What happened
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office have notified a staff member of the Main Directorate of the Security Service of Ukraine in Kyiv and the Kyiv region of suspicion. According to the investigation, the official received an improper benefit of $68 000 from two citizens — $34 000 from each — for "resolving the issue" of removing them from the records at the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center and arranging a deferral from mobilization.
How, according to the investigation, it worked
Investigators say the suspect promised to arrange a deferral on the basis of forged documents claiming that each of the men had three children. According to the organizers' plan, the forged birth certificates were to be issued abroad, after which the citizens were to be taken off the records and avoid responsibility.
"The employee has been notified of suspicion of receiving an improper benefit in a significant amount for assisting in avoiding mobilization procedures",
— NABU / SAP, press service statement
Context: not an isolated case
This exposure comes against the backdrop of a series of anti-corruption investigations in the defense and border management sectors. In particular, on January 22 suspicions were reported against the former head of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (DPSU) and several officials; in February there was information about the dismissal of one of the suspects from military service. Such cases create the impression of systemic abuses that undermine operational readiness and citizens' trust.
Why this matters to the reader
In a time of full-scale war, the issue of fairness in mobilization and the transparency of the special services is not abstract. When an official uses their position for private gain, it has three direct consequences: weakening personnel discipline, the risk of resources leaking away instead of being directed to defense, and a blow to public trust, which is critical during national mobilization.
What next
The investigation continues; a notice of suspicion is the first step toward criminal liability, but personnel and systemic measures are also important: strengthening internal controls, transparent procedures for processing deferrals, and operational monitoring of suspicious cases. Experts emphasize that only a combination of investigations and institutional reforms can restore trust.
Whether these exposures can be turned into lasting mechanisms to protect against corruption is a question for the leadership of law enforcement agencies and parliament. Meanwhile the case serves as a simple reminder: in war, resources are not only equipment and fighters, but also public trust — losses of which are harder to remedy.
