Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Porsche and a cottage near Kyiv: gap between assets and income of the former head of Ukraine’s Bureau of Economic Security

An investigation by Hromadske revealed that the family of the former head of the Bureau of Economic Security acquired assets in an amount that significantly exceeds their declared income. Why this matters for trust in law enforcement — we analyze the facts.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 7, 2026 · 3 min read

Porsche and a cottage near Kyiv: gap between assets and income of the former head of Ukraine’s Bureau of Economic Security

Intro

Journalists at hromadske found that during 2024 the family of the former head of the Bureau of Economic Security, now deputy head of the Khmelnytskyi Regional Prosecutor’s Office, Maksym Kuterha, purchased property with a market value that may reach about $325,000 — an amount difficult to reconcile with the family’s official income. For citizens this is not just an interesting detail — it is a question of public trust in those who have the authority to punish corruption.

What was declared and what was purchased

According to the investigation:

In July 2024 the official’s wife acquired a plot of land of 6.5 sotky (about 650 m²) in the premium cottage community Piemont eco Village, roughly a 15‑minute drive from Kyiv. The official price of the land is about 239,000 UAH (less than $6,000), but a residential house of the “Etna” type of about 170 sq. m has already been built on the plot; journalists estimate its market value at over $300,000. Formally the house is still listed as an unfinished construction object.

The declaration also lists a 2019 Porsche registered to the wife; the value is hidden in the declaration. The owner has currently put the car up for sale for $64,000.

Official family income — the numbers

  • Maksym Kuterha’s salary: about 1.2 million UAH;
  • Wife’s income from entrepreneurial activity: approximately 1.67 million UAH;
  • Proceeds from sale of real estate: 2.7 million UAH.

Journalists calculated that total receipts for the year still fall short of the market value of the acquired property, when taking into account typical costs of the house and the car.

Context and possible explanations

Experts interviewed by the journalists point to several possible scenarios: gifts or loans from relatives, hidden income, sale of previously acquired property, or undeclared transactions. None of these options has yet been confirmed by official documents — therefore the key is a transparent explanation from the official and checks by controlling bodies.

The investigation also notes professional ties: Kuterha worked in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the police and the General Prosecutor’s Office, joined the BEB in 2022, and was later appointed deputy prosecutor of Khmelnytskyi region. Journalists point to possible links with a circle of lawyers associated with Deputy Head of the Office of the President Oleg Tatarov — an important context that requires verification.

Family social background

According to the investigation, the wife’s mother worked for several years as a head pharmacist and acquired at least three real estate objects in Kyiv region and Kyiv. The wife’s father previously held managerial positions at a Kharkiv aviation enterprise, was involved in NABU cases, and during the full‑scale invasion took a post in the occupation administration of Zaporizhzhia region and joined “United Russia.” The Komunarskyi District Court of Zaporizhzhia found him guilty of collaboration and sentenced him to eight years in prison with confiscation of property.

"The official’s family in 2024 acquired property whose market value significantly exceeds the family’s declared income"

— hromadske, investigation

"The wife has long not been in contact with her father, and the official himself claims he is not acquainted with him"

— Press Service of the Khmelnytskyi Regional Prosecutor’s Office

Parallel media findings

Aside from the Kuterha case, a recent investigation by Slidstvo.Info uncovered a semi‑legal school at a monastery in Kyiv where children are taught from Soviet textbooks and shown Russian films. This is a separate warning about weaknesses in the control system — but in both cases the key is the public’s demand for transparency and accountability.

What next and why it matters

This story is not about elite purchases per se, but about a principle: people who work in law enforcement must be exemplars of financial transparency. Even plausible explanations do not remove the public need for an independent check: an audit by the NACP (National Agency on Corruption Prevention) or other competent bodies should obtain the documents and publish their conclusions.

While awaiting official results of checks, the core question for every citizen remains simple: can we rely on institutions that themselves need clarity about the origin of their assets? The answer affects not only moral authority but also the effectiveness of the fight against corruption during the war.

Sources

Investigation: hromadske; additional materials: Slidstvo.Info; court rulings — Komunarskyi District Court of Zaporizhzhia.

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