusion is that the explanations appear unsubstantiated.

Court and lost evidence

In 2022, the Kominternivskyi District Court in Kharkiv already dismissed Subbotenko's suit to recognise ownership of these funds as an inheritance. The court noted that the money in question could be a "treasure," and also pointed to the absence of evidence of their existence or of their belonging to the grandmother.

"These funds may constitute a treasure... no evidence of the existence of the specified funds has been provided to the court, nor evidence to show that these funds belonged to his grandmother"

— Kominternivskyi District Court of Kharkiv

Why it matters

This story is not only about a single declaration. During a war, when public finances and international support are critical, the transparency of officials is a matter of national security. The presence of large amounts of cash without verification undermines trust in the declaration system and gives grounds for legal consequences.

Additionally, the case comes against the backdrop of non-declaration of other real-estate assets, which oversight bodies have also been recording in recent months — a signal of heightened scrutiny and zero tolerance for violations.

What happens next

The SBI must establish the factual origin of the funds and determine whether this involves illicit enrichment or false declaration. Possible scenarios range from closing the case for lack of evidence to bringing criminal charges. For the public the key question is simple: can the control system ensure an impartial investigation?

Analytical forecast: the verification procedure may take months, but the outcome will affect not only the career of one official — it will serve as an indicator of how anti-corruption agencies perform at a time when trust in institutions is of paramount importance.

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