Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

OPZZ Deputy Who Voted to Restrict NABU Now Under NABU Investigation

Oleksandr Kachny, a Member of Parliament who in July 2025 supported a law making anti-corruption bodies dependent on the Prosecutor General, has been served a suspicion notice by those same bodies and ordered to post bail of 3 million hryvnias for assets that do not match his declared income.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 17, 2026 · 2 min read

OPZZ Deputy Who Voted to Restrict NABU Now Under NABU Investigation
Фото: pexels.com

The High Anti-Corruption Court has set a 3 million hryvnias bail for Oleksandr Kachnyy, a member of Parliament of the ninth convocation of the Verkhovna Rada. The HACC does not officially name the person, but according to sources from Ukrainska Pravda and Liga.net, it is him. The bail must be paid within five days.

What the deputy bought with "undeclared" 13 million

According to the NABU and SAP, during 2020–2021 Kachnyy became the owner of assets totaling almost 13 million hryvnias — significantly more than his official income would allow. The investigation identified specific objects: a cottage and a land plot on the Black Sea coast in the village of Koblevo, and an apartment of 132.6 square meters in central Kyiv. The prosecution requested a stricter precautionary measure, but the HACC only partially satisfied the motion, choosing bail.

Who is Kachnyy and why does the voting detail matter

Kachnyy is a deputy from the OPZZ party, which was banned after 2022, and is now a member of the "Platform for Life and Peace" faction. He serves on the Budget Committee of the Verkhovna Rada. According to the Chesno movement, on the eve of the full-scale invasion, he accused the West of "exacerbating" the situation around the war. In July 2025, he voted "for" bill No. 12414 — the same one that made NABU and SAP dependent on the Prosecutor General. That is, he voted for limiting the powers of the bodies that later announced suspicion against him.

"The investigation established that during 2020–2021, the suspect became the owner of assets totaling almost 13 million hryvnias, which significantly exceeded the level of his officially declared income."

— NABU

Bail is not a verdict, but it's not trivial either

3 million hryvnias is not the maximum: the prosecution requested more. At the same time, the very fact of bail means the court recognized risks sufficient for a precautionary measure. Parliamentary immunity in NABU cases was removed by law back in 2020, so there are no procedural obstacles to further proceedings. Kachnyy retains his parliamentary mandate and position on the Budget Committee — and this is a separate matter for the Verkhovna Rada.

If the bail is not paid within five days, the court must decide on an alternative precautionary measure — potentially a stricter one. Will the Rada assess the presence of the suspect as a member of the Budget Committee — or will silence become the answer itself?

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