New Wave of Suspicion Notices in Kyiv City Administration: Law Enforcement Targets Officials and Municipal Enterprises

June 23, 2026.

    Investigative actions have intensified in Kyiv against a number of Kyiv City State Administration officials and heads of municipal enterprises. At the same time, sources within the city authorities say the new proceedings mostly concern individual episodes rather than the broader system of governance in the capital.
    The Security Service of Ukraine and the National Police are investigating a number of cases related to the activities of officials of the Kyiv City State Administration and municipal enterprises in the capital. This was reported by ZN.UA, citing sources in law enforcement agencies and the Kyiv City Council.
    According to the publication, suspicion notices have already been served to Valentyna Pelykh, director of the Department of Land Resources of the Kyiv City State Administration; Ruslan Kandybor, former director of the Department of Transport; Bohdan Koberniuk, director of the municipal enterprise Kyivshliakhmist; Viacheslav Savytskyi, former head of the municipal enterprise Pleso; as well as individual employees of Kyivteleservice and Informatyka municipal enterprises.
    According to sources, some of the proceedings are being handled by the Security Service of Ukraine, while others are under the jurisdiction of the National Police.
    What Is Known About the Episodes
    The suspicion notice against Valentyna Pelykh, who currently heads the Department of Land Resources of the Kyiv City State Administration, concerns the inventory of Kyiv’s boundaries in 2018. At the time, she served as deputy director of the department.
    According to investigators, budget funds may have been used for works that, in the view of law enforcement, could not have been carried out due to relevant court decisions. At the same time, ZN.UA’s sources within the city authorities describe this episode as debatable, arguing that the inventory was carried out to protect Kyiv’s interests in land disputes.
    Former director of the Department of Transport of the Kyiv City State Administration Ruslan Kandybor, according to sources, received a suspicion notice in a case related to the delivery of buses and other transport vehicles to the capital. The vehicles in question were reportedly provided to Kyiv by international partners as humanitarian aid after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
    Among those mentioned in the investigations are also Bohdan Koberniuk, director of Kyivshliakhmist, and Viacheslav Savytskyi, former head of Pleso, who now heads the city animal shelter. According to ZN.UA’s sources, Savytskyi was served a suspicion notice in absentia.
    Separate investigative actions, according to the publication, concern employees of Kyivteleservice and Informatyka. Preliminary information suggests that these episodes involve purchases of equipment and batteries for city systems.
    How These Cases Differ From Operation “Clean City”
    Sources in the Kyiv City State Administration told ZN.UA that the current wave of suspicion notices differs significantly from the NABU and SAPO operation “Clean City,” which took place in the spring of 2025.
    At that time, anti-corruption agencies announced the exposure of a large-scale scheme involving the illegal seizure of land in Kyiv. The investigation focused on individuals connected to former Kyiv City Council deputy Denys Komarnytskyi.
    The current proceedings, according to sources, mostly concern specific officials, municipal enterprises, and separate episodes of their activities.
    “NABU tried to examine the system. What we are seeing now are suspicion notices against individual officials and heads of enterprises, but we do not see an answer to the question of whether the mechanisms for decision-making in the capital have changed,” ZN.UA quotes one of its sources as saying.
    Questions About Kyiv’s Governance System
    After Operation “Clean City,” some Kyiv City State Administration officials left their posts. However, according to the publication’s sources, there has been no full personnel reset within the city authorities.
    According to ZN.UA’s interlocutors, many managers and officials who held their positions before NABU’s high-profile investigation continue to work within the city administration. Some officials were replaced by people from the same management hierarchy.
    Sources also claim that certain groups of influence within the capital’s authorities have retained their positions. In particular, they point to the circle around former first deputy head of the Kyiv City State Administration Mykola Povoroznyk, as well as the political influence of Artur Palatnyi, head of the UDAR party.
    Political Context
    ZN.UA’s sources also link the current activity of law enforcement agencies to the long-running political confrontation surrounding Kyiv and Mayor Vitali Klitschko.
    According to the publication, from 2019 to the first quarter of 2025 alone, law enforcement agencies opened 1,404 criminal proceedings involving employees of the Kyiv City State Administration and its structural units. During that period, more than a thousand searches and document seizures were carried out. At the same time, only two proceedings ended in convictions.
    The publication’s sources believe that these figures may point not only to problems with the effectiveness of investigations, but also to the risk that criminal proceedings are being used as an instrument of political pressure on the capital’s authorities.
    What This Means for Kyiv
    The new wave of suspicion notices again brings Kyiv back to the question that emerged after Operation “Clean City”: has the system of governance in the capital changed after one of the most high-profile anti-corruption investigations of recent years?
    While law enforcement agencies are focusing on specific episodes and specific officials, broader questions are increasingly being raised in the Kyiv City Council and among experts: is the city administration capable of carrying out a real renewal of its governance model, rather than limiting itself to selective personnel changes?
    At the same time, all individuals mentioned in the proceedings have the right to defense and are presumed innocent unless their guilt is proven in court.
    Based on materials by ZN.UA