SBI releases correspondence between former Poltava police deputy and colleague

SBI releases correspondence between former Poltava police deputy and colleague
SBI releases correspondence between former Poltava police deputy and colleague

Conclusion of investigation against former police officials

The State Bureau of Investigation, jointly with the National Agency on Corruption Prevention and with the support of the National Police leadership, has completed the investigation of a criminal case. The defendants are former deputy head of the Poltava Regional Police, Boris Reutov, and former head of the logistics department, Ihor Yakovuk. They are accused of illegal enrichment, concealment of assets, and using subordinates to build private estates.

Investigators have published video materials containing a detailed description of the schemes and the defendants' correspondence, which demonstrate the scale of the violations.

«Скільки коштує нирка?» ("How much does a kidney cost?"): details of the correspondence

It was established that from April 2023 to August 2025, Boris Reutov, who officially received up to 70,000 hryvnia per month, amassed assets worth over 11.3 million hryvnia. Together with his colleague, he purchased two adjacent plots with unfinished buildings in the village of Rybtsi. The plans envisaged the creation of a closed complex with a high fence, landscape design, a sauna, and pools.

To conceal the ownership, Reutov's plot was registered in the name of his subordinate's mother-in-law. In correspondence with his wife, the official reassured her about the reliability of the nominees. In response to her doubts, he replied: «Скільки коштує нирка?» ("How much does a kidney cost?"), hinting at the possible consequences for the nominee in case of betrayal.

Initially, the mother-in-law did not realise the scale of the construction. Later, she wrote to her daughter about the pool and the fireplace. The daughter jokingly replied: «Мама обзавелася будинками в Полтаві. Олігарша» ("Mom has acquired houses in Poltava. An oligarch"). The daughter's husband, who was Reutov's subordinate, assured the boss: «Скажи йому, що не підведемо» ("Tell him we won't let him down").

Unpaid labour and official cars

To reduce construction costs (Reutov's estate alone cost approximately 7 million hryvnia), the officials forced subordinate police officers to work for free while retaining their state salaries. Reutov personally supervised the process during working hours, and official vehicles were used to transport building materials and deliver elite plants.

Scheme involving "eOselya" and a godfather

In addition to the suburban estate, Reutov purchased an apartment in a new building. His godfather acted as a nominee and was subsequently employed by the police. Initially, the property was bought in the godfather's name for 1.3 million hryvnia. A few months later, Reutov arranged a state mortgage under the "eOselya" programme and bought the same apartment from the godfather for 1.7 million hryvnia. This allowed him to legalise undeclared funds and obtain a larger loan.

State funds were transferred to the godfather's card, which he handed over to Reutov's wife. The woman, withdrawing cash, accidentally also withdrew the relative's personal credit funds. Reutov even kept a separate notebook to monitor the cash flow for this apartment.

The family also used a Suzuki Grand Vitara, formally purchased for 15,000 hryvnia (market price — 313,000 hryvnia), and a Toyota Land Cruiser 200 SUV registered in a friend's name. All these assets were concealed from declarations, while the official unjustifiably indicated an increase in cash savings.

Ihor Yakovuk's case

The other defendant, Ihor Yakovuk, according to his 2025 declaration, holds the position of deputy head of the Luben district police department. He organised the purchase of a land plot with a house in Poltava, registering the property in his father's name.

Expenditures on this property exceeded the parents' official income by 6.1 million hryvnia. Yakovuk himself lacked 2.9 million hryvnia in legal funds for such purchases. Despite his de facto control over the assets, he did not disclose them in his 2025 declaration.

The prosecution has already sent the case to court regarding the use of subordinates as unpaid builders (the damage to the state amounts to almost 300,000 hryvnia). The defendants will now also have to answer for illegal enrichment and false declaration.

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first!

Leave a comment

Links are not allowed in comments. The editors may remove comments without explanation.
Back to top ↑