Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
📁 🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡
Lack of an anti-corruption policy at Bohomolets National Medical University
The Bureau reviewed a very strange document — a report on the assessment of corruption risks at the university for the 2025-th [year]. And we can state that this is a standard formal write-off, not a real analytical document. It meets the requirement that “a report exists” more than it reflects actual work managing corruption risks.
Two pages contain 9 general, template risks that can be found in almost any report of any university or budget institution. Most formulations are abstract and not tied to the specific nature of a medical university's activities.
🚫 The most telling phrase in the report: “Based on the work carried out and due to the absence of changes in the priority areas of the university’s activities, the commission did not identify new corruption risks.” This thesis is the main problem of the document.
According to the Methodology for Managing Corruption Risks (NAZK order No. 830/21), the assessment must be:
✔️specific;
✔️tied to real processes;
✔️take into account actual cases of corruption, investigations, prescriptions, court cases;
✔️include an assessment of probability and impact;
✔️provide for concrete mitigation measures.
The report completely ignores open criminal proceedings and NAZK prescriptions. Risks are formulated generally without being tied to specific university processes. There are no levels (low/medium/high), probability, or impact. There is no action plan. There is no analysis of court rulings, tenders, leadership declarations, or NAZK prescriptions.
🕵️♂️At the time the report was prepared (and even more so now) there were already serious facts regarding Bohomolets NMU:
🔸A case of embezzlement of more than 15 million hryvnias during the repair of the facade and roof of the university building (a tender scheme 2021, inflated volumes and costs of work).
🔸In 2026 two vice-rectors have already been indicted — Yurii Bohdan (vice-rector for economic/household affairs) and Volodymyr Titykalo (vice-rector for economic affairs).
🔸In June 2025 NAZK issued prescriptions to Rector Yurii Kuchin regarding his deputies (ownership of corporate rights).
🔸Questions persist about large procurement for dormitory repairs (hundreds of millions of hryvnias), including tenders without real competition.
🚫 These risks are not reflected in the report at all. In effect it creates the impression that everything at the university is stable and there are no new risks, while law enforcement is already working on specific episodes of embezzlement of public funds.
We will draw special attention to the so-called authorized official for anti-corruption activities, Yurii Fedosov, who stamps out this nonsense year after year. This may come as a revelation to you, but Fedosov is a former cop who found a warm seat in the state university. Moreover, he is not an employee of UBEZ, but a former deputy chief of the Kyiv Traffic Police (head of the DPS department).
Who, if not Fedosov, would know about bribes and golden business cards.
The report demonstrates the official’s complete inability to perform his duties. We see unwillingness or inability to record real, sensitive risks related to the university’s leadership.
In a situation where there are already criminal proceedings and NAZK prescriptions against the vice-rectors, an authorized officer who writes “no new risks identified” is effectively demonstrating either complete detachment from reality or a deliberate understatement of risk levels. But what can be said about Fedosov when the deputy rector for personnel, Ihor Drapey, who brought him into this job, is himself a former chief of police for public safety of Kyiv region.
💬ABleaks_bot
💕Join
Telegram publication
