Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

SBU officer under suspicion: $68,000 paid to evade mobilization and a blow to public trust during wartime

The National Anti‑Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti‑Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) reported that an employee of the Main Directorate of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) in Kyiv allegedly received $68,000 for arranging fake deferments — we look into how it worked and why this is dangerous for the mobilization system and public trust in the security service.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 24, 2026 · 2 min read

SBU officer under suspicion: $68,000 paid to evade mobilization and a blow to public trust during wartime
Слідчі дії (Фото: НАБУ)

What happened

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office have notified a staff member of the Main Directorate of the Security Service of Ukraine in Kyiv and the Kyiv region of suspicion. According to the investigation, the official received an improper benefit of $68 000 from two citizens — $34 000 from each — for "resolving the issue" of removing them from the records at the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center and arranging a deferral from mobilization.

How, according to the investigation, it worked

Investigators say the suspect promised to arrange a deferral on the basis of forged documents claiming that each of the men had three children. According to the organizers' plan, the forged birth certificates were to be issued abroad, after which the citizens were to be taken off the records and avoid responsibility.

"The employee has been notified of suspicion of receiving an improper benefit in a significant amount for assisting in avoiding mobilization procedures",

— NABU / SAP, press service statement

Context: not an isolated case

This exposure comes against the backdrop of a series of anti-corruption investigations in the defense and border management sectors. In particular, on January 22 suspicions were reported against the former head of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (DPSU) and several officials; in February there was information about the dismissal of one of the suspects from military service. Such cases create the impression of systemic abuses that undermine operational readiness and citizens' trust.

Why this matters to the reader

In a time of full-scale war, the issue of fairness in mobilization and the transparency of the special services is not abstract. When an official uses their position for private gain, it has three direct consequences: weakening personnel discipline, the risk of resources leaking away instead of being directed to defense, and a blow to public trust, which is critical during national mobilization.

What next

The investigation continues; a notice of suspicion is the first step toward criminal liability, but personnel and systemic measures are also important: strengthening internal controls, transparent procedures for processing deferrals, and operational monitoring of suspicious cases. Experts emphasize that only a combination of investigations and institutional reforms can restore trust.

Whether these exposures can be turned into lasting mechanisms to protect against corruption is a question for the leadership of law enforcement agencies and parliament. Meanwhile the case serves as a simple reminder: in war, resources are not only equipment and fighters, but also public trust — losses of which are harder to remedy.

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