In a declaration, expensive assets may appear not under the ‘ownership’ column, but under the ‘use’ column. For the reader, this changes the way the question is framed: it is important to ascertain not only who owns the house or car, but also who pays for the right to use them. The story of police officer Alexei Elkhin’s family is built precisely around this distinction.
The house and the right of use
Hromadske investigated the house used by the Yelkhin family and the chain of its owners. The article mentions a sale price of around $750,000 and the subsequent letting. The publication also quotes an explanation from the Department of Strategic Investigations: the department attributed the house’s absence from the 2021 declaration to the fact that it was occupied for less than six months. [1]
This explanation must not be omitted from the text for the sake of a more sensational accusation. It must be verified: when did the use begin and end, what documents confirm this, and do other observations correspond with them? A photograph taken near the house and ownership of the house are two different matters.
The car and the failed business venture
In a separate article, Hromadske described how Maria Yelkhina leased a Mercedes-Benz G-Class from ‘Trumeks Plus’. The State Security Service (SSS) explained its relationship with the company as being linked to plans for a joint car-sharing business, which never materialised. Journalists raised questions about the firm’s activities and the source of the funds used to purchase the car. [2]
From an editorial perspective, this is a stronger angle than discussing a person’s behaviour on camera. The contract, the rent, the source of payments and the financial statements make it possible to verify the explanation. An irritated comment or a refusal to be interviewed does not provide such an explanation and does not in itself prove a crime.
What happened after the articles were published
On 25 November 2025, Hromadske reported that, in response to an enquiry, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) had confirmed that an investigation, registered on 10 July 2025, was underway into the circumstances surrounding the journalistic report. The publication attributed the information about the searches separately to its sources within the law enforcement agencies. These two levels of confirmation must not be confused. [3]
A note published by the ORD in January has brought the story back into the public eye, but it does not replace the detailed initial investigation and the authorities’ response. [4]
What is in the public interest?
The lease is lawful and does not in itself indicate the concealment of assets. The question arises when the terms of use are difficult to reconcile with income, and the actual relationship between the parties remains unclear. Verification requires confirmed figures and documents, rather than a general impression of one’s lifestyle.
In our dossier, Alexei and Maria Elkhins are presented as parties to a specific property-related case. The mention of the investigation does not imply that every family member is under suspicion. There is no verified final verdict regarding the circumstances described in the sources used.
Profiles of those featured in the article
The fact boxes reveal the roles of the individuals mentioned in the sources cited. Their inclusion does not imply that guilt has been established.
This article was prepared on 29 September 2026. The editorial team welcomes documentary clarifications and responses from those featured in the article via the website’s contact details.
