Monitoring under the microscope: NACP responds to allegations of superficial inspection of General Vityuk

9 September 19:13

The National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption has responded to accusations of “superficial monitoring of the lifestyle” of SBU General Ilya Vityuk. The agency stated that it acted strictly within the law and used all available information, "Komersant Ukrainian" reports.

The NACP emphasized:

  • “It does not have the authority to conduct searches, check the fictitiousness of business or carry out covert investigative actions;
  • its function is to analyze data from state registers, make inquiries to other authorities and assess the declared property;
  • criminal investigations are exclusively within the competence of law enforcement agencies.

Conflict with anti-corruption agencies

The SAPO believes that the NACP checked Vitiuk too formally. Prosecutor Vitaliy Kravets directly stated in court that the monitoring was superficial and suggested that the Agency could be influenced by the suspect’s position.

In response, the NACP rejected any external pressure and sent an official request to receive the facts referred to by Kravets from the prosecutor’s office.

What happened before

  • December 2023. The general’s wife bought a premium apartment in Kyiv for UAH 12.8 million, while the market value exceeded UAH 20 million. Slidstvo.Info journalists stated that the family’s official income was not enough for such a purchase.
  • April 2024. Following the outcry, the head of the SBU Cyber Department, Ilya Vityuk, was suspended from his post, and later fired by President Zelensky.
  • September 2024. The NACP officially announced that it had found no signs of illicit enrichment in Vitiuk’s declarations.
  • September 2025. The NABU notified him of suspicion of illicit enrichment and false declarations. The High Anti-Corruption Court imposed a bail of more than UAH 9 million.

Who is Ilya Vitiuk?

Ilya Vitiuk is a former head of the SBU Department for Counterintelligence Protection of the State’s Interests in the Field of Information Security. His case became politically charged after the SBU detained NABU employees on suspicion of trade with Russia. The SBU views the criminal prosecution of Vityuk as “revenge” on the part of the anti-corruption bureau.

The confrontation between the NACP, NABU, and SAPO over General Vitiuk’s case demonstrates a deeper conflict between the institutions of the anti-corruption infrastructure. At stake is not only the reputation of one of the law enforcement agencies, but also the credibility of the mechanisms for controlling the wealth of high-ranking officials.

Марина Максенко
Editor

Reading now