Mykola Hrekov: a self-styled moral prosecutor with his own unresolved case

Criminal proceedings without a verdict, a veteran’s biography, lawsuits against the state, declarations raising questions, and public titles that do not always match the registries Analysis of open sources as of 5 August 2026 year

Analysis of open sources as of 5 August 2026 year

Editorial note. The material separates facts established by documents, the parties’ versions, and the author’s assessments. There is no indictment verdict regarding Mykola Hrekov. His guilt can only be established by a court.

Who is Mykola Hrekov

There are people whom society recognizes as moral authorities for their deeds. And then there is Mykola Hrekov — a person who, it seems, decided not to wait for society’s recognition and appointed himself moral arbiter.

Mykola Oleksandrovych Hrekov is a veteran, former serviceman, mayor of occupied Oleksandrivsk, founder of a public organization, multiple-time candidate for people’s deputy, public activist and tireless critic of state institutions and political opponents.

He readily names who in Ukraine is a corrupt official, who is a “gang,” who must be expelled, punished, or jailed. In his public rhetoric there is almost no room for the long-standing procedural delicacy he rightly demands in his own criminal history.

His biography resembles a universal political bulletproof vest. When questions arise about criminal proceedings — society is reminded of military service. When asked about property — the occupation appears. When the registry does not confirm the title of head of a public organization — public self-presentation remains. When he is not included in ARMA’s working group — the agency becomes the object of especially uncompromising criticism.

The universal formula is convenient: if a document confirms Hrekov’s position — it is evidence. If it does not — the document, body or court is supposedly not sufficiently correct.

He is not convicted — that is a fact that must be respected. But he is not acquitted either — a fact that in the favorable version of his biography is usually spoken much more quietly.

Hrekov likes to ask questions of others. It is time to ask a few questions of Hrekov himself.

A criminal case that supposedly no longer exists, but there is no acquittal either

Court documents include criminal case No. 1203/7249/12, also marked with number No. 37/12/9074. In 2012 year Mykola Hrekov was accused under two articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine:

part one of article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — “Abuse of power or official authority” in the version in force at the time of the alleged events;

part three of article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — “Receiving a bribe” under the qualified composition of the crime in the version of 2012 year.

Along with Hrekov, Oleksandr Mykhailovych Krimerman and Vitalii Mykolaiovych Koriukin were mentioned in the court materials; they were also accused under part three of article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

14 May 2012 year the criminal case was opened. 26 July Hrekov was indicted and placed in custody. 6 August 2012 year he was released, and 15 August the prosecutor approved the indictment and sent the case to the Artemivsk District Court of the city of Luhansk. [2]

So this was not a random mention in the media or an anonymous rumor. The investigation shaped charges and the prosecutor sent the materials to court.

But there was no verdict. Not because the court examined the evidence and found Hrekov innocent. And not because the prosecutor recognized the case as fabricated. In 2014 year after the occupation of Luhansk, the Artemivsk District Court ceased operations, and the materials remained on uncontrolled territory and were effectively lost.

This is where the magic of phrasing begins in the public retelling: lost materials gradually turn into “absence of a case,” absence of a verdict — into “confirmed innocence,” and the state’s inability to complete the process — almost into certification of personal integrity.

Attempt to restore the materials: court refused

In 2018 year Hrekov applied to the Bilokurakynskyi District Court of Luhansk region with a motion to restore the lost materials and schedule the case for trial. 3 October 2018 year in case No. 409/1874/18 the court refused: the provided documents were insufficient to accurately restore the proceedings. [2]

The reason for the refusal — not Hrekov’s exoneration. The court only stated that from several fragments it is impossible to assemble a full criminal case.

The court did not relieve Hrekov of liability under article 365

14 January 2021 year Hrekov filed a motion to be released from criminal liability under part one of article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to expiration of the statute of limitations. 27 January 2021 year the Bilokurakynskyi District Court in case No. 409/104/21 refused. 18 March 2021 year the Luhansk Court of Appeal left that ruling unchanged. [2]

Therefore the formula “the court relieved Hrekov under article 365” does not match the chronology. The court did the opposite — it refused. The word “refuse” does not transform into “grant” no matter how many times the story is retold in a more convenient edition.

7 July 2021 year in case No. 409/337/21 the materials were sent to the Luhansk Regional Prosecutor’s Office to organize additional investigation. 2 November 2021 year the Luhansk Court of Appeal left the relevant decision in force. [2]

21 December 2021 year information was entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations under No. 42021130000000187 only under part three of article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The episode under part one of article 365 was not re-entered by the prosecutor, based on its legal assessment of Hrekov’s status. This was a decision of the pre-trial investigation body, not an acquittal verdict of a court. [2]

Materials disappeared a second time

In 2022 year due to the occupation of Sievierodonetsk partially collected materials were lost a second time. 24 May 2023 year the court restored only a small portion of documents, which proved insufficient for a final procedural decision. [2]

Thus, the state lost the case materials twice because of the occupation. For Hrekov this is years-long legal uncertainty. For society — the impossibility of knowing what evidence the investigation collected, whether it was admissible, and whether the prosecution would have held up in a full court trial.

The case did not end with either a guilty or an acquittal verdict. The state’s procedural catastrophe is not a personal certificate of moral purity.

Military service: heroism is not a procedural document

In the fall of 2014 year, roughly two years after the criminal case was opened and the indictment materials sent to court, Mykola Hrekov went to serve. Radio Liberty reported that he joined the volunteer battalion “Aidar,” applied to the Starobilsk military commissariat, served in military unit No. 0624 and was stationed in Shchastia. [3]

In his declaration for 2016 year he listed service as an officer in the mobilization department of the Darnytsia District Military Commissariat in the city of Kyiv. [6]

These are real facts of his biography that deserve respect. But military service cannot be an answer to a criminal-legal question that arose two years earlier.

A uniform, a chevron, and combat experience do not cancel an indictment. Likewise, an indictment without a verdict does not cancel the merits of a serviceman.

Did Hrekov go to serve specifically to restore his reputation? There is no documentary evidence of such a motive. But the chronology remains: first the criminal case in 2012 year, roughly two years later — military service.

A rifle is not a certificate from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations. And the Unified Register does not annul military service.

The state supposedly ruined his life. The court asked for evidence

In civil case No. 757/13027/24 Hrekov sued the State Treasury Service of Ukraine and the Luhansk Regional Prosecutor’s Office. He linked years-long criminal prosecution to moral suffering, health problems, career, finances and family life. [2]

1 April 2026 year the Darnytsia District Court of Kyiv dismissed the claim in full. The court did not see proper evidence of unlawful actions by specific state bodies, the amount of moral damage, causation, or the existence of an acquittal verdict or closure of proceedings on rehabilitative grounds. [2]

The narrative of a life ruined by the system proved more emotionally powerful than the evidentiary base submitted to the court.

3 June 2026 year the Kyiv Court of Appeal opened proceedings on the appeal. As of 4 August 2026 year there was no final appellate decision on the merits. [4]

Another case — No. 757/45283/21 — against the State Treasury Service and the Luhansk Regional Prosecutor’s Office also remains under review. Therefore claims that courts have already established the unlawfulness of Hrekov’s prosecution are not supported by documents.

Pension Fund: here Hrekov did partially win

In case No. 120/4317/25 Hrekov challenged actions of the main administrations of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Vinnytsia region and in the city of Kyiv. 13 June 2025 year the first-instance court refused, but 9 September 2025 year the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal partially satisfied the complaint: it annulled the refusal, obliged to count specified work periods toward insurance experience and to reexamine the application. [5]

The court did not appoint a pension retroactive to 14 February 2025 year and did not recognize all claimed periods. It was a partial victory. In the declaration for 2025 year Hrekov already indicated 145 622 hryvnias of pension.

Therefore the claim that he “constantly sues the Pension Fund” is exaggerated: in the materials examined only one separate pension case was found in which he partially succeeded.

Declarations: property focus with gradual disappearance of items

2016 year: property sufficient for a separate list

In the corrected declaration for 2016 year Hrekov listed his wife and three children, an apartment of 67,1 sq. m in Luhansk, three land plots, a rented apartment in Kyiv, an unfinished residential building of 200 sq. m in Stanytsia Luhanska and four vehicles. [6]

land plot of 1 000 sq. m in Stanytsia Luhanska;

land plots of 2 000 and 791 sq. m in Luhansk;

Suzuki Jimny 2008 year and Daihatsu Materia 2007 year;

SsangYong Actyon 2011 year, listed under his wife;

specialized vehicle 2003 year.

2022 year: Kyiv apartment in thirds

In the declaration for 2022 year an apartment in Kyiv of 78,05 sq. m appeared, purchased on 25 September 2020 year at the declared cost of 2 018 924 hryvnias. One third of the apartment belonged to Mykola Hrekov, Maria Hrekova and Yuliia Hrekova each. Also listed were an apartment in Luhansk of 71 sq. m and a land plot of 1 000 sq. m. [7]

2023 year: income from part-time work exists, but the separate section for that work is empty

In the declaration for 2023 year declared income totaled 316 281 hryvnias: 149 475 hryvnias from LLC “SLAVDORSTROY”, 47 255 hryvnias from the communal enterprise “VYSHNIVSKVODOKANAL” and 119 551 hryvnia from LLC “KOMEKOSERVICE”. All payments are marked as salary received from part-time employment. [8]

However, in section 15 “Work by part-time employment” it states that information is absent. Income from part-time work exists, but the work itself is not listed in the designated section. Perhaps this is a technical error or a filling peculiarity, but a declaration is not a quest the public must complete without hints.

2024 year: real estate disappears from the registry picture

In the declaration for 2024 year family members, real estate, vehicles, cash assets and banking institutions are not listed. Declared was 461 298 hryvnias of income: 146 690 hryvnias from LLC “SLAVDORSTROY” and 314 608 hryvnias from the communal enterprise “VYSHNIVSKVODOKANAL”. Both payments are again marked as salary from part-time work, and the section about that work is empty again. [9]

2025 year: mayor without a mayoral salary

In the declaration for 2025 year, filed on 20 March 2026 year, Hrekov named his main workplace as Oleksandrivsk City Council and his position as mayor. Total income was 782 029 hryvnias: 145 622 hryvnias of pension, 488 615 hryvnias from the communal enterprise “VYSHNIVSKVODOKANAL” and 147 792 hryvnias from LLC “SLAV GROUP”. [10]

This time the part-time work section lists paid work as a civil protection specialist at the water utility and paid work as an adviser in a private company.

But no real estate, family members, vehicles, cash assets, banking institutions or financial liabilities subject to declaration are present.

Where did one third of the Kyiv apartment go? On what legal basis did declaring the apartment and land in Luhansk cease? What happened to other plots, the unfinished house and the vehicles listed in 2016 year?

Occupation may deprive access to property, but it does not automatically terminate ownership. Without information from the State Register of Property Rights it is impossible to assert that Hrekov transferred property to others. But ownership terminates on a specific legal basis — sale, gift, division, court decision, destruction of the object or another legally defined circumstance — and that basis must have a document.

8 January 2026 year Hrekov purchased a KIA Sportage 2019 year for 600 000 hryvnias and the next day timely notified NACP of a substantial change in his property status. [11]

When property appears — Hrekov knows how to declare it. It remains to explain with documents on what basis things that were previously in declarations disappeared.

Mayor without a mayoral salary: income from the communal enterprise

In declarations for 2023–2025 years Hrekov lists his main workplace as Oleksandrivsk City Council and his position as mayor. In the Unified State Register he is still recorded as head of Oleksandrivsk City Council, EDRPOU code 25963969. [12]

But salary from Oleksandrivsk City Council does not appear in these declarations. Instead there is income from the communal enterprise “VYSHNIVSKVODOKANAL”: 47 255 hryvnias for 2023 year, 314 608 hryvnias for 2024 year and 488 615 hryvnias for 2025 year.

The mayoral position appears in the declaration. A mayoral salary does not. A communal salary does. It remains to explain how this arrangement aligns with the law.

What the law prohibits

Paragraph four of article 12 of the Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Government in Ukraine” establishes that a mayor may not combine official activity with another position, even on a public basis, or engage in other paid or entrepreneurial activities, except for explicitly provided legal exceptions. [14]

Point 1 of part one of article 25 of the Law of Ukraine “On Preventing Corruption” also prohibits persons authorized to perform local self-government functions from engaging in other paid or entrepreneurial activities, except for teaching, scientific, creative activities, medical practice, instructor and judicial sports practice and other cases expressly defined by law. [15]

Work as a civil protection specialist at a municipal water utility does not fall under the traditional professional exceptions. Therefore, if Hrekov actually exercised mayoral powers, his paid work at the water utility could conflict with the established restrictions.

War-time exception: without personnel documents there is no answer

During martial law point 2–8 of section XIII of the Law “On Preventing Corruption” provided a special relaxation for certain officials who were on unpaid leave, were in downtime or, in the current wording, in case of suspension of the employment contract. Until 30 May 2026 year the exception provided employment primarily in private legal entities or sole proprietors under additional conditions. Law No. 3812-IX expanded possibilities, including appointments to military administrations, local self-government bodies and public-law legal entities. [17]

But the questioned water utility income was received in 2023–2025 years — before the expanded rules took effect on 30 May 2026 year.

From the declarations it is impossible to determine whether Hrekov was on unpaid leave, was registered as in downtime, who issued the relevant document and on what legal basis the personnel service of the water utility considered the part-time job permissible.

Council is already in Kyiv. Why does the mayor work elsewhere?

Hrekov was elected Oleksandrivsk mayor in 2010 year. In a public interview it was reported that after the criminal case opened in 2012 year he was suspended from duties. Since 2014 year Oleksandrivsk has been under occupation, so full mayoral work directly on the community’s territory is objectively impossible. [13]

But the claim that occupation automatically excludes any work of a local self-government body on controlled territory is too convenient a generalization. Practice varies: in some communities powers are exercised by military administrations, in others bodies and their subdivisions continue to work in relocation with limited powers.

The official website of Mariupol City Council, for example, reports that its CNAP operates in relocation conditions through outreach centers in Kyiv, Dnipro, Lviv, Odesa and other cities. Thus, temporary occupation changes the place and format of work, but does not always stop it entirely. [26]

Oleksandrivsk City Council also did not remain only an entry with a Luhansk address. As of July 2026 year the legal entity has status “registered” and address: 02130, Kyiv, Larysa Rudenko Street, building 6-A, office 709, room 10. Its head in registry records is listed as Mykola Hrekov. [12]

The same records contain an important detail: Hrekov’s appointment date — 11 November 2010 year, term — four years. Such an entry may be historical or not updated, yet it is the one Hrekov effectively supports with his own declarations, naming the council as his main workplace and himself as mayor. [12]

The law allows the formation of military administrations of settlements, and the scope of powers of a council and mayor in each community depends on specific acts of the President, the Verkhovna Rada and the legal regime of the relevant administration. Therefore the Kyiv address alone does not prove that Oleksandrivsk City Council has a staff, a budget and actually holds meetings. [27]

At the same time this address undermines the simple explanation “I do not work as mayor because the city is occupied.” Occupation explains the impossibility of sitting in an office in Oleksandrivsk. It does not explain why a legal entity registered in Kyiv and headed by Hrekov in the register does not pay him a salary, while he receives paid work at the water utility of another community and in a private company.

In the declaration for 2016 year Hrekov listed the position of Oleksandrivsk mayor as unpaid part-time work, while naming the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Darnytsia District Military Commissariat as his main place of service. In declarations for 2022–2025 years the construction changed: the council is already named the main workplace, although there is no income from it. [6]

Why he works elsewhere but continues to list himself as mayor cannot be determined from the declaration. Legally plausible explanations include: preserved electoral powers due to absence of new elections; unpaid leave; downtime; suspension of duties; transfer of certain powers to a military administration; or simply an outdated register entry. Each version must be supported by a specific decision or order, not by a title in a post.

If the council effectively works in Kyiv — where are its decisions, budget, staffing schedule, reports, citizen reception and the mayor’s salary? If the council does not work — where is the document on downtime, leave, suspension of powers or another legal regime? If the four-year term expired long ago — on what legal basis does the title continue to appear in declarations?

It turns out the council is alive enough to give Hrekov the status of mayor and “main workplace,” but not alive enough to show the public a salary, apparatus and work results. Instead, workplaces at the water utility and private company proved fully viable.

Violation of compatibility restrictions carries administrative liability under article 172-4 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. The composition of the offense can be established only by an authorized body and a court after checking personnel documents.

Declarations contain signs of possible incompatibility. The legality of work at the water utility depends on personnel grounds,

which are not publicly available.

Booking (reserve status): mayoral position in the declaration, but the basis is off-camera

When analyzing the provided printout labeled “Information IP ‘Oberih’”, a record was found that Mykola Hrekov had a status of “reserved until a certain date” and a deferment effective until 13 February 2027 year. The editorial team does not publish the image of the document because it contains an excessive amount of personal and military-registration data not necessary to cover the question of the booking basis. [28]

At the same time the provided printout does not contain information by which one can reliably identify the body, institution or enterprise that submitted Hrekov for booking. Therefore to assert that he was booked by Oleksandrivsk City Council, the communal enterprise “VYSHNIVSKVODOKANAL” or LLC “SLAV GROUP” without an additional official document would be a supposition, not an established fact.

Article 24 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization” defines the purpose of booking as ensuring the functioning of state authorities, local self-government bodies, enterprises, institutions and organizations in a special period. Part one of article 25 of this Law provides that all conscripts who hold the positions of village, settlement and city heads are subject to booking. [29]

Thus, if Hrekov legally continues to hold the position of Oleksandrivsk mayor, the fact of his booking under that position is permitted by law and is not proof of a violation. The procedure approved by Cabinet of Ministers resolution No. 76 of 27 January 2023 year provides for booking via lists through the Diia Portal and verification of information by the Register’s means. [30]

But legality of the procedure does not remove the public question about its substance. If the basis was indeed the mayoral position, what specific functions of the local self-government body does Hrekov ensure? Where are his orders, reports, citizen reception, the apparatus’s work, decisions regarding the needs of the evacuated community? It becomes a rather refined bureaucratic construct: the mayor’s salary is absent from the declaration, visible mayoral work results must be sought with a magnifying glass, yet the position itself may have been effective enough to secure booking.

If the booking was arranged by another employer, it is logical to name that employer and the legal basis: which enterprise submitted the list, by what decision it obtained the corresponding status and what critically important work does Hrekov perform there. The declaration itself does not provide an answer. It only shows that in 2025 year he received salary from part-time work at the communal water utility and a private company.

At the same time it would be legally incorrect to automatically declare booking illegal merely because of the word “part-time.” The current rules do not reduce all booking cases exclusively to the main place of work: category of person, their employment relations, status of the institution or enterprise and proper submission of information matter. That is why the editorial team asks about the source and basis of the booking, rather than substituting verification with a ready-made accusation.

The Ministry of Defense explains that booking may be annulled, among other reasons, in case of dismissal from the body or enterprise, liquidation of the relevant body or employer, depriving the enterprise of critically important status, temporary suspension of the employment contract or a justified submission by the head. Thus, for legality what matters is not only the title but the current legal link with the body or enterprise that arranged the booking. [31]

The city is occupied, the mayoral salary is absent in the declaration, work is listed in other organizations, and the booking is valid. The simplest detail remains to be disclosed: who, in what position and to perform what work arranged it.

Head of a public organization whom the registry does not list as head

In public space Mykola Hrekov is regularly presented as the head of the Public Organization “Public Movement of ATO Participants and Citizens from Temporarily Occupied Territory ‘Nova Natsia’”, EDRPOU code 40125525.

He was even called that in an official message of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. [19]

However, current information compiled on the basis of the Unified State Register names Vyacheslav Yuriyovych Serpokrylov as the organization’s head. Hrekov appears as a founder, but not as the acting head of the legal entity. [18]

In section 16 of the declaration for 2025 year Hrekov also did not indicate membership in governing, audit or supervisory bodies of organizations subject to declaration.

Perhaps “head” is an informal or honorary title. Perhaps the organization did not update its data. But the fact is simple: publicly Hrekov — head, while in the registry Hrekov — founder under another person’s leadership.

It seems the public title “head” proved far more resilient than the legal registry entry about the leader.

ARMA: an application was submitted, rejection too — and the reason was given in writing

The full name of ARMA is the National Agency of Ukraine on the Detection, Tracing and Management of Assets Obtained from Corruption and Other Crimes.

28 January 2026 year the agency invited representatives of legal entities to join a working group to assess corruption risks. Applications were accepted until 9 February. [20]

30 January 2026 year the NGO “Public Movement of ATO Participants and Citizens from Temporarily Occupied Territory ‘Nova Natsia’” submitted to ARMA application No. 3001-1 to include its proposed representative Mykola Hrekov in the working group to assess corruption risks. [32]

By official letter No. 954/1-32-26/14 of 10 February 2026 year ARMA informed about refusal to include the proposed candidate. The letter stated a specific reason: in the agency’s assessment, the application did not reflect information about the candidate’s motivation, his profile professional experience in ARMA’s activity areas and/or in the field of prevention and counteraction of corruption. [32]

In ARMA order No. 36 of 13 February 2026 year Mykola Hrekov is not included in the working group. External representatives included Taras Riabchenko and Tetiana Khutor from NGO “Institute of Legislative Ideas.” [21]

Thus the earlier assumption of no personal written response must be rejected. The refusal was not silent and not without reason. ARMA formalized it with a separate letter and pointed to deficiencies in the submitted application. This does not prove that Hrekov lacks anti-corruption experience. It proves that, in the agency’s assessment, such experience and motivation were not properly reflected in the competition document.

The letter contains one more telling detail. It is addressed to the head of “Nova Natsia” Vyacheslav Serpokrylov and separately to Mykola Hrekov. Thus in official correspondence Hrekov appears as the proposed representative of the organization, while the head is named as another person. This fully accords with current registry information and poorly accords with the public self-presentation of Hrekov as the head of this NGO.

In a post of 28 July Hrekov called the response “stupid, worthless bureaucratic formality,” and the refusal — political sabotage. He leveled a number of sharp accusations against ARMA’s leadership, but the emotional post by itself does not refute the application’s stated deficiency contained in the official letter. [33]

Here the irony is hard to invent better than the document itself. A person publicly presents himself as the country’s uncompromising fighter against corruption, yet the agency whose working group he sought to join reports: the application insufficiently showed motivation and profile experience. Instead of publishing the full package of submitted materials and item-by-item proving their compliance with the Methodology, Hrekov responds with personal attacks on the official who signed the letter.

One cannot claim ARMA rejected Hrekov because of his old criminal case: the letter does not state such a reason. But the situation looks almost literary — a person whose criminal history is linked to part three of article 368 of the Criminal Code sought to join an assessment of corruption risks at the state agency, and after the refusal declared the agency’s leadership itself a corruption risk.

A loud post may gather reactions but does not replace motivation, profile experience and a properly completed application. When the competition commission asks for documents, self-proclaimed uncompromisingness proves insufficient.

A nickname — “execute,” self — understand and justify

13 May 2021 year ProUA channel published a video titled: “The Kyiv gang headed by Klychko must be executed for what they did to Kyiv! — Hrekov”. [22]

Criticizing Kyiv’s mayor Vitali Klychko, the city budget and municipal enterprises is lawful. Demanding audits and investigations is necessary. But the word “execute” does not belong to legal argumentation. It is rhetoric of a verbal scaffold.

It sounds especially odd coming from a person who in his own case rightly demands presumption of innocence, due process, admissible evidence and a final court decision.

For himself — fourteen years of legal explanations. For an opponent — three minutes of video and the word “execute.”

If the headline distorted his words, Hrekov has the right to demand a retraction. If the statement was a metaphor — he should explain it. But the presumption of innocence cannot operate personally only for the owner of a moral megaphone.

“Our Sasha”: when moral maximalism meets personal sympathies

7 April 2026 year the National Police of Ukraine reported the exposure of a scheme of fictitious employment, booking of conscripts, arranging business trips and illegal transfer of men across the state border. Police reported four suspects, at least 40 clients and seizure of over five million hryvnias. [23]

The official release did not name the surname of the main figure. “Ukrainska Pravda,” citing law enforcement sources, reported that investigators consider him to be Oleksandr Mykolaiovych Matrosov — head of the Luhansk Regional Boxing Federation. [24]

Matrosov is a suspect, not convicted. His guilt can only be established by a court.

In the public post provided to the editorial team Hrekov calls Matrosov “our Sasha.” This by itself does not prove shared business or Hrekov’s involvement in the scheme imputed to Matrosov. But such a warm formulation at least indicates personal affinity and makes the question about the nature of their relationship quite reasonable.

This question becomes even more interesting given Matrosov’s long public trail. Regional materials called him known in criminal circles by the nickname “Matros.” An anonymous publication in 2012 year directly linked him to control of drug trafficking in the region, and a profile outlet in April 2026 year wrote that he was allegedly previously held administratively, including for drug dealing. These are media assertions, not facts established by a conviction. [34] [35]

So what exactly connects Mykola Hrekov with Oleksandr Matrosov? A country acquaintance, boxing, political contacts, joint projects, financial interests or something more? While Hrekov generously hands out moral verdicts to others, the answer to this simple question somehow remains behind the scenes.

Perhaps this question should be separately examined by authorized services: check contacts, joint initiatives, possible financial and political ties, and determine whether there is something more behind the words “our Sasha” than friendly rhetoric. Not for a verdict via Facebook, but for an answer with documents — by the standard of evidence Hrekov so insistently demands for himself.

For Klychko — “gang” and “execution.” For Matrosov — a warm “our Sasha.” Hrekov’s moral compass, it seems, is not broken: he simply differentiates very precisely between his own and others.

Acquaintance or friendship with a suspect is not a crime, and mentions in old publications do not replace a court verdict. But for a person who claims the role of uncompromising moral prosecutor, the circle of personal sympathies and the selectivity of public outrage are a legitimate subject of public interest.

Political ambitions: two attempts to become a people’s deputy

According to the Chesno movement, in 2014 year Mykola Hrekov ran for the Verkhovna Rada for the Radical Party of Oleh Liashko, and in 2016 year — as a self-nominated candidate. In both cases he did not become a people’s deputy. [25]

Political ambitions are not a flaw. But they explain the persistent construction of an image as a soldier, public leader, anti-corruption fighter, head of an organization and exposer of state shortcomings.

The problem begins when self-presentation becomes more important than registries: head — while another person is listed as head in the Unified State Register; anti-corruption fighter — while his own proceeding was not concluded with an acquittal; a model of transparency — while property and part-time work require documentary explanations; defender of justice — but for opponents the word “execute” is ready.

It becomes not a biography but a collection of titles, each requiring a small-print note.

Questions Hrekov should answer with documents

What is the current procedural status of criminal proceeding No. 42021130000000187 under part three of article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine?

Does he have an order closing the proceedings, canceling the suspicion or another final procedural document?

Why does the version spread that he was released from liability under part one of article 365 of the Criminal Code, if courts denied the corresponding motions?

On what legal basis did declaring one third of the Kyiv apartment, the apartment and land in Luhansk, the unfinished house and vehicles cease?

Why are the incomes for 2023 and 2024 years labeled as salary from part-time work, while the section on part-time work does not contain the corresponding positions?

Why does the declaration for 2025 year not list banking institutions despite the presence of salary and pension payments?

Was he in 2023–2025 years on unpaid leave, in downtime or suspended from performing the mayor’s duties? What is the number and date of the document?

When and on what document basis did Oleksandrivsk City Council change its legal address to Kyiv? Does it have an active apparatus, a budget, a staffing schedule and an official place for citizen reception?

Why does the register still contain information about Hrekov’s appointment in 2010 year for a four-year term, while the declaration for 2025 year names him as the current mayor?

On what legal basis did the mayor receive paid work at the communal enterprise “VYSHNIVSKVODOKANAL” and in private companies?

Which specific body, institution or enterprise submitted Hrekov for booking, in what position and on what decision basis? If the basis is the mayor’s position — what specific powers does he actually exercise?

Is he the acting head of the NGO “Nova Natsia”? If so, why does the Unified State Register list another person as head?

Why in the NGO “Nova Natsia” application No. 3001-1 of 30 January 2026 year, in ARMA’s assessment, was Hrekov’s motivation and profile experience not properly reflected? Where is the full package of documents submitted with the application?

What exactly did he mean in the video whose headline contained a call to “execute” people associated with Kyiv’s mayor?

What is the nature of his relationship with Oleksandr Matrosov and did he call him “our Sasha”?

Not a verdict, but a documentary portrait

Mykola Hrekov is not a convicted corrupt official. To assert the opposite would be to spread false information.

But he is also not a person acquitted by a court for the circumstances imputed in 2012 year. His case did not end in a defense victory: it was not considered on the merits due to occupation, twofold loss of materials and the state’s inability to restore the full evidentiary array.

Courts denied his motions to be released from liability under part one of article 365 of the Criminal Code. A first-instance court refused compensation for alleged unlawful prosecution. The public title of NGO head does not match registry information about the leader. Declarations show property and rights that later cease to be reflected without public explanation. The mayor’s part-time work at a communal enterprise requires verification of personnel grounds. The provided printout “Information IP ‘Oberih’” contains a record of an active booking but does not name the body or enterprise that arranged it. ARMA formally refused to include Hrekov in the working group, citing insufficiently shown motivation and profile experience in the application. And the demands regarding presumption of innocence do not prevent him from using punitive rhetoric toward opponents.

None of this proves a crime was committed. But it destroys the image of an unassailable moral authority who can judge everyone else’s purity without explaining his own contradictions.

Hrekov may continue to call himself a fighter, a head, an exposer and a principled public figure. But registries have one unpleasant trait: they do not applaud, do not take offense, do not run election campaigns and do not adapt to the loudness of one’s voice.

Sometimes one line in a registry speaks about a person far more than a hundred of their loudest speeches.

Sources and documents

Below are the main open sources used to verify facts. Numbers in square brackets correspond to citations in the text.

[1] Criminal Code of Ukraine. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2341-14

[2] Darnytsia District Court of Kyiv, decision of 1 April 2026 year in a case on compensation for damages. https://opendatabot.ua/court/135423237-ad148dd4e2f15952b6e48d4d7757dc07

[3] Radio Liberty, material about Mykola Hrekov’s service, 28 September 2014 year. https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/26609881.html

[4] Kyiv Court of Appeal, opening of appellate proceedings of 3 June 2026 year. https://opendatabot.ua/court/137128311-58594cc7cf3188a8f76d73aa983b49e5

[5] Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal, case No. 120/4317/25. https://opendatabot.ua/court/130080632-2955f7ab77b48098dfa5fe2560f7ffca

[6] NACP, corrected declaration of Mykola Hrekov for 2016 year. https://public.nazk.gov.ua/documents/ba056a02-45aa-4b1d-8445-2b753957cdf7

[7] NACP, declaration for 2022 year. https://public.nazk.gov.ua/documents/4162c932-9517-4775-bbd5-03e03a2f30fb

[8] NACP, declaration for 2023 year. https://public.nazk.gov.ua/documents/980efea0-cfa6-47d3-8737-38fc6e43c0b9

[9] NACP, declaration for 2024 year. https://public.nazk.gov.ua/documents/f03ffbd6-782c-46e5-8fab-53fe5d0d571a

[10] NACP, declaration for 2025 year. https://public.nazk.gov.ua/documents/38d390e0-5b32-481b-ac77-e0785f8fbf5c

[11] NACP, notice of acquisition of a KIA Sportage. https://public.nazk.gov.ua/documents/cb3d92c2-7f4e-4e53-b3ec-a6bb70d32a86

[12] Oleksandrivsk City Council, registry records. https://opendatabot.ua/c/25963969

[13] Hromadske Radio, interview with Mykola Hrekov. https://hromadske.radio/podcasts/klyuch-yakyy-zavzhdy-zi-mnoyu/u-lugansk-ya-ne-povernusya-poky-tam-ne-bude-metro-a-yogo-ne-bude-nikoly-grekov

[14] Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Government in Ukraine.” https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/280/97-%D0%B2%D1%80

[15] Law of Ukraine “On Preventing Corruption.” https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1700-18

[16] NACP clarifications regarding restrictions on compatibility and combining positions. https://wiki.nazk.gov.ua/category/konflikt-interesiv/n9-obmezhennya-shhodo-sumisnytstva-ta-sumishhennya-z-inshymy-vydamy-diyalnosti/

[17] Law of Ukraine No. 3812-IX of 18 June 2024 year. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/3812-20

[18] NGO “Nova Natsia”, registry records. https://opendatabot.ua/c/40125525

[19] Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, message of 2 July 2025 year. https://www.rada.gov.ua/news/news_kom/263589.html

[20] ARMA, announcement about forming a working group to assess corruption risks. https://arma.gov.ua/news/typical/arma-zaproshue-ohochih-doluchitisya-do-skladu-robochoi-grupi-z-otsinyuvannya-koruptsiynih-rizikiv-u-yogo-diyalnosti

[21] ARMA, official list of orders, including order No. 36 of 13 February 2026 year. https://arma.gov.ua/en/nakazy-agentstva

[22] ProUA, video of Mykola Hrekov’s speech regarding Vitali Klychko. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIDnH1FTEHA

[23] National Police of Ukraine, message of 7 April 2026 year. https://npu.gov.ua/news/prodavaly-bron-ta-vyizd-za-kordon-natspolitsiia-zatrymala-uchasnykiv-skhemy-na-choli-z-kryminalnym-avtorytetom

[24] Ukrainska Pravda, identification of Oleksandr Matrosov with reference to law enforcement sources. https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2026/04/07/8029088/

[25] Chesno movement, profile of Mykola Hrekov. https://www.chesno.org/politician/23005/

[26] Mariupol City Council, CNAP work under relocation. https://mariupolrada.gov.ua/page/centr-nadannja-administrativnih-poslug

[27] Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law”. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/389-19

[28] Document provided to the editorial team: printout “Information IP ‘Oberih’” with a record of booking; not published due to personal and military-registration data.

[29] Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization”, articles 24–25. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/3543-12

[30] Cabinet of Ministers resolution No. 76 of 27 January 2023 year: procedure for booking conscripts. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/76-2023-%D0%BF

[31] Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, official clarification “Booking and deferment”. https://mod.gov.ua/bronyuvannya-ta-vidstrochka

[32] ARMA letter No. 954/1-32-26/14 of 10 February 2026 year “On the results of reviewing the application”, provided to the editorial team; recipients’ email addresses are not published.

[33] Publication by Mykola Hrekov of 28 July 2026 year regarding ARMA’s refusal with an attached copy of the official letter; screenshots provided to the editorial team.