Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

SBU case in Rivne region: deputy remanded in custody — what this means for the fight against corruption

The High Anti-Corruption Court has remanded the deputy head of the SBU in Rivne region, Ihor Brik, in custody. We examine why the $600,000 bribery case is a matter of security, not merely a law‑enforcement story.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 18, 2026 · 2 min read

SBU case in Rivne region: deputy remanded in custody — what this means for the fight against corruption
Ігор Брік стоїть спиною у курточці під час засідання ВАКС 18 березня 2026 року (фото: Центр протидії корупції)

What happened

The High Anti-Corruption Court has imposed a preventive measure on Ihor Brik, deputy head of the Security Service of Ukraine in the Rivne region — detention with the alternative of bail of UAH 998,000. This was reported by the Anti-Corruption Action Center, and the information is confirmed by official sources at the Office of the Prosecutor General.

Details of the decision

If bail is posted for Brik, the court imposed obligations: wearing an electronic bracelet, surrendering his foreign passport, a ban on leaving Kyiv, and a ban on communicating with witnesses and suspects in the case.

At the same time, other suspects in the case received different preventive measures: the intermediary Andriy Avdiievskyi was also taken into custody (with the same bail alternative of UAH 998,000), while the deputy head of the SBU directorate in Kyiv, Oleh Tokarchuk, was ordered to pay bail without being held in custody.

What this is about

According to law enforcement, the case concerns a scheme to extort a bribe of about $600,000 to close a criminal proceeding related to the amber business in the Rivne region. Part of the money was found during a handover to an intermediary.

"The scheme was uncovered during the handover of more than $250,000 to intermediary Andriy Avdiievskyi."

— Anti-Corruption Action Center

Why this matters

This is not just a criminal story about officials. When members of the security services become suspects, the issue takes on the characteristics of a systemic threat: from public trust to the effectiveness of agencies responsible for security. For readers, this means three practical risks — erosion of trust in institutions, diversion of resources meant for defense, and a signal to others that corruption risks remain real.

Analysts and media (including LIGA.net) have already noted a number of high-profile anti-corruption investigations over the past year — from official crimes in the energy sector to complex schemes in state-owned companies. Therefore this case has both symbolic and practical dimensions: law enforcement agencies are testing their ability to investigate and hold their own institutions accountable.

What’s next

Procedural and judicial follow-up must turn suspicions into proven facts. For society, it is important to monitor not the headlines but whether evidence will be published, whether court hearings will be held transparently, and whether key case materials will not disappear into bureaucratic offices.

For the state, this is an opportunity: strengthened investigations and public convictions increase partners’ trust and reinforce the resources the country uses for defense. The question for law enforcement is whether they can bring cases to a logical conclusion, rather than stopping at demonstration arrests.

Sources

Information — according to reports from the Anti-Corruption Action Center, the Office of the Prosecutor General, and materials from LIGA.net.

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