“$6 million apartments in Dubai, a Ferrari, and $10,000 tickets”: The Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (BAKS) has revealed details of the case involving a $1 million bribe related to a State Border Guard Service tender
23 July 16:56
The High Anti-Corruption Court has published several rulings in the case involving the extortion of a $1 million bribe from the winning bidder in a procurement for unmanned aerial systems for the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. The documents contain not only the grounds for imposing preventive measures but also a substantial body of evidence cited by NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO): correspondence between the individuals involved, an analysis of their financial status, information on hidden assets, as well as details regarding the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation. This data was analyzed by the editorial staff of "Komersant Ukrainian".
According to the rulings, the case involves several individuals with different procedural roles: a State Border Guard Service official who, according to the investigation, had influence over the procurement process, and a businessman whose company expected to win a contract to supply drones.
The entrepreneur who did not win the tender
The largest portion of the reasoning in the court rulings pertains specifically to this entrepreneur, whose voice is apparently heard on the recordings published by NABU.
According to NABU, this entrepreneur controlled the company YUVITEK LLC, which in 2025–2026 entered into state contracts with the State Enterprise “Defense Procurement Agency” Ministry of Defense for more than 2.5 billion UAH, of which over 1.7 billion UAH had already been paid by the state.
In other words, YUVITEK LLC—which did not win the State Border Guard Service tender (the episode under investigation)—was simultaneously already fulfilling multi-billion contracts for the Ministry of Defense through the Defense Procurement Agency. And, according to investigators’ calculations, the company could have earned over 434 million hryvnias in net profit from the contracts already paid for by the state alone.
Watch us on YouTube: important topics – without censorship
Investigators believe that YUVITEK LLC was in fact controlled by the suspect businessman, although formally his son was the company’s ultimate beneficiary for some time.
According to the investigation, it was this suspected businessman who was supposed to be designated as the winner (through a company under his control) of the procurement of unmanned aerial systems for the State Border Guard Service—in accordance with unspoken agreements with certain officials.
Furthermore, the court documents indicate that he demanded an illegal benefit of $1 million from another businessman (who had, in fact, “coincidentally” won the State Border Guard Service’s tender) in exchange for the unimpeded conclusion of the contract and its subsequent execution.
Correspondence about Dubai, Ferraris, and Apartments
One of the prosecutors’ main arguments in determining the amount of bail for the controller of YUVITEK LLC was evidence from covert investigative (surveillance) activities.
In particular, the court cites correspondence between the businessman and his wife regarding the purchase of two apartments in Dubai.
First, he sends her a listing for an apartment for sale.
“Should we buy this?”
— “Yes.”
— “Not bad. We should check it out.”
— “I already did.”
— “Did you buy it or just look at it? Is it a two-family apartment? We need two separate apartments. We don’t want to be crammed together in one place,” his wife replies.
A few days later, they’re already discussing whose name to put the property under.
“Then we’ll put one in Harry’s name… And the other in mine?”
According to the investigation, the apartments in question were located in the Palace Residences North complex in Dubai.
In another exchange of messages, also cited by the court, the wife mentions her intention to view three apartments in the “Novopecherski Lypky” residential complex in Kyiv, each of which, according to the listings she forwarded, was priced between $700,000 and $1 million.
Separately, the court refers to videos that the suspect sent to acquaintances.
In one of them, the following phrase is heard:
“Someone ordered a Ferrari. And us? We don’t rent one. We just buy it.”
Investigators view this as confirmation of the suspect’s substantial wealth.
Ticket — $10,000
The court also cites another exchange between the couple—this time regarding a vacation in the Maldives.
The wife tells her husband that only economy-class tickets are left for the return flight. His reply was categorical:
“No. Business class.”
When she points out that business class costs about $10,000, he again insists on that option.
In the court’s view, this correspondence reflects a lifestyle characteristic of individuals with very substantial financial resources.
Read us on Telegram: important topics – without censorship
Apartments worth millions of dollars and a UAE Golden Card
According to the investigation, the entrepreneur actually owns:
- two apartments in Dubai worth at least $6 million;
- a Rolls-Royce Spectre, a Ferrari F8 , and a Lamborghini Urus with a combined value of over $1.25 million.
In addition, in 2026, he received a ten-year UAE residency visa (UAE Golden Card), which, as the court notes, is issued upon the presence of significant investments or high-value assets.
During the search, according to the NABU, the following items were also seized from him: a collection of Rolex, Patek Philippe, IWC, DeWitt, and Graham watches with a total value of over $167,000, as well as approximately $21,000 in cash.
Bail Amounts
Initially, the investigating judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court (VAKS) imposed a preventive measure in the form of detention on the suspect, setting bail at 44.26 million hryvnias.
However, on June 5, 2026, following an appeal by the SAPO prosecutor, the VAKS Appeals Chamber increased it to 140 million hryvnias.
Subsequently, the bail amount (following an appeal by the defense attorneys) was reduced to 120 million hryvnias.
Who Was the Representative of the State Border Guard Service
The second key figure and suspect in the case is a high-ranking official of the State Border Guard Service.
The case files also mention other participants in the procurement process; however, among the representatives of the State Border Guard Service, only this one official currently has the status of a suspect. He is charged with receiving an unlawful benefit under Part 4 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The court also notes that the official worked in the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine and had the authority to organize procurements and interact with suppliers of unmanned aerial vehicle systems for the needs of the State Border Guard Service.
The High Anti-Corruption Court imposed a pretrial detention order on him, with the option of posting bail in the amount of 4 million hryvnias.
How the Applicant Came Forward
The court documents also reveal details of how the complainant became involved in this case; he has been cooperating with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) since September of last year.
The complainant is a businessman who was asked to pay a bribe of $1 million. After he contacted NABU, detectives began documenting the events, and the complainant himself was already “operating under procedural supervision.”
The VAKS rulings do not disclose all the details of his cooperation with NABU; however, the court recognized the complainant’s testimony, the results of the special investigative measures, and the audio and video recordings of the contacts as some of the key pieces of evidence confirming the high level of substantiation of the suspicion.
Watch us on YouTube: important topics – without censorship
About the Case: NABU’s Version
In August 2025, one of the State Border Guard Service’s military units initiated the procurement of a batch of unmanned aerial vehicle systems. A private company was admitted to participate in the bidding process ; it offered to supply the required products for 825 million hryvnias.
During the procurement process, the owner of another company that manufactured UAVs contacted the director of this firm. Citing alleged prior agreements with the State Border Guard Service Administration, he asked that the price of the drones not be lowered, as his company was supposed to be the winner.
However, the company’s director submitted an updated commercial proposal with a reduced price for the drones, which led to his company winningthe contract.
Realizing that his original plan had been thwarted, the owner of the competing company, in collusion with border guards, began demanding an illegal benefit from the winning bidder. He stated that in order to ensure the smooth conclusion of the contract and the subsequent acceptance of the equipment by State Border Guard Service officials, a payment of $1 million was required. He planned to split this amount between himself and the border service officials.
To fully convince the company’s director of the need to pay the bribe, they arranged a phone call with a representative of the State Border Guard Service, during which the representative stated that all demands were being made with the approval of the agency’s administration.
