Experts from Kyiv Forensics Institute Charged Over Undervaluation of Cybersecurity Official’s Wife’s Apartment

Experts Accused in Scheme to Undervalue Apartment Linked to SBU Official’s Spouse

According to 5 канал: The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) have formally charged specialists from the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise (KNDISE) for deliberately providing false assessments that reduced the declared value of an apartment owned by the wife of a senior Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) official. Case documents reveal the apartment’s value was intentionally lowered in the purchase agreement. Although NABU has not publicly named the official, details point to Ilya Vityuk, the former head of the SBU’s Cybersecurity Department. The suspects face charges under Articles 384 and 358 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code.

In December 2023, the official’s wife purchased the apartment for 21.6 million hryvnias, but the contract stated a significantly lower price of 12.8 million hryvnias. In April 2024, the couple’s lawyer requested a valuation and construction expertise from KNDISE, and in May 2024, NABU detectives ordered a joint expert review. Although the forensic examination was officially withdrawn on November 11, 2024, the experts continued their analysis. They set the maximum comparative property value at $2,500–2,600 per square meter, despite the market price being $3,000. The experts signed their report in December 2024, backdating it to November 8, 2024. The document was provided by the official’s lawyer rather than KNDISE itself.

Calls for Overhaul of Forensic Expertise System

NABU stresses the urgent need to establish an independent forensic institution to eliminate corruption risks. According to NABU representatives,

"This would prevent external pressures on experts and significantly improve the effectiveness of pre-trial investigations into high-level corruption cases."

Meanwhile, in the summer of 2025, three forensic experts who signed the evaluation in former President Petro Poroshenko’s case resigned by mutual agreement.

The ongoing investigation attempts to implicate Poroshenko in facilitating the 2010 Kharkiv Agreements, despite him not holding the Foreign Minister position at that time. The State Bureau of Investigations (DBR) argues that the constitutional enshrinement of Ukraine’s EU and NATO membership aspirations in 2019 triggered Russia’s full-scale invasion. However, experts involved in military studies lacked the necessary specialization on constitutional matters. Attorney Ilya Novikov links the forensic report to Russian judicial tactics, stating that

"experts deliberately compared irrelevant real estate objects to reach this conclusion."

The idea to criminally prosecute Poroshenko emerged from Andriy Portnov, a former deputy head of the Yanukovych administration who also contributed to drafting the Kharkiv Agreements and initiated legal cases against Poroshenko after 2019. Russian officials cited materials from the sailors’ case during United Nations Security Council meetings. The forensic report aligns with Kremlin narratives portraying Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration as a threat to Russia. The U.S. Embassy has warned against politically motivated prosecutions of opposition figures in Ukraine.

This case highlights the critical importance of impartial forensic experts and the urgent need for reforms to prevent corruption in this field. Against the backdrop of recent political accusations and pressure on opponents, public demand for transparency in law enforcement and the judiciary is intensifying. Future investigations could have significant repercussions for Ukraine’s political climate, especially regarding relations with Western partners and adherence to democratic principles.

The ongoing investigation highlights broader concerns regarding the integrity of forensic evaluations in high-profile cases. This incident is part of a troubling trend where alleged corruption undermines public trust in official assessments. For further insights on this case and the implications for forensic practices in Ukraine, read more about the serious accusations against forensic experts.