Mykhailo Budilov (DTKK): suspicion, schematized procurement, and family property

Mykhailo Budilov, director of the Kyiv Department of Territorial Control, figures in a case of official negligence related to the viewing wheel on Kontraktova Square. Concurrently, law enforcement is investigating the circumstances of purchases by the department worth millions of hryvnias, and issues of property concern his family’s real estate, vehicles, and possible links to commercial facilities in the capital. These circumstances form several separate lines of public attention to the official’s work.

Mykhailo Budilov heads a department responsible for a number of city-control directions, including the placement of temporary structures and compliance with improvement rules. Before his appointment as head, he was a deputy of Kyiv City Council of the VIII convocation. In 2015 year Budilov became the youngest deputy of this convocation. Earlier he worked as an assistant and was a trusted person of former parliamentarian from the Svoboda party Andriy Illenko, media report. One criminal-law episode relates to the viewing wheel on Kontraktova Square. Budilov was informed of a suspicion of official negligence. According to the investigation, the official did not take necessary measures, as a result the territorial community could have lost more than 2,5 million UAH. This concerns possible losses related to the operation of the attraction and the use of municipal property. The fact of the suspicion notification itself does not prove guilt: a final legal assessment of the circumstances must be provided by the court. Another line of inquiry concerns expenditures of the department he leads. In the criminal case materials there are mentions of purchases of uniform clothing for 3,8 million UAH. Law enforcement also analyzes the purchase of video recorders, during which, preliminary assessment by investigators, the price could have been inflated by about 600 thousand UAH. To establish possible losses, it is necessary to determine the actual cost of goods, contract terms, procurement procedures, and justification of prices. Financial indicators of the department have also changed in recent years. According to the data provided, the institution’s payments volume grew from 29,4 million UAH in 2023 year to 200,1 million UAH in 2025-th year. This increase alone does not indicate a violation, as assessment requires data on expenditure structure, budget allocations, and actual program execution. At the same time, the scale of growth makes questions of procurement transparency and control over spending important. Separately, there are data on the head’s salary. According to publicly available information, Mykhailo Budilov’s income in office during years of full-scale war rose by about 80% compared with 2021 year. A full assessment of this dynamic requires considering base salary, bonuses, allowances, indexation, and changes in the wage system. Without detailed information on accruals, this indicator does not substantiate claims of illicit enrichment. Property issues concern not only the official himself but also his family members. Available information indicates that apartments in the Khakovska residential complex belong to Budilov’s wife, his mother-in-law, and a woman described as a probable aunt of his wife. The latter, according to these data, could have lent the family a house in Germany, while Budilov himself would have a Kyiv apartment. To establish the nature of these relations, important documents on ownership, occupancy, and actual residence are needed. In the family’s property history there is also mention of rent of a municipal premises. In 2020 year Budilov’s wife declared use of such an object, the annual cost of which, according to the data, was about 1,7 million UAH. Her income for the corresponding period was estimated at about 370 thousand UAH. This pairing of sums does not prove a violation, but for assessment, information on contract terms, source of payment, and grounds for occupancy are required.

Also listed among the family’s property are a Toyota Camry and a Toyota Corolla. At the same time, without data on purchase dates, owners, cost and sources of funds, it is impossible to determine whether these assets correspond to declared income. As an official, Budilov is required to comply with financial-control rules, and information about relatives’ property requires verification considering whether it was subject to declaration. Another block of questions is connected with the department head’s father. According to public statements, he owns property in occupied Crimea, works or has worked in Russia, visits Belarus, and acted in Russian films. His name was also linked to the Avdishyev criminal organization, where he allegedly had the nickname “Afghan.” These data require separate documentary confirmation. They are not proof of Budilov’s own involvement in any wrongdoing. A possible conflict of interest is mentioned in connection with a plot on Milyutenko Street, 28-A. According to the data, the department reported the collection of debt from a company related to this territory. There is an apartment of Budilov’s father-in-law on the site, and later construction began on the site, characterized as controversial. To establish a possible conflict of interest, it is necessary to determine who owned the land, what decisions the city authorities made, and whether the department head had influence over these processes. In public context, a criminal case involving the deputy’s brother is also mentioned. It related to a road accident in which passengers of a trolleybus were injured. However, without case materials, the circumstances of the accident or transfer of responsibility to the department head cannot be established. Separately in the past there were accusations of using voter-bribery practices during campaigns, which in Ukrainian political space are called “khrachkoshchyna” (scarecrowing). Such statements also require concrete evidence and proper attribution. The department’s work is criticized also because of the dismantling of temporary structures and complaints from entrepreneurs about possible selective application of rules to small businesses. For evaluating these charges, important criteria include criteria for selecting objects for dismantling, the number of notices, court decisions, and uniform approaches to different owners. These data can show whether city authorities apply uniform rules to all market participants. Thus, around Mykhailo Budilov’s activities emerged questions of different kinds: a criminal case about the viewing wheel, procurement checks, growing budget payments, family property, and possible conflicts of interest. These episodes cannot be merged into a single proven fact of violation. At the same time, they require transparent document verification, explanations from the official, and decisions by competent authorities. Separately, it is important to obtain Mykhailo Budilov’s own position on each of the episodes listed: in the provided information his responses to these questions are not present.