An investigation by Ukrainian outlet Hromadske has raised serious questions about the source of funds behind more than $1 million in real estate assets registered to the 74-year-old mother of a senior Kyiv prosecutor. The report focuses on property acquisitions tied to the family of Serhiy Pavchuk, a senior official in the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine, who has overseen organized-crime cases since at least 2021.

According to the investigation, Angelina Donchenko, Pavchuk’s mother, has acquired a portfolio of properties whose combined market value significantly exceeds what would typically be feasible for a retired pensioner in Ukraine. The average pension in the country is estimated at around $150 per month. While Donchenko has operated businesses over the years, journalists reviewed tax filings indicating that her ventures, including a wholesale chemical trading company, have primarily reported losses rather than profits.

The centerpiece of the family’s reported holdings is property located in an upscale gated development outside Kyiv. Land records cited in the investigation show that in July 2023, Donchenko purchased two adjoining plots totaling approximately 2,000 square meters. The declared purchase price was roughly $71,000-substantially below comparable listings in the same development, which suggested a market value closer to $290,000 at the time.

Architect Viktor Hleba, cited in the report, estimated the 2023 market value of the land alone at around $320,000. He further assessed that buildings constructed on the site could be worth up to $800,000, bringing the estimated total value of the property close to or exceeding $1 million.

Satellite imagery reviewed by reporters indicates that construction of a large residential structure and auxiliary buildings on the land may have begun as early as 2019, with visible structures present by 2020. However, journalists stated they were unable to find official registry entries for those buildings, meaning they do not formally exist in state property records. The absence of registration raises additional questions about compliance with local construction and property disclosure regulations.

The investigation also highlights other assets linked to Donchenko. In 2019, she purchased a 75-square-meter apartment in Kyiv for a declared price of just over $76,000. At the time, developer listings reportedly placed comparable units at approximately $95,000. Journalists further reported that Pavchuk is said to use this apartment. In the same year, a 2016 Toyota Camry was registered in Donchenko’s name at a declared value that reporters described as below market rates.

Beyond real estate, financial transactions involving Donchenko have also drawn attention. In 2020, she reportedly loaned approximately $200,000 to a Lviv-based entrepreneur. That businessman subsequently acquired four apartments in historic buildings near Lviv’s city center and pledged them as collateral to Donchenko, with arrangements extending through at least 2027.

Roman Verbovskyi, a lawyer with Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, told the outlet that such financial arrangements can, in certain circumstances, be used to legitimize questionable financial flows. If a loan is never repaid, he noted, the pledged properties may effectively transfer ownership, converting cash into real estate assets. While such mechanisms are not inherently illegal, anti-corruption advocates argue that they warrant scrutiny when linked to politically exposed persons or their close relatives.

Journalists reported they were unable to obtain comment from Donchenko or Pavchuk’s wife. In an official response to inquiries, however, Prosecutor Serhiy Pavchuk stated that the properties registered in his mother’s name were acquired using funds generated from legitimate business activities conducted by his mother and his late father. He has denied any wrongdoing.

The case touches on broader systemic issues in Ukraine’s ongoing struggle against corruption. Since 2014, Ukraine has implemented a series of anti-corruption reforms, including asset declaration requirements for public officials and the establishment of specialized investigative bodies. Nevertheless, concerns persist about the use of relatives’ names to hold assets, a practice sometimes referred to as “beneficial ownership shielding.”

Under Ukrainian law, prosecutors and other senior officials are required to file electronic declarations detailing their assets and those of immediate family members. However, extended family holdings-such as those registered to parents-may not always fall under the same level of mandatory disclosure, depending on specific circumstances and legal definitions of household affiliation.

The allegations raised by Hromadske come at a time when Ukraine’s anti-corruption efforts remain under international scrutiny. As the country continues to seek deeper integration with European institutions and relies on substantial Western financial assistance, transparency and accountability in public office are viewed as critical benchmarks.

Independent media investigations have played a significant role in uncovering potential discrepancies between declared incomes and asset holdings. In this case, reporters relied on land registries, tax filings, satellite imagery, and market comparisons to build a picture of transactions that appear inconsistent with publicly available income data.

At present, there is no indication that formal criminal charges have been filed in connection with the findings described in the report. The response from the prosecutor’s office emphasizes that the assets were lawfully obtained. Any determination of illegality would require further investigation by authorized bodies and, potentially, judicial review.

The matter underscores the continuing tension between legal formalities and public perception. Even if transactions comply technically with the law, significant discrepancies between declared values and market estimates can erode public trust-particularly when they involve officials responsible for enforcing anti-corruption and organized crime statutes.

For observers in Ukraine and abroad, the case may become a litmus test of institutional credibility. Whether investigative authorities pursue further review-and whether any additional documentation clarifies the origins of funds-could influence public confidence in the country’s prosecutorial system.

As the situation develops, transparency from all parties involved will likely be essential. In the context of Ukraine’s broader reform trajectory, scrutiny of asset declarations and related-party holdings remains central to the credibility of its governance framework.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

© Blitz