Seven flats, two parking spaces and a house — this was the list published by ‘Antikor’ back in 2024 in an article about Anton Kravchuk. Two years later, the media reported on a search of Kravchuk’s premises during Operation ‘Carthage’, whilst Sergei Duka, whom journalists had previously identified as his superior, was remanded in custody by the High Anti-Corruption Court. By 11 November, around 50 million of the 65 million hryvnias required for Duka’s bail had been paid. These stories were brought together in a single investigative report, but there is no confirmation among the verified documents that the flats were purchased with ‘Khimprom’s’ money. [2] [4] [5] [10] [13]
Verified using publicly available materials as at 12 November 2026. The editorial team cross-referenced the official decree, reports from the NABU and the SAP, court reports, publications on assets and photographic material provided by a source.
Two roles that must not be confused
In publications from 2024, Kravchuk was described as the first deputy head of Directorate ‘D’ of the SBU’s Department for the Protection of National Statehood. This is one position. Another is recorded in Presidential Decree No. 271/2026 of 25 March 2026: the document names Kravchuk as head of the SBU’s Main Directorate for Internal Security and confers upon him the rank of brigadier general. The decree allows the position to be confirmed as of a specific date, but not the date of transfer between units. Reports of searches sometimes referred to him as a colonel; the decree itself serves as the benchmark for his rank. [1] [2] [4]
On 4 November, the SBU confirmed that investigative measures had been carried out against its staff in accordance with court orders as part of several cases. ZN.UA and ‘Suspilne’ named Duka and Kravchuk among those whose premises were searched. The SBU separately reported that Oleksandr Poklad had dismissed two senior officials from their posts, without naming them in that statement. The following day, “Slidstvo.Info”, citing sources, reported that Kravchuk and Oleksandr Kovalchuk had not been detained following the searches and remained in their posts. Later, however, a source speaking to NV claimed that Kravchuk had been dismissed. We were unable to find any specific official decision in the verified materials that would resolve this contradiction. [4] [5] [6] [7]
Duka’s status in this episode is known: he was informed of the suspicion against him, and the court imposed a preventive measure. Reports of a search at Kravchuk’s premises have been confirmed, but as of 12 November, the editorial team had found no public confirmation that he was formally notified of the suspicion in connection with this particular case. The search indicates that the investigation was gathering evidence. The search alone does not determine who the investigation will subsequently charge. [5] [7] [8] [10]
Seven flats: what exactly did ‘Antikor’ list?
On 28 October 2024, ‘Antikor’ detailed the assets that its authors linked to Kravchuk and his family. According to their account, these included four flats and two parking spaces in a single Kyiv residential complex, a further three flats in other complexes, and a detached house in Bucha. The authors attributed the properties to his wife and other relatives. The valuations in the table are taken from the publication; the editorial team does not have access to complete historical statements, contracts or proof of payment for each transaction. We do not provide exact addresses. [2] [3]
| A group of properties | Who the publication linked these properties to | Rating of the article |
|---|---|---|
| Four flats in Kyiv | With his wife | A total of $830,000 |
| Two parking spaces | With his wife | A total of $140,000 |
| Two flats in different residential complexes in Kyiv | With a relative on his wife’s side | $160,000 and $250,000 |
| Another flat in Kyiv | With his mother | $90,000 |
| A house in Bucha | With his father | $200,000; in the advert cited in the same article — $125,000. |
What the figures add up to. If you add up the published valuations of the seven flats, two parking spaces and the house (using the higher of the two figures for the house), the total comes to approximately $1.67 million. If you use the price quoted in the advert — $1.595 million. The four cars listed in the same article add up to around $345,000. This brings the total to approximately $2.015 million, or $1.94 million for the property and cars combined. This is a calculation based on the figures in the article, not a new valuation report, and it shows how choosing a different price changes the headline figure. [2]
‘Antikor’ also claimed that the title transfers took place between 2018 and 2023, and put forward a theory regarding the purpose of these family-related changes. Without a record of the transfer of rights and payment details for the transactions, this theory cannot be verified. Even if a relative is registered as the owner, the title deed alone does not indicate who paid for the purchase or who used the property. Nor can the year of publication automatically be taken as the year of acquisition: part of the period described falls within the years prior to the full-scale invasion. [2] [3]
The photograph sent to the editorial team shows two cars. It is not possible to identify the owner, driver, date of purchase or source of payment from this image. Nor does the photograph replace the list of vehicles in the ‘Antikora’ publication: a match in make or appearance does not allow the cars to be identified. To verify this, documents relating to registration, transfer of ownership, payment and use are required. [2]
Two posts from the ‘Poklad SBU’ channel were shared along with the images. We were unable to read them in full via the direct links, so we have not used them as confirmation of the value of assets or property rights. The list above is based on a publicly available publication from 2024; the images are captioned according to what they show. [2]
Duka and Kravchuk: where does the professional relationship end?
The link between these names emerged before the ‘Carthage’ affair. In September 2025, journalist Inna Vedernikova, writing for ZN.UA, referred to Kravchuk as Duka’s deputy and claimed that both oversaw the enforcement aspect of operations against Bihus.This included NABU staff, notably in the case involving detective Ruslan Magamedrasulov. These are claims made by a journalistic source regarding their previous professional activities. Separate from these are the November searches, which were reported by several news outlets in 2026. Neither their collaboration nor the mention of both surnames in news reports about the searches establishes that both were carrying out the same actions in the interests of ‘Khimprom’. [4] [5] [9]
A source provided the editorial team with a selection of photographs in connection with questions about Kravchuk’s professional circle. We were unable to independently verify the role of each person in the images. Therefore, no names appear on the collage, and the mere proximity of the portraits does not imply that the individuals were part of the same unit, assisted the cartel, or have any legal status in the proceedings. To verify such claims, we need dated appointments, official documents and specific actions corroborated by the case file.
What NABU calls ‘Carthage’
Reports have emerged under the name ‘Carthage’ regarding several related investigative cases. In a September publication, the NABU described an alleged group involving an official from the Office of the Prosecutor General: according to the bureau, it received money from fraudulent call centres and laundered the proceeds. The millions of hryvnias, property and other assets mentioned there relate to that specific case. It is not possible to attribute these sums to Kravchuk solely on the basis of the operation’s general title. [14]
On 4 November, NABU and the SAP reported a new development. According to the investigation, members of another alleged organisation ensured the unhindered operation of fraudulent call centres and other illegal businesses through their contacts within law enforcement agencies. On 5 November, NABU and the SAP reported on five suspects; this episode is covered in greater detail in court documents and news reports. The investigation describes Yegor Burkin, known as ‘The Mexican’, and Andriy Osipov as the individuals through whom, according to the investigation, these contacts were channelled. Duku is suspected of participating in a criminal organisation whilst abusing his official position. This is the prosecution’s version of events, the substance of which has not yet been examined by the court. [8] [10] [15] [16] [24]
In court reports, Osipov’s role is described as organising contacts, whilst in relation to Duka, the alleged facilitation of information gathering and interference in specific cases are discussed. In the case of Volodymyr Tsenov, the High Anti-Corruption Court set an alternative to arrest at 15 million hryvnias: according to ‘Suspilne’, the sum was paid. At the time of the ruling, Oleksandr Demyanchuk was remanded in custody without the option of bail. These are different rulings concerning different individuals. They must not be treated as either a collective verdict or as confirmation that the same charge has been brought against Kravchuk. [10] [15] [17] [18]
U420 and 2.4 million USDT: what is being investigated in this episode
One of the most specific allegations raised at the hearing on preventive measures concerns four crypto wallets. According to SAPO prosecutor Mykola Karas, the U420 network case involved approximately 2.4 million USDT. Court reporters stated that the investigation links Duka to attempts to have the freeze on these funds lifted. To assess this episode, it is important to consider the sequence of events: which decision froze the assets, who filed the application, which authority could have lifted the freeze, and on what grounds. The correspondence referred to by the prosecution and the decision of the authorised body are different types of evidence. [15] [16] [19]
Duka did not admit guilt, describing the case as the NABU’s response to the actions of his unit. The defence cited the official nature of the contacts. This is the defence’s position, just as the presentation of the correspondence represents the prosecution’s position. On 10 November, ‘Ukrainska Pravda’ reported that the Office of the Prosecutor General had launched an internal investigation, including into the issue of possible assistance in the recovery of assets in the cases concerning call centres and U420. The launch of the investigation does not mean that any violations have already been established. In the publicly available materials concerning this ‘crypto-episode’, the editorial team found no confirmation of Kravchuk’s involvement. [15] [16] [20]
11–12 November: the latest on Duka’s bail
- 6 November. The High Anti-Corruption Court has ruled that Duka is to remain in custody, with the option to post bail of 65 million hryvnias. [11]
- 10 November. A prosecutor from the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) confirmed the receipt of 44 million hryvnias from 1,113 payers. [12]
- 11 November. The prosecutor told ‘Suspilne’ that around 50 million hryvnias had been paid. According to this information, approximately 15 million hryvnias remained to be paid to reach the full amount. [13]
- 12 November. Suspilne’s morning news bulletin repeated the figure quoted the previous day. There was no confirmation from verified sources that the full amount had been paid by that point, or that Duka had been released from custody. [21]
A separate issue is how the money was raised. ‘Ukrainska Pravda’, citing sources, reported that pressure had been exerted on staff in certain SBU departments. On 11 November, Duka’s lawyer, Yuriy Sukhov, stated on ‘Radio Svoboda’ that colleagues had transferred the money voluntarily. The number of payments alone does not confirm either the existence or the absence of pressure. To determine this, it is necessary to examine the payers’ statements and the messages accompanying the collection. [22] [23]
What evidence is needed to draw conclusions about Kravchuk?
By assets We need details of the transfer of ownership of the properties, the prices stated in the contracts and payment records. By position — a dated, personalised order or an official clarification from the SBU that will resolve the discrepancies in reports following the searches. On ‘Carthage’ — a procedural document detailing specific actions by Kravchuk, should the investigation establish them. For the time being, these three lines of inquiry cannot be reduced to a single conclusion regarding the work of Department ‘D’ at ‘Khimprom’. The aim of the investigation is to examine a possible conflict between the powers of the head of internal security and what the case files reveal about the contacts of people in his professional circle.
The editorial team is prepared to publish responses from Anton Kravchuk, the SBU and representatives of the individuals mentioned in the article. If you have documents relating to these transactions or can confirm a specific incident, please send us the documents with your home addresses and personal identification details redacted.
On the cover — an editorial collage made from the photographs provided. A solitary portrait of a man is featured in a separate inset and is not captioned as a photograph of Kravchuk. The city and architecture in the background are an illustration.
Related: Serhiy Duka and Anton Kravchuk: what was known about the searches on 4 November.
