The Kyiv City Council once again did not have enough votes to at least partially correct the high-profile “land errors” that became the subject of the NABU investigation within the framework of the high-profile “Clean City” case. These are four newly formed plots of land with an area of about 0.6 hectares, which were “painted” under non-existent real estate objects — the so-called “ghost buildings”. Despite the available evidence of falsifications, on June 10, 2025, the Kyiv City Council deputies failed to vote on their exclusion from the decision on the land inventory. All of the aforementioned plots have already ended up or may end up in the hands of related companies — without any auction.
The “Toilet Scheme” in action
The essence of the deal is as old as the world, but it still works: a non-existent building with an area of 40–100 m² is “imposed” on a plot of land in the city center, a fake ownership right is registered for it, and then on this basis the land is leased directly, without a competition. This time, addresses on Prytysko-Mykilska, Vasylkivska, Chervonaya Kalyna and Mickevycha appear. According to NABU, the technical passports for the “structures” were falsified, and the objects themselves did not exist in nature. However, a private notary did register the ownership of these “buildings” in the name of a citizen, Vitaliy Bilous, who later transferred them to legal entities.
In particular, we are talking about LLC “B-6” and LLC “Kingsta”, which have already submitted documents for the purchase or lease of these plots. One of them — a plot at 1-A Mickevycha Street — has already been formally leased for 10 years.
In a letter sent to the Kyiv City Council, NABU directly states: the “ghost building” schemes were used by a criminal organization led by former deputy Denys Komarnytsky. The case also includes Deputy Head of the Kyiv City State Administration Petro Olenich, deputies Mykhailo Terentyev, Olena Marchenko, as well as heads of municipal enterprises.
As part of the “Clean City” case, detectives established that in the period 2023–2024, plots worth over UAH 11.6 million were illegally withdrawn from municipal property and an attempt was made to seize six more worth UAH 83.7 million. It is noteworthy that some of the “projects” for the design and development of these plots had already been financed. That is, the developers did not stop even after the scheme was exposed.
Despite a direct instruction from NABU, the Kyiv City Council has twice failed to vote for a draft decision to exclude these plots from the land inventory document. The initiative for the cancellation was initiated by deputy Volodymyr Bondarenko (“UDAR”), but both votes yielded only 51 votes out of the required 61. The decision remained in force, and therefore the formally “erroneous” plots remain in the distribution plan and can be transferred without a competition.
Currently, the Kyiv City Council is separately suing Vitaliy Bilous and the companies “B-6” and “Kingsta”. In case No. 758/4816/25, the city is demanding the cancellation of the fictitious registration of the “building” on Prytysko-Mykilska. In case No. 910/4142/25, it is trying to return the plot on Vasylkivska. However, without a decision from the Kyiv City Council, these courts may remain only an attempt to “put out the fire with buckets”.
LLC “B-6” and LLC “Kingsta” are connected to each other and to the capital’s politicians. Both have common founders with companies connected to Oleksandr Spasybko (former deputy head of the Kyiv City State Administration), as well as to Kyiv City Council member Olena Ovramenko and former deputy mayor Hanna Svyrydenko. It was these individuals who voted for the transfer of land to LLC “Kingsta”.
The situation with “correcting errors” demonstrates: even when the scheme is exposed, documents are forged, and those involved are suspected, the Kyiv City Council is still in no hurry to restore order. Instead of canceling, it ignores. Instead of returning the land to the community, it preserves “private” schemes. And as long as land decisions remain an instrument of influence, and the votes of deputies are an instrument of agreements, the story of the “Clean City” is far from over.
