Меню
Соціальні мережі
Розділи
May 12, 2026, 12:50 p.m.
SBU exposes Kherson City Council official on extortion of kickbacks
This article also available in English0
PHOTO: SBU Telegram channel
The director of one of the departments of the Kherson City Council was detained for bribery.
This was reported by the SBU in its telegram channel.
According to the investigation, the official extorted money from an entrepreneur who maintains Starlink stations. The detainee guaranteed the businessman a contract for contract work in the structural units and municipal institutions of the city council, in particular in kindergartens. In exchange for signing the documents, the businessman had to pay the official a 10% kickback from the total amount of the contract. Under these conditions, the official signed five contracts with the contractor for the maintenance of Starlink terminals in two kindergartens, a library, the executive committee and the city council's culture department. In case of refusal to pay monthly bribes, the official threatened the entrepreneur with termination of these agreements. To disguise the "scheme," the contractor was supposed to transfer money to the bank accounts of the detainee's partner.
The SBU officers documented the official's crimes step by step and detained him red-handed while he was making a new tranche of bribes. Following searches at the detainee's work and residence, the SBU seized computer equipment and smartphones with evidence of the transaction. He was served a notice of suspicion under Part 3 Art. 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (abuse of influence). The offender faces up to 8 years in prison with confiscation of property.
Earlier, Intent wrote about an agreement concluded between the Territorial Department of the State Judicial Administration and a private entrepreneur at the end of 2017. The investigation found that the entrepreneur deliberately entered false information into official acts regarding the scope and cost of the work performed.
Despite the established facts of violations, during the trial, the accused filed a motion for exemption from criminal liability. The court agreed with this, taking into account that the statute of limitations provided for by law had expired since the commission of the offenses.
