Tender collusion and a billion for the Shuliavka overpass: how Klitschko and Hustelyev "ran" the road scheme on Kyiv residents' money

More than one billion hryvnias for the reconstruction of the Shuliavka overpass, criminal proceedings over the suspected diversion of budget funds, tenders with signs of collusion, and audit violations worth tens of millions. This is the list of stories connected to Kyiv’s road infrastructure during the period when Kyivavtodor was headed by Oleksandr Hustelyev and the city was governed by Vitali Klitschko.

The most high-profile financial episode is the Shuliavka overpass case. The Supreme Court 22 September 2026 year dismissed a cassation appeal in the dispute over recovering from the contractor 1 billion 117 million 440 thousand 774 hryvnias. The original contract value was 598,5 million hryvnias, but after additional agreements it exceeded one billion.

The Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine found collusion in the bidding between the companies “Pivnichno-Ukrainian Construction Alliance” and “Specbud-Plus.” Among the signs of coordinated actions were shared IP addresses, employees, and banking documents. The companies were fined a total of 56 million hryvnias.

A particularly telling detail: it was the municipal enterprise that acted as the work’s customer that challenged the contract’s invalidity. Now the task is to secure actual recovery of more than 1,1 billion hryvnias from the contractor who, according to court materials, is undergoing pre-trial rehabilitation proceedings. A court decision is not yet money returned to the budget. Only actual enforcement of the decision will show whether the community gets the funds back.

Almost 300 million in a criminal case

Oleksandr Hustelyev headed the Kyivavtodor corporation from April 2015 year. In February 2020, Vitali Klitschko appointed him deputy head of the Kyiv City State Administration.

As early as March 2017 year, the SBU and the Prosecutor General’s Office were investigating the suspected embezzlement of nearly 300 million hryvnias through price inflation, use of fictitious companies, and cashing out funds. During searches of the suspects, reports at the time said about 4 million hryvnias in unaccounted cash were seized.

Separately, the State Audit Service uncovered over 11 million hryvnias in inflated expenditures and violations in contracts worth 418 million hryvnias. Hustelyev himself denied that cash had been found directly in the corporation.

These circumstances cannot automatically be interpreted as proven personal involvement of Hustelyev in embezzlement. But the scale of the amounts and the number of episodes demand a clear answer: which violations were confirmed, who was held accountable, and how much was recovered?

11,4 million hryvnias on road markings

Another episode concerns funds allocated for road markings. In criminal proceeding No.12017000000001327 the investigation described an alleged scheme to divert 11 million 412 thousand 401 hryvnias from the 37 million hryvnias budgeted for this work.

According to the case materials, between June and August 2017 year the funds were transferred to the company “DORBUDREZERV-UKRAINA.” At the same time, the investigation claimed that the actual work was carried out by municipal workers while private companies handled documentation and created the appearance of competition.

The materials also mentioned “KOLOR S.I.M.,” “UKRDORPLAST,” and “AVTOMAHISTRAL.” As part of the same proceeding, the court froze 14 050 dollars and 880 euros seized from the head of the Desniansky Road Maintenance Department.

This is the investigation’s version, not a guilt established by a verdict for all mentioned persons. Nevertheless, the question remains fundamental: if road work was paid from the budget, the community has the right to know who actually performed it and what exactly the millions were paid for.

Salt at a price that raised questions

In the case concerning the purchase of technical salt, the investigation examined possible price inflation and fictitious competition. Case materials No.755/1645/17 featured 40 798 tons of salt with a total cost of 36,45 million hryvnias, supplied by the company “KOSTANZA” at prices from 828 to 909,60 hryvnias per ton.

The competitor in the bidding was the company “UKRSILINVEST.” The materials noted that the authorized capital of both companies was one thousand hryvnias each.

Earlier, Kyivavtodor had signed a framework agreement to supply 192 436 tons of salt with the companies TD Artemsol, TD Ukrsnabresurs, and K-2 Investment at prices from 506,55 to 512,50 hryvnias per ton excluding VAT.

The companies’ authorized capital itself does not prove a violation, and price comparisons require consideration of procurement conditions. However, such a noticeable difference is a reason to check whether the capital received the most favorable offers and whether competition was real.

Podilsko-Voskresenskyi Bridge: a fine of 182,6 million

Another major tender scandal is linked to construction of the Podilsko-Voskresenskyi bridge crossing. The Antimonopoly Committee found collusion between the companies “EKO-BUD-TREID” and “FORMA” during bidding for an expected value of 6,103 billion hryvnias.

Among the evidence of coordinated actions the committee cited shared IP addresses, banking devices, and other circumstances indicating participant coordination. The companies were fined 182 million 596 thousand 969 hryvnias.

The total construction cost of the bridge approached 20 billion hryvnias. Journalists linked the contractor to the circle around former Kyiv City Council deputy Denys Komarnytskyi.

In November 2021, Klitschko dismissed Hustelyev from the position of deputy head of the KSCA after problems with the bridge construction deadlines. The dismissal itself does not prove involvement in corrupt offenses, but it raises questions about managerial responsibility for the capital’s multi-billion infrastructure projects.

Audit found violations worth tens of millions

An audit of the municipal enterprise Kyivavtoshlyakhmist for the years 2017–2019 found financial violations totaling 32,2 million hryvnias. Of that, 4,94 million were losses and another 6,6 million were inefficient expenditures.

At that time the enterprise was led by Dmytro Kotlubei, who later became an adviser to Hustelyev. His former deputy, Valentyn Osypov, in February 2020 was appointed head of the transport department of the KSCA.

These personnel links by themselves do not indicate wrongdoing. However, they show how important transparency in managing the city’s infrastructure is, where officials’ decisions affect the use of substantial budget funds.

Hustelyev’s declaration: savings in dollars and euros

In his declaration for 2020 year Oleksandr Hustelyev stated that his family held 115 thousand dollars and 185 thousand euros. His annual income was about 1,64 million hryvnias.

The declaration also listed: an apartment of 74,6 square meters, a parking space of 32,1 square meters, vehicles Lexus RX350, Mercedes-Benz SL500, and a Suzuki VZR1800 motorcycle. Hustelyev’s wife, Olena, worked at the High Qualification Commission of Judges.

Declared savings and assets do not by themselves prove unlawful origin. But in the context of investigations into road procurements they are part of the public information that society has the right to assess along with other facts.

The main question is not the amount of fines, but the return of money

The Kyivavtodor story during Hustelyev’s leadership is not a single episode but a series of cases, audits, and decisions about tenders and the use of budget funds. In different instances there were alleged embezzlements, collusion found by the Antimonopoly Committee, or violations discovered by auditors. These categories should not be conflated: criminal suspicions are not equivalent to a guilty verdict, and a fine for collusion in bidding does not prove the involvement of every official.

But there is a question that cannot be brushed off with formal reports: how much money was actually returned to Kyiv’s budget?

In the Shuliavka overpass case the amount involved is more than 1,117 billion hryvnias that the court ordered to be recovered from the contractor. As long as these funds have not actually been returned, for Kyiv residents this is not a paper victory but a debt that still needs to be collected.

When billions are spent on road projects, the public has the right to demand not only loud statements about oversight but concrete results: transparent procurements, personal accountability where violations are proven, and the real return of budget funds.