Are million-dollar awards really given out in the "Forests of Ukraine": how SE lawyers hide the truth from society

After information appeared on social media about exorbitant million-hryvnia bonuses awarded to the management of the central office and regional branches of the state enterprise “Forests of Ukraine,” EcoPolitic decided to verify whether this was true. We sent an official request to the agency to find out the truth – how many bonuses in 2025 were received from the state budget by its officials.

We were interested in the bonuses of the officials mentioned in posts on Facebook and Telegram. These are:

1. General Director of SE “Forests of Ukraine” Yuriy Bolokhovets, who was sent to pre-trial detention by the court about three weeks ago with bail set at almost 91 million UAH. He is accused of illicit enrichment. In April, the media reported that Bolokhovets declared “free accommodation” in a luxury apartment in Kyiv, the average rent for which could be about $3,500 per month.
2. Executive Director of SE “Forests of Ukraine” Ihor Lytsur. About a month ago, prosecutors from the Office of the Prosecutor General notified him of suspicion of abuse of office during the purchase of tractors for the state enterprise, causing losses to the state totaling 8 million UAH. Earlier, in January, the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) announced suspicion related to the procurement of mobile phones at inflated prices.
3. Chief Operations Officer of SE "Forests of Ukraine" Oleksandr Kvatyrko. Media have repeatedly accused this official, who previously served as director of the Polissia Forest Office, of corruption, particularly in the illegal transfer of land plots and assets from subordinate forest enterprises into private ownership of acquaintances. Last year, the SBI opened criminal proceedings against this official on charges of illicit enrichment.
4. Director of the Human Resources Department of SE "Forests of Ukraine" Kostiantyn Voitsechovsky.
5. Director of the IT Technologies Department of SE "Forests of Ukraine" Andriy Voronyi. According to media reports, he, along with Lytsur, also received suspicion of manipulation during the mobile phone procurement process.
6. Director of the Procurement Department of SE "Forests of Ukraine" Vitalii Tsymbaliuk. Journalists claim that he is the third subject in the case concerning the purchase of smartphones for the enterprise at inflated prices.
7. Director of the Forestry Department of SE "Forests of Ukraine" Ivan Sheremet.

• Director of the “Capital Forest Office” branch, Viktor Sakhniuk. According to media reports, in May he was served with a notice of suspicion for interfering with the operation of the electronic timber accounting system. He is also known for having received over 9 million UAH in salary during 2024, which is 2.5 million UAH more than Yuriy Bolokhovets himself. In response to their information request to SE “Forests of Ukraine” asking for the director’s pay slip, journalists from “Suspilne Zhytomyr” received a formal reply similar to that sent to EcoPolitic, stating that such information could be used by the aggressor and claiming “serious consequences for the country’s economic stability and security.”
• Director of the “Carpathian Forest Office” branch of SE “Forests of Ukraine,” Ihor Cheban.
• Director of the “Slobozhansky Forest Office” branch, Ivan Hryshko.
• Director of the “Podilskyi Forest Office” branch, Vasyl Honchar.
• Director of the “Northern Forest Office” branch,
• Director of the “Southern Forest Office” branch, Oleksandr Hrytsai. In 2023, he was served a notice of suspicion by the State Bureau of Investigation for embezzling over 15 million UAH.
• Head of the Security Department of SE “Forests of Ukraine,” Stepan Dovhun.
• Director of the Forest Resources Department of SE “Forests of Ukraine,” Oleksandr Zhuk.
• Director of the Development and Investment Department of SE “Forests of Ukraine,” Viktor Busko.
• Head of the Legal Department of SE “Forests of Ukraine,” Vitalii Dudka.
• Head of the Cherkasy Regional Department of Forestry and Hunting, Oleksandr Dziubenko.
• Former Director of the “Eastern Forest Office” branch of SE “Forests of Ukraine,” Oleksandr Kravchenko. He is suspected of abuse of office causing damages in excess of 68 million UAH.

We should note that, during the preparation of this material, we observed two points:

• The website of SE “Forests of Ukraine” lacks information about this large state enterprise’s departments and their heads. Similarly, the structure does not list the directors of the branches. Their names can only be found after lengthy surfing of the official site – in the schedule for citizen reception. Therefore, the openness of this government body is highly questionable.
• There is active “cleansing” of all posts on social media accusing “Forests of Ukraine” officials of corruption and receiving money.

Response without figures

To say we were surprised by the response is an understatement. The state enterprise hid behind a legal wall, making it extremely difficult for the average citizen to penetrate the thickets of complex legal language and justifications presented in the reply. Read below about the arguments used by the lawyers to refuse to provide information and save face for their superiors.

If we briefly summarise the response, which stretched over six pages, it boils down to this: “We will not disclose anything since it is a commercial secret, and besides, this could harm national security, territorial integrity, or public order. The enemy could use this information to disrupt the operations of our critically important enterprise.”

There was only one specific detail: “The CEO, Yurii Bolokhovets, was not awarded or paid a bonus in 2025.”

For everything else, we received a refusal. Here are the reasons provided by the state enterprise’s lawyers:

• the requested information is classified; access is restricted “exclusively in the interest of national security to protect the rights of other individuals” (!!!).
• the bonuses of division heads are concealed by an internal order declaring them a commercial secret;
• according to the Law of Ukraine “On Access to Public Information”, only the salaries of the head of the state enterprise, their deputy, and members of the supervisory board are subject to disclosure;
• the Commercial Code contains an exhaustive list of information required for publication, which does not include middle managers’ bonuses;
• allegedly, disclosing the size of the bonuses could harm national security and become available to the “aggressor”.

What wartime and security arguments were used to try to intimidate us

In its response, the enterprise specifically emphasised: “Forests of Ukraine” is a “critical infrastructure facility”.

The state enterprise’s lawyers warned that disclosing information about the remuneration of individual managers of its independent divisions could lead to:

1. Abuse and manipulation. Supposedly, other employees or unreliable information sources could use this information for abuse and manipulation. This raises the question: is there really a lack of allegations against “Forests of Ukraine” in the information space, which they do not comment on or refute in any way? Typically, the opposite is true: the absence of reliable information creates ample room for manipulation.
2. Disruption of the enterprise’s operations.

“False information or manipulation could disrupt the enterprise’s operations, especially if it is aimed at changing public opinion about the enterprise or its products,” the response states.

And again, the question arises: do the numerous suspicions voiced in recent months against both ordinary and high-ranking officials of the forestry sector not disrupt the enterprise’s activities?

3. Reputational threats.

“The dissemination of false information may pose a reputational threat to the enterprise, as it may affect the trust of partners and other stakeholders,” the state enterprise says.

We fully agree, but if it is the enterprise itself that provides bonus information, then it cannot be false, right? So there would be no reputational threat in that case, would there?

4. Distracting from real problems since this “may harm the development and competitiveness of the enterprise.” It is very interesting what actual problems at the enterprise are considered real?

• Real risks to national security and harm to the interests and rights of others. The state enterprise insists that, under martial law, it is dangerous for society to know the amounts of bonuses received by officials, which come from taxpayer money-that is, from us.

Moreover, this “does not promote public discussion” and does not help expose corruption. In other words, according to the enterprise, taxpayers have no right to know about bonuses given to officials paid from their contributions.

At the same time, according to sociological surveys, Ukrainians consider corruption one of the country's most significant problems, yet the State Enterprise “Forests of Ukraine” does not view information about officials’ bonuses as socially necessary.

Why this is questionable

Journalists, of course, are not lawyers and cannot provide a legal assessment of the answer given by the State Enterprise “Forests of Ukraine.” However, there are several points that cast doubt on the validity of the arguments presented.

1. Courts recognize such data as being of public importance. The Supreme Court has repeatedly required state enterprises to disclose the salaries and bonuses of their executives, since this is taxpayer money.
2. National security threat from... bonuses? In its response, the enterprise made the leap from financial rewards for managers at various levels to “a threat to state sovereignty” in just a few paragraphs.
3. Commercial secrecy in state structures. Concealing budget payments through internal orders is a classic method to avoid transparency.

EcoPolitic asked legal experts to comment on the response provided by the State Enterprise “Forests of Ukraine.” We will inform you of the results of their professional analysis in due course.

Mission – conceal everything

Formally, “Forests of Ukraine” seemingly complies with the law. In practice, they erect a reinforced concrete wall so that no one finds out how much money from the state budget, and for what merits, ends up in the pockets of their managers.

They do so under the cover of “national security.” However, in a democratic country, national security should not be used as a screen to conceal potential corruption-especially when it concerns millions from taxpayers’ pockets, and even more so during wartime.

Earlier, EcoPolitic cited data from whistleblowers on social networks who found that the salaries of forestry officials in Ukraine exceed those of top government officials in Europe.