NABU suspects Justice Ministry experts of understating an SBU official's apartment

Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) has served notices of suspicion on forensic experts of a Ministry of Justice institute for allegedly fabricating evidence to benefit a high-ranking official of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the bureau said on 16 October in a release. It also repeated its long-standing call for an independent forensic institution within NABU.

The suspects are experts of the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise, the release says. It does not give their number or names. It says the apartment at the centre of the case belongs to the official's wife, and it does not say that the official is a suspect.

What NABU alleges

According to NABU, the official's wife bought an apartment in December 2023 for UAH 21.6 million, while the purchase agreement stated UAH 12.8 million. In April 2024 a lawyer for the couple requested a valuation and construction expert study at the institute. In May 2024 the expert panel reported a market value of UAH 12.3 million, which NABU says understated the value by UAH 9.3 million because the experts used irrelevant properties for comparison. The defence then used the report as evidence before the National Agency on Corruption Prevention, NABU and the court.

In the same month NABU detectives ordered a commission expert examination at the same institute. On 11 November 2024 NABU recalled the materials and asked for their return without execution. The experts ignored the request and kept working, the release says. NABU alleges that they capped comparable prices at USD 2,500 to 2,600 per square metre against a stated market rate of USD 3,000, and chose the cheapest offers, starting at USD 1,550. In early December 2024 they signed the report and dated it 8 November 2024, before NABU's withdrawal. Detectives obtained their copy from the official's lawyer, not from the institute, according to NABU.

Charges and the case for an in-house institute

The experts are suspected under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 384 of the Criminal Code, which NABU's release describes as misleading a court or other authorised body by fabricating evidence, and under Part 3 of Article 358, the preparation of a knowingly forged official document by experts. The release mentions no arrest or other preventive measure. It notes that under Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine a person is presumed not guilty until a court finds otherwise.

NABU argues that this kind of manipulation of evidence would be impossible if an independent forensic institution operated within the bureau. Its leadership, it says, has long called for such an institution to reduce corruption risks, limit outside pressure on experts and speed up high-level corruption investigations, the release states.

Where the case meets the reform agenda

The facts touch on asset verification, an area where Ukraine's reform commitments have slipped. The IMF's July staff report on the first review of Ukraine's extended arrangement lists a structural benchmark on the introduction of a risk-based system for verifying asset declarations, with an end-June 2026 deadline that was not met, according to the report. The staff wrote that the authorities remain committed to governance and anti-corruption reform but that progress has slowed in several areas and has been uneven, and that the authorities' approach in some areas looks less ambitious than earlier plans. They also said opening EU accession negotiations, particularly the fundamentals cluster, could help revive the reform agenda.

The EU opened that cluster with Ukraine on 15 June 2026 and set interim benchmarks that must be met before negotiations on it can progress, the Council of the EU says. NABU's release does not link the case to either process.