Yuliia Symunina: an OPZZh deputy is pocketing Kyiv’s land

Kyiv council deputy Yuliia Symunina, who entered the city council from OPZZh and is now unaffiliated, simultaneously serves on the capital’s land commission and is connected to real estate business. Against this background, her declaration for 2025 year draws particular attention: Yuliia Symunina listed 658 thousand dollars and 2,29 million hryvnias in cash, as well as multimillion incomes from entrepreneurial and property activities. The question is not about the mere fact of having money, but about the combination of political influence over land issues, business interests, and significant assets.

Yuliia Symunina serves on the Kyiv council’s standing commission on land relations. This is the body through which issues of the use of communal land, plot leases, and renewals of the corresponding agreements pass. At the same time, Yuliia Symunina is a founder of LLC “Tsentralne BTI,” whose activities are related to the real estate sector. In other words, a deputy who participates in reviewing the capital’s land issues has a private business interest in a related sector, media report. A deputy’s business in itself is not a violation. But in Yuliia Symunina’s case the question arises over how clearly her private interests are separated from the decisions she makes as a representative of the community. Especially when it comes to Kyiv’s land assets — a resource whose value is measured not in thousands but in millions of hryvnias. One of the most high-profile episodes concerns the Osokorky Eco-Park. In 2021 year Yuliia Symunina became one of seven co-authors of a Kyiv council draft decision regarding this territory of about 176 hectares. The initiative provided for ending judicial challenges to the developers’ interests. The civic movement CHESNO then warned of corruption risks and pointed to the developer’s debt to the city, estimated at about 200 million hryvnias. This story did not end for Yuliia Symunina. In November 2024 the land commission again considered renewing lease agreements with LLC “Kontaktbudservis.” Yuliia Symunina supported adding the relevant issue to the agenda. Thus, the deputy was among those involved in the subsequent handling of the land issue related to Osokorky. Against this background, Yuliia Symunina’s declarations look especially interesting. In the declaration for 2016 year she did not list income, but she reported a Porsche Panamera, two nonresidential premises in Kyiv, 45 thousand dollars and 200 thousand hryvnias in cash. Over the years the scale of declared savings looks very different. In the declaration for 2025 year Yuliia Symunina reported 658 thousand dollars in cash. Additionally she had 2,29 million hryvnias in cash. Together this forms a cash reserve that is hard to miss even in the declaration of someone with large incomes. At the same time Yuliia Symunina declared about 2,57 million hryvnias of income from entrepreneurial activity and receipts from property transactions. A separate part of Yuliia Symunina’s financial story is linked to Dubai. The declaration lists salary from Symbol Real Estate. In addition, the deputy declared nearly 1,7 million hryvnias received from the sale of movable property of the company Kleemol Car Rental LLC. Thus, her financial receipts were formed not only from Ukrainian deputy activity.

It is important here to separate two questions. The presence of 658 thousand dollars in cash does not automatically mean the funds are illegal. Likewise, entrepreneurial income or property transactions by themselves are not proof of a violation. But large assets oblige a public person to have a clear documentary explanation of their origin, especially when that person participates in the distribution or use of the city’s land resource. In Yuliia Symunina’s case another awkward coincidence arises. On one hand — the Kyiv council’s land commission. On the other — the company “Tsentralne BTI” and activities in the real estate sector. Then — participation in land decisions regarding Osokorky and the lease issue with “Kontaktbudservis.” And in parallel — hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in the declaration. It is precisely this combination of circumstances, not a single figure or single vote, that requires verification. If Yuliia Symunina has no personal interest in specific land issues, that must be confirmed by documents and the circumstances of her participation in decision-making. If a private interest did exist, the public must understand whether conflict-of-interest prevention rules were followed. The dynamics of Yuliia Symunina’s cash assets also deserves special attention. In 2016 year she declared 45 thousand dollars and 200 thousand hryvnias. In 2025 year — already 658 thousand dollars and 2,29 million hryvnias. Growth in assets by itself is not a violation if it is supported by legal income and property transactions. But such a difference between declarations is sufficient grounds to ask about the sources of the accumulation. One more point — political background. Yuliia Symunina received a deputy mandate from OPZZh, and after the faction ceased activity became unaffiliated. Her current work on the land commission no longer has an automatic link to former party affiliation, but that fact remains part of her political biography. As a result, a story forms around Yuliia Symunina in which too many things intersect in one place: Kyiv land, real estate, deputy powers, land decisions, business, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash. None of these facts alone proves wrongdoing. But together they create a perfectly legitimate public demand for a detailed explanation. The NACP within its powers can verify the accuracy of declared information and the consistency of lifestyle with income and assets. Anti-corruption bodies, for their part, can assess specific decisions and actions of officials when lawful grounds exist. In Yuliia Symunina’s case the key question should not be a political label or the amount of cash by itself, but the origin of the assets and the absence of private interest while working with community land. Yuliia Symunina has the right to her own business, income, and savings provided they are legal and properly declared. But a deputy mandate does not give the right to turn city land into a playground for private interests. That is why questions about Yuliia Symunina’s declarations, her business, and participation in land decisions should receive not a political but a documentary answer.