Case of Illegal Enrichment of Former Director of the Cybersecurity Department of the SSU Illia Vitiuk

Case description

The SAPO and the NABU suspect former director of the Cybersecurity Department of the Security Service of Ukraine, General Illia Vitiuk, of illegal enrichment and false asset declaration.

According to the investigation, in December 2023, Illia Vitiuk purchased a luxury apartment in Kyiv’s Pecherskyi district for a real price of UAH 21.6 million but registered it in his wife’s name at a reduced contractual price of UAH 12.8 million.

To justify the origin of part of the funds, Vitiuk’s wife claimed she had earned the money as an individual entrepreneur providing legal services, though no such services were actually rendered, according to the investigation. Moreover, there is no confirmation of the legal origin of the remaining funds spent on the purchase of the apartment in the amount of UAH 8.8 million.

One of the key pieces of evidence is messenger correspondence extracted from a realtor’s phone. The messages show that Vitiuk’s wife coordinated the purchase with her husband, asked about the possibility of bargaining, and inquired about minimizing the official bank transfer. The initial draft agreement listed the apartment price at $600,000 (over UAH 22 million), which was reduced to UAH 21.4 million after a minor discount, but was then significantly undervalued to UAH 12.7 million with the consent of both parties.

In April 2024, journalists from Slidstvo.Info published information about a mismatch between the family’s declared income and the cost of the acquired property.

On September 2, 2025, the NABU and the SAPO formally notified Vitiuk of suspicion of illegal enrichment and false asset declaration under Article 368-5 and Article 366-2(2) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. On September 4, 2025, the HACC imposed an interim measure in the form of bail totaling over UAH 9 million (while the prosecution had requested UAH 42 million).

Before the court considered the request for the interim measure, the defense petitioned to postpone the hearing, arguing that the HACC does not have jurisdiction over the case and requested the HACC Appeals Chamber to reassign the case to another court.

Vitiuk is charged under Article 368-5 and Article 366-2(2) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.