What happened
In Kyiv, a 47-year-old private entrepreneur was detained for demanding USD 100,000 from the head of a department of a district territorial center for recruitment and social support (ТЦК). The perpetrator presented himself as a “mediator” from the State Bureau of Investigation (ДБР) and promised to “resolve the issue” concerning an alleged criminal case, the Office of the Prosecutor General, the ДБР and the National Police reported, according to UNN.
"Under the procedural guidance of the Office of the Prosecutor General, investigators of the ДБР informed a Kyiv resident of suspicion in a completed attempt to seize another's property by deception (fraud), committed on an especially large scale (Part 2 of Art. 15, Part 5 of Art. 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)"
— Office of the Prosecutor General
How the scheme worked
According to the investigation, the fraudster used media publications about possible checks into the assets of officials of the territorial recruitment and social support centers and misled the serviceman by claiming there was an existing criminal case, a threat of searches and disclosure of information in the media. At first he demanded $100,000, then agreed to $50,000, threatening to publish “compromising materials” if refused.
"In December 2025 the man called a serviceman of the territorial recruitment center posing as a 'mediator' from the State Bureau of Investigation"
— State Bureau of Investigation
Why it matters
This case is not only about money. Such a mechanism undermines trust in recruitment authorities, creates risks for mobilization work and can demoralize personnel. Fraudsters exploit media prompts and people’s fears — which is why a prompt law-enforcement response is key to maintaining the stability of the system.
What law enforcement is doing
The man was detained in Kyiv immediately after receiving the agreed sum. He has been notified of suspicion of fraud on an especially large scale. The issue of a preventive measure is currently being decided — remand in custody. The penalty under the article provides for up to 12 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
Conclusion
This case illustrates how a combination of information provocations and threats to release private material can be used as a tool of pressure. Law enforcement acted promptly; the next step is to strengthen preventive work and inform servicemembers about typical fraud methods. Whether such risks can be reduced systematically is a question for law-enforcement and military institutions.
