{"id":596986,"date":"2026-07-07T15:50:26","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T12:50:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/2026\/07\/596986\/143-assets-of-the-brother-of-the-dbr-director-court-blocked-journalists-anti-corruption-investigation\/"},"modified":"2026-07-07T15:50:29","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T12:50:29","slug":"143-assets-of-the-brother-of-the-dbr-director-court-blocked-journalists-anti-corruption-investigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/en\/2026\/07\/596986\/143-assets-of-the-brother-of-the-dbr-director-court-blocked-journalists-anti-corruption-investigation\/","title":{"rendered":"143 assets of the brother of the DBR director: Court blocked journalists' anti-corruption investigation"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Pechersky District Court of Kyiv<\/strong>, even before the publication of the journalistic investigation, prohibited “Slidstvo.Info<\/a>“, the Anti-Corruption Center<\/a> and journalist Alina Stryzhak<\/strong> from disseminating information about the property, transactions and investments of Kharkiv businessman Oleksandr Sukhachov<\/strong> – the brother of the director of the State Bureau of Investigations Oleksii Sukhachov<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The ruling in case No. 757\/36548\/26-\u0446<\/strong> was issued by Judge Serhii Vovk<\/strong> on July 6, 2026<\/strong> – precisely when journalists were preparing to publish a piece about 143 apartments and office premises<\/strong> that, according to their data, belonged or still belong to Oleksandr Sukhachov. The claim had not yet been considered on the merits at that time: the court applied interim measures before the filing of the claim itself.<\/p>\n

A representative of LLC “Parkovyi-2” filed an application with the court. The company asked to prohibit the Anti-Corruption Center, “Slidstvo.Info” and Alina Stryzhak<\/strong> from collecting and disseminating information about personal data, property status, concluded agreements, investments, addresses and characteristics of acquired real estate objects, as well as about the company\u2019s economic and financial activities.<\/p>\n

The basis for the court application was a journalistic request that the Anti-Corruption Center sent on June 24, 2026<\/strong> to the director of the DBR Oleksii Sukhachov<\/strong> and to a company affiliated with his brother. The journalists asked for a video comment regarding the origin of the real estate. The request referred to 143 objects<\/strong>, as well as to approximately 40% of a residential apartment building in Kharkiv<\/strong>. According to the Anti-Corruption Center, the information was obtained during analysis of open state registries.<\/p>\n

The journalists did not receive a response to the request. Instead, on Friday, July 3<\/strong>, a representative of LLC “Parkovyi-2” filed an application for securing a future lawsuit, and on Monday, July 6, Judge Serhii Vovk<\/strong> granted it.<\/p>\n

The court agreed with the applicant\u2019s argument that publishing information about real estate, transactions and sources of funding could cause harm to an individual that would be impossible to remedy after the publication. The court also decided that some of the information could constitute trade secrets of LLC “Parkovyi-2”.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the ruling effectively refers not only to the specific as-yet unpublished piece but to a broad ban until the future case is decided on the merits. Journalists are prohibited from disseminating information about the property status of Oleksandr Sukhachov<\/strong>, his legal transactions, amounts and schedules of investments, addresses, technical characteristics and registration numbers of real estate.<\/p>\n

The ruling is subject to immediate enforcement. It can be appealed within 15 days<\/strong> to the Kyiv Court of Appeal<\/strong>, however filing an appeal does not suspend enforcement of the ban.<\/p>\n

Co-author of the forthcoming investigation Maksym Savchuk<\/strong> reported that journalists worked on the piece for several months and, in addition to a large number of properties, found links that lead to the DBR headed by the businessman\u2019s brother.<\/p>\n

Editor-founder of “Slidstvo.Info” Anna Babinets<\/strong> suggested that the court application indicates the subjects\u2019 awareness of the public importance of the collected information.<\/p>\n

\n

“They probably very well realize how much interesting and important for society we have found.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Anti-Corruption Center called the decision a direct restriction of freedom of speech and a dangerous method of blocking journalistic revelations even before their publication. The organization warned that failure to comply with the ruling could lead to fines and other legal consequences, and announced its intention to file an appeal.<\/p>\n

Executive director of AntAC Daria Kaleniuk<\/strong> said that journalists are effectively being used to test a mechanism for prior blocking of anti-corruption investigations.<\/p>\n

\n

“This court decision is a very dangerous precedent. It is a direct restriction on freedom of speech and a ban on publishing a socially important investigation.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Media lawyer Liudmyla Pankratova<\/strong> called the preliminary ban on publication a gross interference in the activities of independent media. She noted that the journalist followed professional standards and offered the subjects an opportunity to present their position, but instead of a comment the editorial office received a court restriction.<\/p>\n

AntAC and “Slidstvo.Info” see signs of a SLAPP in the case – a strategic lawsuit used to exhaust journalists, block socially important information or force media to give up publication. Ukraine has committed to implement anti-SLAPP mechanisms by 2027<\/strong> in accordance with European Union standards.<\/p>\n

Oleksii Sukhachov himself continues to head the DBR. He was appointed director of the Bureau on December 31, 2021 for a five-year term. On the official DBR website he is listed as the head of the agency as of July 2026.<\/p>\n

The attempt to legally close information before its publication already shows signs of the Streisand effect: instead of silence, the court ban itself drew attention to the 143 real estate objects, the content of the journalists\u2019 requests and the connections of the family of one of the country\u2019s most influential law enforcement leaders. At the same time, the findings of the investigation itself have not yet been published, and the court has not assessed the reliability of all the information collected by the journalists on the merits.<\/p>\n

Earlier we wrote:<\/strong><\/p>\n