Shevchenko District Prosecutor's Office of Kyiv has submitted an indictment against the head of the Finance Department of Kyiv City State Administration to court. According to the Office of the Prosecutor General, the official approved the issuance of local internal loan bonds for several years, through which the city attracted credit funds and paid hundreds of millions of hryvnias in interest. Total losses to Kyiv's territorial community — over 581 million hryvnias.
Loans Without Need
The key argument of the investigation is not the fact of borrowing itself, but its lack of justification. According to the Office of the Prosecutor General, in the relevant years, the revenues of Kyiv's general fund budget exceeded expenditures: the city had its own funds and did not require external financing. Despite this, bonds were issued, credits were attracted, and interest payments for debt servicing fell on the shoulders of the community.
According to Interfax-Ukraine, Volodymyr Repik currently heads the Finance Department of KMDA and as of January 2026 was officially notified of suspicion. The official's actions are qualified under Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — official negligence that caused serious consequences to state interests.
What These Numbers Mean
581 million hryvnias is not stolen funds in the direct sense: the money went to banks as interest on bonds. To understand the scale: according to KMDA, Kyiv's annual capital repair budget for roads in peacetime was approximately 2-3 billion hryvnias. That is, the "unnecessary" credit payments consumed funds comparable to several months of the city's road construction program.
"The official approved the issuance of local loan bonds for several years, through which the city attracted credits and paid hundreds of millions of hryvnias in interest on their servicing"
Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine
Local loan bonds are a legal tool of municipal finance. Their logic: a city attracts money for specific needs when its own funds are insufficient. The problem is that when borrowing was not necessary — and the investigation claims exactly this — the entire mechanism turned into a generator of expenses without economic sense.
The Case in Court: What's Next
Repik was notified of suspicion in January 2026. Now, after completing the pre-trial investigation and gathering evidence, the case has been submitted for trial on the merits. A verdict has not yet been rendered — the principle of presumption of innocence applies. At the same time, the very fact that the case has been sent to court means that the prosecutor's office is confident in its evidence base.
An important nuance: Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment. However, even a guilty verdict will not return 581 million hryvnias to Kyiv's budget — the interest has already been paid to creditors.
If the court confirms the investigation's version that the city for years attracted unnecessary loans despite a budget surplus, a specific question will arise: who approved these decisions higher up the chain — and why did responsibility stop at the level of the department head.
