Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

War

Scheme to evade mobilization uncovered in Kyiv: first deputy head of a district state administration detained

The SBU and the Office of the Prosecutor General uncovered a corruption network in which an official sold exemptions from service for $15,000–$20,000 — undermining the mobilization system and security at the front.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 21, 2026 · 2 min read

Scheme to evade mobilization uncovered in Kyiv: first deputy head of a district state administration detained

What happened

Employees of the Security Service of Ukraine together with the Office of the Prosecutor General uncovered in Kyiv a large-scale scheme to evade mobilization, in which the first deputy head of one of the city’s district state administrations was involved. As a result of comprehensive actions, the official was detained.

How the scheme worked

According to the investigation, the official, by forging documents, fictitiously “enrolled” clients into military units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and later organized their unlawful removal from the military register on the basis of fabricated medical diagnoses. The scheme relied on personal connections in the district territorial recruitment and social support center and an accomplice who produced the fake documents.

"The cost of such a 'service' ranged from 15 to 20 thousand US dollars per person."

— Security Service of Ukraine

During searches, counterfeit medical and military registration documents, stamps allegedly of military units and mobile phones containing evidence of illegal activity were seized.

Why it matters

Corruption schemes of this scale not only undermine trust in state institutions — they directly damage defense capability. Every “bought” position means a shortage of personnel for units, and the high earnings make this business attractive to organized groups. Security analysts note that effective mobilization is not only a matter of the strength of arms, but also of trust in the system.

Legal qualification and consequences

Investigators have notified suspects under Parts 3 and 5 of Article 27, Part 2 of Article 28, and Part 4 of Article 409 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (organization and complicity in evading military service, committed by prior conspiracy of a group of persons under martial law). The suspects face up to 10 years in prison. The question of a preventive measure — detention — is currently being decided.

What’s next

The SBU and the Office of the Prosecutor General continue to document the involvement of other persons and to work through the networks through which the illegal payments passed. The detention is an important step, but systemic counteraction requires changes in control over military registration, tougher penalties for forging documents, and transparent mechanisms for medical examination.

Will this evidence and the necessary political will be enough to break the chains that turn mobilization into a commodity? The answer will depend on the speed of the investigation and the quality of the court’s resolution.

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