On 27 September 2026, the ORD website published an article in English ‘The Price of Inaction: How a Police Officer Turned Non-Interference into a Source of Income’The text claims that Roman Zinyak, Deputy Head of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, was allegedly linked to a scheme involving the receipt of money in exchange for police non-interference in the operations of studios producing erotic and pornographic content. An editorial check reveals that the May story about the ‘porn offices’ itself is corroborated by several sources, including reports citing the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the National Police.
What has been confirmed regarding Zinyak’s position
The official website of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Ivano-Frankivsk region states: Roman Zinyak is the deputy chief of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, a police colonel. This is the only verified fact about him that directly corresponds to the original ORD publication.
The ORD goes on to write about alleged monthly payments, intermediaries, the laundering of money through companies, cryptocurrency and mining. As of 2 October 2026, in the publicly available publications found from the Office of the Prosecutor General, the National Police, the SBU—via the media and in court documents published by journalists—Zinyak’s surname does not appear amongst the suspects in the ‘porn offices’ case. Therefore, these claims cannot be presented as established facts.
What is known about the ‘porn offices’ case
On 20 May 2026, law enforcement agencies announced the uncovering of a corruption scheme within the National Police linked to the cover-up of so-called ‘porn offices’ in the Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil and Zhytomyr regions. ‘Ukrainska Pravda’, citing the Office of the Prosecutor General It reported that, according to the investigation, police officers and their associates may have received unlawful benefits in exchange for allowing premises where pornographic content was illegally produced and distributed to operate unhindered.
Public documents name five suspects: Sergei Bezpalko, Head of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Ivano-Frankivsk region; his deputy, Vladimir Yatsyuk; Andriy Tkachyk, first deputy head of the Investigative Department of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Ternopil region; Ilya Gulevaty, deputy head of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Zhytomyr region; and Vladimir Vorobey, a driver associated with the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ vehicle fleet. It is precisely these names that are cited UP, as well as ZN.ua.
According to the investigation, as reported by the Ukrainian media, the scheme centred on a promise not to take action against offices where explicit content was produced and distributed. The regular payment was reportedly set at 20,000 dollars a month, and the driver, according to the investigation, acted as an intermediary. These details are set out in full in the report ‘Suspilne’ from the Pechersk District Court in Kyiv.
Procedural status: suspicion, arrest, bail
On 21 May 2026, the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv imposed a pre-trial detention order on five suspects, with the possibility of bail. According to ‘Ukrainska Pravda’The court set bail at 7 million UAH for Serhiy Bezpalko, 5 million UAH for Volodymyr Yatsiuk, 5 million UAH for Andriy Tkachyk, 1,164,000 UAH for Illya Gulevaty, and 8 million UAH for Volodymyr Vorob.
22 May 2026 ZAXID.NET, citing the Office of the Prosecutor General It was reported that bail had been posted for four police officers and they had been released from custody; Vorobey remained in custody at the time. This does not imply an admission of guilt: this relates to the pre-trial investigation stage and a preventive measure.
The National Police, according to UNN… launched comprehensive investigations in the Zhytomyr, Ternopil and Ivano-Frankivsk regions following the exposé on 20 May. The report also states that police leadership declared its readiness to investigate violations regardless of position or rank.
The defence’s position and the weaknesses in the official version
An important detail: the suspects did not admit guilt during the hearings. ‘Suspilne’ It reports that Yatsyuk’s defence team described the allegations as unfounded and pointed out that, in the lawyers’ view, the prosecution had failed to prove that money had been transferred to Yatsyuk or his superior. Gulevaty’s lawyer claimed that the police officer had, in fact, been provoked into ignoring the “fictitious office and fictitious business”. These arguments have not yet been established as facts by the court, but they are important for the sake of balance.
Ivan Pelivan, the prosecutor handling the case, speaking to ‘Suspilne’, did not disclose whether the ‘porn offices’ themselves were operational, what exactly was being filmed there, or whether those involved in the filming had been held to account. He stated that the subject of the proceedings was not the production of content, but the documentation of the obtaining of unlawful gains.
Conclusion for the editorial team
The May case concerning the alleged cover-up of ‘porn offices’ in three regions has been confirmed by several independent publications and reports citing the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the National Police. The names of the five suspects have been confirmed, as have the charges under the article on unlawful gain, the pre-trial measures imposed, and the subsequent release of four police officers on bail.
We are closely monitoring developments within the National Police, and our editorial team’s journalists are continuing to work on and investigate this incident.
