The “Monaco Battalion” Case: 134 Rulings and No Convictions

In August 2022 the State Bureau of Investigation opened criminal proceeding No.62022000000000619 following an investigation into representatives of the political, security, and business elites who were abroad during the full-scale war. Over four years, the proceeding, which was linked to the “Monaco Battalion,” changed its roster of figures: the court register now contains 134 rulings, and the most recent materials concern the review of the declaration of a deputy of the Khmelnytskyi district council. This was reported by the outlet “Maps, Money, Offshore.”

At the start of the investigation, more than 80 people were involved in the case. Those named in publications included Ihor Abramovych, Vadym and Mykhailo Stolary, brothers Hryhoriy and Ihor Surkis, Serhiy Vyazmikin, and Vadym Yermolaiev. The proceeding was opened under part 3 of article 332 of the Criminal Code, which concerns the illegal smuggling of persons across the state border, media report. A separate episode concerned the Surkis brothers. According to information cited in journalistic materials, on 26 February 2022 they left via the Vylok checkpoint. Cash was not declared at the Ukrainian customs, while on the Hungarian side 17,6 million dollars were reported. The circumstances of their departure and the movement of funds became part of the initial informational context of the proceeding.Ihor Abramovych left Ukraine even before the full-scale invasion and was residing in Monaco. The investigation also mentioned his living on a villa linked to Russian banker Borys Davletiarov. Journalists also recorded Serhiy Vyazmikin in Monaco; he previously headed the Department for Economic Protection of the National Police.Separately, SBI investigators checked the circumstances of the departure of a Mercedes-Benz GLS 400 linked to the family of Vadym Stolar. The vehicle crossed the border on 14 March 2022, and on 29 July it was re-registered at the Kyiv service center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, although the car at that time was outside the country. As part of the check, documents were seized from a notary and a handwriting expert examination was ordered.After these episodes, Vadym Stolar, Ihor Abramovych, and the Surkis brothers practically vanished from further public judicial records of this proceeding. Instead, materials began to include regional officials who traveled abroad on business trips, as well as men who crossed the border via the “Shlyakh” system. As a result, the subject of the investigation moved significantly away from the original list of known participants in the story about Ukrainians in Monaco.At the same time, Vadym Stolar later became involved in a different criminal proceeding. In September 2026 the High Anti-Corruption Court imposed a preventive measure on him in the form of bail of 300 million UAH without pretrial detention in the “Forrest Gump” case. The court also placed several procedural obligations on Stolar.17 September, HACC confirmed that Stolar did not pay the court-ordered 300 million UAH bail within the prescribed period. According to the court, the term for payment was five days. Thus, Stolar’s current procedural story is developing within the investigation of NABU and SAPO, not proceeding No.62022000000000619.Other people from the original list also appeared in the information space in connection with different circumstances. In particular, journalists reported that Vadym Yermolaiev was in Monaco in 2026. Serhiy Osherovskyi, according to provided information, was returned from Romania to Ukraine as part of another criminal proceeding related to extorting 1 million dollars.Ihor Abramovych and Serhiy Vyazmikin later appeared in journalistic materials alleging activities in the excise goods markets and VAT operations. Those publications also mentioned Ihor Kupranets and Danylo Hetmantsev. At the same time, those claims remain subjects of journalistic investigations and public accusations and do not amount to established responsibility within the “Monaco Battalion” case.The proceeding No.62022000000000619 is currently under the responsibility of the SBI, whose director is Oleksii Sukhachev. The name Oleksii Sukhachev was mentioned in another context in connection with personnel decisions at the Bureau. In August 2026 the head of the parliamentary anti-corruption committee, Anastasiia Radina, reported the reinstatement at the SBI of Andrii Chapchai, whose assets HACC had ordered confiscated.According to the data published by Radina, this concerns two apartments and a parking space in the capital residential complex “French Quarter 2.” The first-instance HACC decision on the ungrounded assets of Chapchai and his wife was made back in 2024. Chapchai himself explained the origin of the funds as a gift from his wife’s grandmother.Oleksii Sukhachev was also mentioned in public materials related to the “Midas” proceeding. According to the available information, the SBI questioned his deputy Oleksandr Udovychenko. At the same time, claims that Oleksii Sukhachev himself is mentioned in NABU materials remain subject to different interpretations: the Bureau stated that the director’s specific surname does not appear in those materials.Journalists also drew attention to property issues related to Oleksii Sukhachev’s brother, Oleksandr. According to published data, in 2018–2020 he bought 143 apartments and office premises in Kharkiv residential complexes. Some of the properties reportedly cost from 24 to 49 thousand UAH, and about 30 premises were purchased for slightly more than 1 million UAH. The SBI stated it has no information regarding the director’s brother’s real estate.

Over four years, proceeding No.62022000000000619 has changed both in subject and in the circle of people appearing in its judicial history. From the initial review of the circumstances of the departure of more than 80 representatives of the political, security, and business spheres, the case reached episodes involving the “Shlyakh” system, official business trips, and the review of a district council deputy’s declaration. The court register records 134 rulings, while, according to the available court chronicle, there are no verdicts within this proceeding.