Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Deputy head of a Kyiv district administration organized a large-scale evasion scheme — 190 people implicated, posing a risk to defense capability

Law enforcement detained the first deputy head of a district administration who, through connections at the Territorial Recruitment Center and forged documents, helped at least 190 men evade military service. Why this matters for security and trust in institutions — briefly and without panic.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 21, 2026 · 2 min read

Deputy head of a Kyiv district administration organized a large-scale evasion scheme — 190 people implicated, posing a risk to defense capability

What happened

The Prosecutor General’s Office and the Security Service of Ukraine detained the first deputy head of one of Kyiv’s district state administrations. He is suspected of organizing a scheme that allowed at least 190 conscripts and servicemen to evade service during martial law.

How the scheme worked

According to the investigation, the mechanism was simple but effective: the official compiled lists of people willing to pay and forwarded them to the district Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TRC). The documents then recorded the supposed enrollment of these individuals in a Ukrainian Armed Forces training center, although in reality they never arrived there.

After the “enrollment,” through forged military medical certificates and other fake documents, these people were unlawfully removed from the register. According to investigators, the cost of the service was approximately $15,000–$20,000 per person.

During searches, authorities found forged medical and military registration documents, military unit seals, and smartphones with evidence of coordination.

"He organized and coordinated the activities of a group of persons who helped at least 190 conscripts and servicemen evade military service."

— Prosecutor General’s Office

Why this matters

This is not just a crime — it is a blow to security and trust. When, during war, part of the mobilization resources are diverted through fraudulent schemes, the state loses human potential and public confidence in recruitment bodies and local authorities is undermined. Experts note that such practices create injustice for those who have honestly taken up the defense of the country.

Government and law-enforcement bodies already cite similar incidents as part of a broader problem of corruption chains during mobilization.

Context: not an isolated case

  • On October 16, 2025, police detained a serviceman suspected of organizing illegal transportation of draft-age men to Romania.
  • In November, law enforcement exposed a deputy of one of the city councils in Vinnytsia region who avoided mobilization through a sham marriage to a woman with a disability.

What next

The detainees were charged under the article on organizing and assisting in evasion of military service, committed by prior conspiracy during martial law — they face up to 10 years in prison. The investigation is ongoing; authorities are identifying all involved, including employees of the TRC and law-enforcement agencies.

This is a test for the system: will law enforcement be able not only to hold the specific perpetrators accountable but also to close the mechanisms that allowed such schemes to operate? The answers to this question will determine not only punishment for the guilty, but also the restoration of trust that our army critically needs now.

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