Mykhailo Nahlyi: intoxicated representative of Ukrnafta in an official Land Cruiser involved in an accident

In Kyiv on the night of 24 October 2026, a traffic accident occurred involving an official Toyota Land Cruiser 100, which, according to administrative protocol texts provided to the editorial office, was being driven by Mykhailo Nahlyi, whom Ukrnafta employees call one of the influential representatives of the company’s management. After the collision with parked cars, two protocols were drawn up against the driver: for violating traffic rules that caused property damage, and for operating a vehicle showing signs of alcoholic intoxication.

As stated in protocol EPR1/805169, the accident occurred on Heorhii Kirpa Street, 3, in the area of the Southern Railway Station, media report. The document lists a Toyota Land Cruiser 100 with license plate AA9305KO, whose driver was Mykhailo Nahlyi. According to the description of circumstances, the driver did not choose a safe speed of travel, did not maintain a safe lateral interval and distance. As a result, the vehicle struck two parked cars — a Toyota Corolla and a Renault Trafic. The protocol under article 124 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses records mechanical damage to the vehicles. At the same time, the document states that no one was injured as a result of the collision. Thus, this concerns one accident that damaged two parked vehicles, not two separate crashes. The second document is protocol EPR1/805156, drawn up under part one of article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. It describes signs that, in the police officers’ assessment, could indicate driver intoxication: the smell of alcohol, pronounced trembling of the fingers, and speech disturbance. These signs are included in the administrative file. At the same time, the protocol itself is not a final court decision of guilt, and the circumstances and results of the check must be evaluated according to the procedure established by law. The publication that disclosed information about the accident also claims that after the collision Mykhailo Nahlyi tried to leave the scene. There is no separate confirmation of this circumstance in the cited descriptions of the two administrative protocols. Therefore it requires verification against police materials and explanations from the participants in the accident. The scene is located near the Southern Station, where a significant number of passengers and railway employees are present throughout the day. The accident occurred during curfew hours. At the same time, the provided documents do not indicate whether Mykhailo Nahlyi had a special permit to travel at that time, whether he was performing an official task, or on what basis he was using the company vehicle. The circumstances of the accident drew attention to the possible official status of the driver and his role at Ukrnafta. According to information published by Antikor, citing company employees, Mykhailo Nahlyi came to Ukrnafta together with Bohdan Kukura. Before that they worked at the enterprise Ukrnaftoburinnia, which, the publication notes, belonged to former members of parliament Vitalii Khomutynnik, Pavlo Fuks, and Ihor Kolomoisky.

Sources for the publication claim that during Bohdan Kukura’s tenure at Ukrnafta, Mykhailo Nahlyi rose from a rank-and-file employee to a top official. The editorial sources also assert his significant de facto influence on the company’s management processes. According to their version, Mykhailo Nahlyi participates in decision-making, while Bohdan Kukura does not prevent this distribution of influence. These claims concern the internal management structure of a state company and require official confirmation. The public description of the accident does not include documents that would define Mykhailo Nahlyi’s position, the scope of his powers, or confirm that he has the status of de facto head of Ukrnafta. Nor are there details about whether he used the company vehicle based on permanent assignment, a separate order, or a one-time authorization. A separate question is the possible consequences of the accident for the company and the owners of the damaged cars. If the Land Cruiser belongs to or is assigned to Ukrnafta, the company needs to establish under what circumstances it was used, who approved the trip, and whether it was related to the performance of official duties. The procedure for reimbursing material damage to the owners of the Toyota Corolla and Renault Trafic must also be determined. Antikor reported its intention to address Ukrnafta with requests about the circumstances of the use of the official vehicle, travel during curfew hours, a possible official assignment, and an internal investigation. Among the questions that require answers are whether an internal investigation has been launched, who was held responsible for the use of the vehicle, and who will compensate for the damage caused. For Ukrnafta this story has not only a transport but also a managerial dimension. If employees’ information about Mykhailo Nahlyi’s de facto influence on company decisions is true, there is also public interest in the transparency of his powers and his accountability to leadership. At the same time, the mere filing of administrative protocols does not prove violations by other company officials. As of the time of publication, Antikor’s article does not include an official response from Ukrnafta regarding Mykhailo Nahlyi’s status, the grounds for using the Land Cruiser, or a possible internal investigation. Nor has a final court decision been published on the protocol for operating a vehicle showing signs of intoxication. The positions of Bohdan Kukura and of Mykhailo Nahlyi himself are not presented in the publication. Obtaining explanations from all mentioned individuals and the company remains necessary to fully establish the circumstances.