Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
For five years NABU investigated a case regarding the alleged illegal seizure of 18 hectares of land near one of Ukraine’s largest wholesale markets. According to the investigation’s estimate, the parcels’ value exceeds 160 million hryvnias.
At the same time, the final wording of the suspicion leaves a number of questions unanswered, UNIAN reports.
The criminal investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau concerns 18 hectares of land next to the market. In 2021, nine citizens received these parcels into ownership through privatization, and later sold them to three companies. The investigation believes that in this way the land, with a market value of more than 160 million hryvnias, was illegally seized, and its subsequent sale became a method of “hidden” legalization.
12 August 2026 the investigation was declared complete. NABU detectives Oleksandr Marchuk and Viktor Yarema together with Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Rostyslav Batih completed the pre-trial investigation regarding the land plots near the market.
The prosecution’s position is laid out in two documents published 11 months apart: the notice of suspicion dated 6 September 2025 and the notice of change to the earlier suspicion dated 6 August 2026. Journalists analyzed these documents.
Version of the prosecution
According to the investigation, in spring 2021 there was a corporate conflict between a former member of parliament and a Kyiv developer over control of the market.
During this period the developer allegedly decided to transfer the market’s assets to people under her control. To do this, the land under the market, the investigation claims, was illegally reclassified to another category, which allowed officials at the StateGeoCadastre to dispose of it.
After that 18 hectares were transferred to nine citizens under free privatization, and later the parcels became the property of three companies. During the subsequent resolution of the corporate conflict, the parties, according to the investigation’s version, agreed to jointly use this land plot.
Non-agricultural land
One of the prosecution’s key assertions is that the land was allegedly unlawfully classified as agricultural. At the same time its designated purpose had not changed since 2012: “for the construction, operation and maintenance of a complex of buildings and structures of a wholesale agricultural products market with infrastructure facilities.”
There is another detail: the suspicion itself records that in one land management project different codes are indicated on different pages. In other words, the discrepancy in the documents existed long before the events of 2021.
Nine participants who do not know each other
The investigation includes the nine citizens who received the land parcels in a common construction of the alleged scheme. But the way these people ended up among the recipients is described in the suspicion itself — and that description poorly aligns with the version of a joint agreement.
Nowhere does the prosecution claim that these nine people knew each other, communicated, agreed with one another, or even met. A conspiracy is an agreement, and here there is only a common result.
Moreover, in one of the protocols the prosecution cites as evidence, it is stated that a person was “unaware of the real purpose” of actions related to obtaining the land. In other words, the prosecution’s own evidence says the person did not know what they were participating in.
“Conspiracy” with the other side of the conflict
Separately the investigation asserts that since July 2021 the business owner acted in conspiracy with the former MP. At the same time, the chronology in the notice of suspicion does not match.
The document describes the conflict between them, including court disputes and the battle for control of the market. At the same time it was the former MP’s trusted person who, at the end of May 2021, appealed to NABU with a statement, after which on 7 June the proceeding was registered.
The dates are key: the alleged preliminary conspiracy is dated 15 July 2021. Meanwhile the land parcels were transferred to citizens on 25 May, and the sale and purchase agreements were concluded on 10 and 11 June. In other words, the agreement described in the suspicion arose after the main land transactions.
A case without a victim
Journalists also paid attention to the description of the damage and to whom it was allegedly caused.
In the 2025 version it referred to losses to the state represented by the district administration. In the amended suspicion of 6 August 2026 that construction is gone: the size of the damage, the method of committing the crime and the indication of the property owner have also disappeared.
At the same time the amount 160 013 390 hryvnias remained in the suspicion. Now this is the market value of the parcels, not the amount of anyone’s losses.
Hidden ownership in open registers
Another contradiction, the authors note, concerns the concept of “hidden ownership.” The nine parcels were registered to three companies, and their owners and ultimate beneficiaries are indicated in state registers. Nevertheless NABU and SAP believe this construction was used to hide actual ownership of the land.
However, information about the owners of the parcels and the companies is open. This issue was already raised in the High Anti-Corruption Court: the investigating judge noted that information about the owners is available in the registers.
Therefore the legal qualification changed. In the September 2025 suspicion it was about “acquisition and possession” of property, whereas in August 2026 the same actions were reclassified as “concealment.”
What proves coordinated actions
Among the evidence the prosecution cites to confirm the coordinated actions of participants, two episodes attract attention.
The first is correspondence in which the businesswoman’s trusted person sent a notary documents about the official’s powers. Such an exchange is a routine part of preparing a notarial agreement.
The second is a handwriting examination that confirmed two officials personally signed the documents. At the same time the mere fact that a signature is genuine does not prove an agreement with other participants.
The list of evidence does not include data on conversations, agreements or instructions between the businesswoman and the StateGeoCadastre official. Instead the prosecution concludes coordinated actions from the sequence of events. However, the mere sequence of administrative procedures is not evidence of a conspiracy.
What the defense claims
According to a complaint to the High Anti-Corruption Court, on 31 March 2025 Detective Viktor Yarema called five owners of the land parcels, formally to summon them for questioning. At the same time, the defense alleges, during the conversations the detective began discussing the circumstances of 2021 and presenting the investigation’s version — without conducting an official interrogation and without explaining procedural rights.
The defense claims the conversations were simultaneously recorded as part of a covert investigative action, and the responses obtained were later formalized in protocols on the results of such actions. The defense believes that in this way information was obtained outside the procedural guarantees of interrogation, including the right to a lawyer and the right not to testify against oneself.
Separately the defense states that during interrogations witnesses were shown photographs from migration service files and asked to identify people without carrying out a separate identification procedure.
There was no public NABU position on these specific claims at the time the article was prepared.
Suspicion citing an old version of the Criminal Procedure Code
Journalists noticed that the documents cite article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a version that lost force in July 2021. The memorandum to the same document uses an even older version.
In particular, it does not include the suspect’s right to meet with a defender without time limits and without restrictions on the number of meetings on working, weekend and public holidays. This norm has been in effect for more than five years, yet it was not taken into account.
Why the investigation was completed
In April the court extended the pre-trial investigation period until 6 September 2026 — this is the deadline. In early August SAP prosecutor Rostyslav Batih informed the court that among the unfinished actions remained the preparation of a new or amended suspicion.
6 August the suspicions were changed, and on 12 August NABU announced the completion of the investigation. Thus the final version of the suspicion appeared roughly a month before the expiry of the deadline.
11 months passed between the first suspicion in September 2025 and its new edition in August 2026. During this time no new circumstances were added to the indictment: the descriptive part remained unchanged.
Five years of investigation: consequences and the next stage
Regarding material consequences: property was seized, and according to the market side, this caused the bank to refuse financing the construction of new pavilions. For the market director the court set bail at 5 million, although the prosecutor requested 21 million.
For eleven months procedural restrictions applied to the suspects and were extended six times. According to available versions of the materials, during this time no breaches of court-imposed obligations or attempts to influence witnesses were recorded.
What questions the court must now resolve
After the investigation is completed, the defense must obtain access to the case materials. Then the indictment may be transferred to the High Anti-Corruption Court, where the parties will have to substantiate their positions with evidence.
Key questions include: what status the land had in 2021, what confirms the shared intent of the nine citizens, how the “preliminary conspiracy” from July is related to the transactions in May and June, and what exactly, according to the prosecution, the participants were hiding if the ownership structure was reflected in state registers.
A separate question is who is the victim in the case about land worth more than 160 million UAH, what damage they suffered and why in five years no state body filed a civil claim.
Now these contradictions must be assessed by the court. Five years of investigation should have provided clear answers to basic questions: what property was seized, who lost it, what damage was done, who agreed with whom, and which specific actions constituted a crime.
So far some answers are missing from the final wording of the suspicion or contradict other prosecution materials. Whether this construction will withstand judicial scrutiny is now the main question of the case.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Справа "Столичного" на 160 мільйонів: 5 років розслідування без потерпілого – що далі". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: Channel 24.
