Denys Komarnitsky Fled to Vienna: Who Stayed in Kyiv’s Scheme?

Denys Komarnitsky, after the exposure of the “Clean City” operation, ended up outside Ukraine, and Arthur Palatny, in whose residence during searches 2021 year, according to prosecutors and investigative journalism, were found $250 pressure, did not receive a suspicion in the land schemes case in Kyiv. 20 January 2026 year NABU and SAP completed the pretrial investigation of proceedings No. 52023000000000154, in which Denys Komarnitsky appears as the head of an organized crime group according to the investigation.

The investigation believes that since 2019 year the group seized Kyiv land by formalizing ownership rights to fictitious real estate objects, after which parcels could be acquired without open bidding. According to NABU, the community could have suffered losses of 11,6 million UAH, and six parcels with a total value of 83,7 million UAH were kept from illicit alienation, journalists report. 6 February 2025 year NABU and SAP conducted a large-scale operation in the “Clean City” case. Police reported seven detainees and a number of suspicions against representatives of the city authorities and related individuals. Denys Komarnitsky was not among those detained. 10 February he was put on the wanted list, and already in March journalists of “Ukrainska Pravda” reported that they found Denys Komarnitsky in Vienna. According to “Ukrainska Pravda,” on his way to the border Denys Komarnitsky was accompanied by people with SBU IDs, employees of the Department of Strategic Investigations of the Zakarpattia region, and a local deputy. These circumstances drew public attention because the flight occurred just before his arrest was announced. Denys Komarnitsky himself publicly did not provide explanations that would change the version of events presented by law enforcement. The problem for the investigation is not only the absence of Denys Komarnitsky in Ukraine. In the case materials his role is described as central: VACs notes that NABU and SAP suspect Komarnitsky of leading an organization that controlled decisions regarding the city land and also influenced personnel appointments and the distribution of funds. According to the investigation, some decisions were actually coordinated outside official city government offices. Declassified listening materials published by journalists added a political and administrative dimension to this picture. In them Denys Komarnitsky, according to journalistic investigation, communicates with representatives of the city government and discusses personnel and land issues. Bihus.Info called him an informal curator of Kyiv’s processes, but these journalistic characteristics are not an independent judicial finding of guilt. In this context, a separate question concerns Arthur Palatny. In journalistic materials he is linked to Denys Komarnitsky and mentioned under pseudonyms such as “neighbor,” “G,” and “senior partner.” According to Bihus.Info, Denys Komarnitsky allegedly reported to Palatny, but Arthur Palatny was not charged in the “Clean City” case. This difference between journalistic materials and procedural status is fundamental. Meanwhile, the story with $250 pressure did not arise within the “Clean City” operation. In May 2021 year Arthur Palatny was subjected to a search as part of a proceeding concerning illegal trade in Kyiv’s underground passages. The prosecutor’s office reported the seizure of draft records that, according to it, could indicate movement of funds and distribution of shares among group members. Journalists associated this episode with also seizure of $250 pressure. After the searches, Arthur Palatny called the actions of law enforcement a political order. Kyiv prosecutors at that time stated that suspicions in that proceeding had not been announced by the time of the searches. Thus, the seizure of money and draft records in itself did not prove guilt or involvement of Palatny, but became one of the episodes later used by journalists to describe his possible influence on Kyiv’s processes. In the “Clean City” case, suspicions were instead directed at direct representatives of Kyiv’s vertical: among them the former deputy head of the Kyiv City State Administration (KCSA) Petro Olenych, the head of Kyiv City Council’s Land Committee Mykhailo Terentyev, and other officials and deputies. In December 2025 year new defendants joined the case — the former deputy head of KCSA Oleksandr Spasybko and his associate Roman Blyumin. In February 2026 year VACs changed their preventive measures to remand in custody due to not posting the required bail. It is here that Denys Komarnitsky’s case goes beyond the story of several land parcels. According to NABU and SAP, it concerned a system in which private interests could gain an advantage over formal city procedures. VACs materials state that the right people were allegedly provided with conditions for unobstructed land acquisition, while other applicants could face artificial barriers. Denys Komarnitsky is not a new figure in Kyiv’s criminal and political histories. Earlier he appeared in a case related to events 2005–2011 years ago, and in 2012 year he received two years’ imprisonment with a probation period. Later journalists linked Denys Komarnitsky to property assets and influence on Kyiv’s decisions. He was also named as one of the people who gained significant influence after Vadym Stolar left Kyiv politics. Another criminal case concerned Denys Komarnitsky’s financial transactions. In 2025 year the BEB informed him of suspicion of tax evasion totaling almost 12 million UAH. According to the investigation, this involved transactions with apartments in Kyiv’s new buildings. This episode is separate from the land case but adds another dimension of claims by law enforcement against Denys Komarnitsky. After the conclusion of the investigation in “Clean City,” the case moves to the next procedural stage. However, the main figure, whom the investigation calls the head of the organization, remains physically outside Ukraine. Arthur Palatny, despite the May 2021 search and journalistic materials mentioning possible connections with Denys Komarnitsky, was not charged in this proceeding.

This circumstance leaves one of the case’s key questions open: to what extent will the future court be able to assess not only the actions of officials and deputies who have already been charged, but also the entire chain of informal influence described by NABU and journalistic investigations. The legal assessment of the actions of the persons involved is for the court, and the completion of the pretrial investigation does not constitute a finding of guilt.