Tetiana Zasukha: family agricultural firm with Russian passports employed the wife of scandal-plagued Kravchenko

Tetiana Zasukha and her family have come under scrutiny because of links between the agricultural firm Svitank and the wife of former Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko, as well as because family members hold Russian passports and there is a criminal case concerning the privatization of state lands near Kyiv. In 2026, Oleksandra Kravchenko, the ex-prosecutor’s wife, listed in her declaration that she works for the Zasukha family’s company. At the same time, the firm previously appeared in an NABU investigation into the seizure of roughly one thousand hectares of land from a state enterprise.

According to Ruslan Kravchenko’s declaration filed after he left the office of Prosecutor General, his wife Oleksandra works at the private company Agrofirma Svitank, media report. The amount of her salary is not specified in the document. Oleksandra Kravchenko also uses a gas power plant that belongs to the company. This information was published by the Anti‑Corruption Center, which analyzed declarations and the firm’s corporate links. Svitank belongs to the family of Tetiana and Anatoliy Zasukha. Tetiana Zasukha is a former member of parliament from the Party of Regions who founded the company and managed it for decades. Her husband Anatoliy Zasukha previously headed the Kyiv regional state administration. According to the Anti‑Corruption Center, both have property and documentary links to Russia, including Russian documents or assets on the territory of the Russian Federation. Anatoliy Zasukha, the ACC reports, received a Russian passport after going to Russia in 2005. Tetiana Zasukha has a Russian tax identification number and also an apartment in Moscow on Arbat. Her son Andriy Zasukha, who until 2024 was a deputy of the Kyiv regional council, also holds Russian documents. These include an internal and an international passport of a Russian citizen, a Russian individual tax number, and registration in Moscow. According to published ACC information, Andriy Zasukha’s internal passport was issued in 2008 in Lyubertsy, Moscow region. He received a Russian international passport in September 2015, already after the start of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. In addition, he owns three cars with Moscow license plates. Andriy Zasukha’s registration in Moscow, the organization says, is in the same building on Novy Arbat as his mother’s address, but in the neighboring apartment. Andriy Zasukha also heads the Kolos football club from Kovalivka. Until 2024 he represented the Batkivshchyna party in the Kyiv regional council. Thus, Tetiana Zasukha’s family combines agricultural business, a football project, and political activity, and the information about family members’ Russian documents has drawn separate attention from anti‑corruption organizations.

A separate line of claims against Tetiana Zasukha’s business concerns the privatization of land belonging to the state enterprise Dmytrivka of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences. According to the ACC, in 2018–2019 about one thousand hectares of state land near Fastiv were first moved to reserve and then registered as private property to 462 individuals who were said to be participants in the anti‑terrorist operation. The investigation established circumstances under which some formal owners of the plots might not even have known the land was registered in their names. The ACC reports that some people were paid roughly 400 dollars to sign documents at a notary. After the ownership was formalized, all these plots were acquired by the agricultural firm Svitank, associated with the Zasukha family. The total amount paid to acquire the land, published information says, was about 3,2 million dollars. At the same time, an NABU appraisal valued the land at 714,8 million hryvnias, roughly ten times higher than the price at which the plots were bought. That difference between the purchase price and the expert valuation became one of the key elements of the investigation into possible illegal seizure of state lands. Within this proceeding, suspicions were raised against 12 individuals. The High Anti‑Corruption Court has already issued the first verdict in the case. At the same time, these circumstances need to be distinguished: the fact that the firm purchased the land, the assessment of its value, and the responsibility of specific individuals are separate legal matters. The courts provide the final assessment of each defendant’s actions. Employment of Oleksandra Kravchenko at Svitank adds a connection to the family of the former Prosecutor General. Ruslan Kravchenko’s declaration lists not only his wife’s workplace but also her use of company property — the gas power plant. Information about the amount of Oleksandra Kravchenko’s income from work at the agricultural firm is absent. The mere fact that the ex‑prosecutor’s wife is employed by the Zasukha family’s company does not prove wrongdoing by any participants in this story. Likewise, the possession of Russian passports by Zasukha family members in itself does not establish their involvement in crimes. However, the combination of Svitank’s corporate ties, information about the family’s assets and documents in Russia, and the criminal case concerning state land raises a number of questions about the agricultural business’s activities.