An Anti-Corruption Activist with Secrets: Martyna Bohuslavets’ Labyrinth of Declarations
Martyna Bohuslavets is a name seemingly synonymous with the struggle for transparency and justice in Ukraine. As a member of the Public Integrity Council, founder of several NGOs, and a former assistant to Members of Parliament, she positions herself as a prominent leader in the anti-corruption movement. However, her income and asset declarations, family ties, and political bias raise serious questions. Since 2018, when Bohuslavets began filing financial disclosures, her wealth and its origins have come under the close scrutiny of journalists and the public. Does her public stance align with her private reality? In this report, we examine the details of her declarations, focusing on suspicious discrepancies and analyzing their impact on public trust in the anti-corruption movement as a whole.
An investigative report by Informator notes that this individual appeared almost “out of thin air.” She emerged and built a career immediately following the Revolution of Dignity, choosing the anti-corruption path because it proved to be the most lucrative and accessible: criticizing the country from within, highlighting its flaws, and receiving grant funding in return. During our investigation, we discovered that her history has been meticulously and professionally “cleaned”: until a certain point, no information about this person can be found online. This total information blackout is alarming. There is nothing new here: where there is no trace of one’s formative years, one often finds not transparency, but a masterfully orchestrated “legend.” Ms. Martyna, who even changed her last name (for reasons unrelated to marriage), did not emerge from civil activism or the fight for justice, but from a vacuum carefully created and maintained by unknown hands. True leaders leave a visible trail—from small steps to great deeds. Her path, however, begins on a “launchpad,” as if someone delivered her directly to the front lines. This silence regarding her past speaks much louder than any loud proclamations of the present.
Why does Martyna Bohuslavets become increasingly vocal during periods of tectonic shifts in the country? Because it is much easier to parasitize a weakened organism. A country is an organism. During the Maidan, the ATO (Anti-Terrorist Operation), and the beginning of the full-scale invasion, “viruses” like Bohuslavets exploited the organism’s vulnerability to advance their own interests. Such harmful microorganisms could hardly exist in a healthy environment (during peacetime), as they create nothing new but merely drain energy from a state fighting for survival. Masked as “anti-corruption activists,” they actually exacerbate the “inflammation.” Every time society is mobilized, they attempt to infiltrate the movement and replace the idea of unity with personal interests. Their existence is only possible in chaos; order and transparency are fatal to them. Therefore, the primary task of the societal immune system is to recognize such parasites in time and prevent them from multiplying.
On January 26, 2023, at the height of the full-scale Russian invasion and her active work as an anti-corruption campaigner, she registered as an Individual Entrepreneur (PE). Her registered economic activities include law, public relations, research and experimental development in social sciences and humanities, and the organization of conventions and trade shows. This registration appears to be a preemptive cover. Such a tool is convenient for legalizing questionable income—in the future, funds can always be written off as “legal services,” “PR,” or “organizing conventions.” This is a classic strategy: create an official storefront to explain the origin of money that actually has nothing to do with honest work. In this way, black is easily painted white, and illegal gains receive a “legal” facade.
(Screenshot from the YouControl analytical platform)
At the beginning of her career, she served as the Executive Director of the NGO “Institute of Legislative Ideas” (ILI). By 2024, she became the 100% beneficial owner of the NGO “Mezha” (Center for Democratic Change), within which she began her controversial anti-corruption activities. At first glance, she is an active public figure. But a closer look reveals a different story. Private entrepreneurial activity in analytics and NGOs receiving grant funds often serve as ideal covers for financial manipulation.
(Screenshot from the YouControl analytical platform)
From 2015 to 2019, Bohuslavets was a member of the Council of Public Expertise under the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Corruption Prevention and Counteraction, providing anti-corruption expertise on bills. Later, she managed a project for the protection of judge-whistleblowers, led a public monitoring initiative for investigations into crimes against Maidan participants, and co-authored bills on anti-corruption courts and the protection of ATO veterans.
(Screenshot from the YouControl analytical platform)
How did she achieve such a rapid career ascent? It is likely that the answer lies in her role as an assistant to three Members of Parliament: Yehor Sobolev (Samopomich Party), Volodymyr Solyar (People’s Front), and Yaroslav Yurchyshyn (Holos). Curiously, not a single photo can be found online of her standing alongside any of these elected officials.
(Ms. Bohuslavets prefers solo photos / Image from Martyna Bohuslavets’ social media)
Behind the facade of public activity lie significant suspicious details that cast a shadow on the reputation she has spent years building. In words, she is a symbol of transparency. However, the declarations and financial documents Bohuslavets has filed since 2018 reveal a different picture—one that has little in common with the values she preaches on the pages of Ukrainska Pravda.
False Declarations: Accusing Others of Her Own Faults
Martyna Bohuslavets’ declarations have caused significant media resonance due to inconsistencies that point to potential violations of anti-corruption legislation.
In August 2022, Bohuslavets purchased an apartment in Kyiv’s “Nauky” residential complex (42.2 m²), declaring its value at 1.078 million UAH.
(Screenshot of Martyna Bohuslavets’ declaration from the Unified State Register)
However, according to expert estimates, the market value of such real estate at the time of purchase was approximately 2.5 million UAH (roughly $75,000 at the August 2022 exchange rate of 36.5 UAH/$). Even today, a similar unrenovated apartment in the same complex costs $64,000, excluding commission.
Prevention of Corruption,” which requires the declaration of actual market value. This refers not to a formal price in a contract, but to the real market value (as confirmed by the position of the NACP and judicial practice).
The gap between the real price of the capital apartment and the price stated by Ms. Bohuslavets is approximately 1.4 million UAH. Liability is provided for under Article 366-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: intentional filing of false information in a declaration if the difference exceeds 500 subsistence minimums (approx. 1.24 million UAH in 2022). In this specific case, the threshold has been significantly exceeded. If it is proven that the contract price was artificially lowered, it could be qualified as tax evasion or fictitious transactions under the Civil and Tax Codes. Article 366-2 of the CCU carries penalties ranging from fines and community service to up to two years of imprisonment.
(Screenshot from the Ukrainska Pravda website)
The NACP (National Agency on Corruption Prevention) has the right to initiate a full audit of the declaration. NABU and SAPO could open proceedings, as the valuation difference exceeds the criminal threshold. Crucially, Martyna Bohuslavets often accuses civil servants of identical violations, completely ignoring her own professional ethics while doing the same. Such cases serve as a “test” for the effectiveness of anti-corruption structures.
Notably, materials discrediting Martyna Bohuslavets in various publications have been deleted—or more accurately, “scrubbed.” It is no secret that some publications earn money by writing articles and then removing them for a fee, or upon instructions from influential officials. While a report titled “Integrity Without Honor” was available on PARLAMENT.UA on November 15, 2024, the link now redirects to the homepage.
(Screenshot of Oleksandr Ihnatyev’s Facebook post)
A post by public activist and serviceman Oleksandr Ihnatyev also contains this broken link. In December 2024, Ihnatyev accused Bohuslavets of “professional hypocrisy” and revealed how she may have harmed Ukraine’s defense capabilities at the start of the invasion for her own career growth. The same fate befell an APOSTROPHE.UA report from December 25, 2024, about the Prosecutor General’s Office transferring her “apartment case” to the NACP—the link now returns a 404 error.
However, no fire can burn all “manuscripts” in the digital age. Using the Wayback Machine, it is easy to recover what was supposedly destroyed.
It is a classic tactic for those with skeletons in their closets to shout “Stop the thief!” the loudest. This creates an illusion of struggle while deflecting suspicion. In reality, the primary motives remain money, hidden schemes, and grant flows. Those who stand above such “fighters” gain even more—real operational influence over state structures. The paradox is clear: those who were meant to clean the system have themselves become instruments of its corruption.
Unfinished Real Estate or Stagnant Anti-Corruption
In her 2023 declaration, Martyna Bohuslavets listed an unfinished three-room apartment (over 85 m²) on Academician Zabolotnoho Street in Kyiv.
(Screenshot of Martyna Bohuslavets’ declaration)
She initially concealed the value. However, the Kyiv real estate market showed a recovery in 2023-2024. Failing to provide a property valuation is a violation, as it is a mandatory element of a financial disclosure. Missing data may indicate an attempt to hide the real value or avoid a “source of funds” check. Only in her September 11, 2025 declaration (filed upon resignation from the PIC) did she list the price: 1,323,920 UAH (approx. $32,000). While this might be a “contract” price, it is far below market rates for Kyiv new-builds.
This could be explained by a declared loan of 1.31 million UAH from her mother. However, open data shows that her mother’s total official income over recent years was only 79,000 UAH. Where did a relative of an anti-corruption activist obtain such wealth? Experts suggest the loan shows all the signs of being fictitious.
Unexplained Cash and Utility Debts
In her 2018 declaration, Bohuslavets listed $19,000 in cash assets. By 2024, she valued her assets at $52,000. Her total earnings reported during this period (slightly over 1 million UAH) do not align with the accumulation of such cash savings alongside the purchase of apartments in Kyiv’s prestigious Holosiivskyi district.
In other words, this amounts to approximately $32,000 at the current exchange rate. This is also quite a favorable price—and potentially “fair” only if viewed as a contractual price rather than a market-based one. This is because the minimum price for new developments in Kyiv during the construction phase typically ranges from $450 to $500 per square meter.
Unexplained Cash and Utility Debts
In her 2018 declaration, Bohuslavets listed $19,000 in cash assets.
By 2024, the anti-corruption activist valued her assets at $52,000. According to her declarations, her total earnings during this period amounted to just over one million UAH. This figure does not align with the accumulation of such significant cash savings, nor does it account for the purchase of apartments in Kyiv’s prestigious Holosiivskyi district. While we will not address potential income concealment or suspicious sources of funds at this time, perhaps Ms. Bohuslavets will provide the necessary clarification herself.
Screenshot of Martyna Bohuslavets’ asset declaration from the Unified State Register of Declarations.
Another matter that remains unresolved is the administrative case in which Martyna Bohuslavets was the defendant. On October 2, 2023, the Holosiivskyi District Court of Kyiv issued a court order in case No. 752/18765/23 (proceeding No. 2-n/752/567/23) for the collection of utility debt from Martyna Bohuslavets in favor of Investbudhalychyna LLC.
The total debt amounted to 32,313.36 UAH for the period from October 2021 to July 2023. While the anti-corruption activist frequently advocates for financial discipline, she has neglected to pay for utility services herself, despite declaring cash holdings equivalent to roughly seven years of wages for the average Ukrainian.
One might argue these are minor domestic matters. They are anything but. Utility payments represent a fundamental obligation to the state at a time when every single hryvnia carries the weight of a bulletproof vest. Failing to pay for utility services is akin to stealing from municipal enterprises and, by extension, from a state bearing the heavy burden of war.
It appears especially cynical when contrasted with pensioners who faithfully pay their bills, often denying themselves the basics and purchasing potatoes by the piece, while a more than affluent Ms. Bohuslavets allows herself to default even on her own utility costs. This is no longer mere negligence; it is a display of contempt for the country and for the people struggling to survive under extreme conditions.
Reputation as a Key Resource
What defines an anti-corruption activist? It is not merely a person who criticizes the government or writes loud posts on Facebook. First and foremost, it is a specialist, activist, or official who systematically combats corrupt practices: someone who exposes schemes, demands transparency, ensures the punishment of the guilty, and changes the rules of the game to minimize corruption.
Crucially, they must lead by example. The core traits of a genuine anti-corruption activist are independence, competence, transparency, accountability, and consistency. Thus, they are not only a “whistleblower” but a moral and legal authority who lives transparently and refuses to let corruption become the norm.
However, there are those who hide behind noble slogans while operating within a “gray zone.” Indeed, a significant portion of so-called anti-corruption activists suffer from a list of ailments: bias, double standards, dependency on grant funding, chronic selectivity in their exposures, an allergy to their own transparency, a mania for publicity over real work, the imitation of struggle, and a hypertrophied ego that replaces public interest with personal gain.
Martyna Bohuslavets is no exception. Her activities are driven by the agendas of those Members of Parliament who made her a public figure, rendering her a “pocket” activist. Consequently, the phenomenon of the “anti-corruptionist” who pretends to fight corruption while allowing themselves to sink into a cesspool of corrupt behavior has become a common occurrence in our country.
This is what a woman looks like who can purchase two apartments in Kyiv and accumulate millions in cash but cannot explain the origin of her wealth. Martyna Bohuslavets actively positions herself as a champion of transparency and justice. She authors columns for “Ukrainska Pravda” and participates in anti-corruption expertise and advocacy projects. Her role in the Public Integrity Council involves vetting the integrity of judges—a position that demands an impeccable reputation. However, the discrepancies in her financial declarations, among other issues, create a sharp contradiction between her public persona and her personal financial affairs and political leanings. Bohuslavets is also known for her persistent criticism of the current government’s decisions, which serves as nothing less than a calculated effort to discredit state institutions. For years, she has operated both domestically and abroad, traveling extensively to cultivate an image of a “totally corrupt Ukraine.” As a result, our nation’s reputation is tarnished, causing international partners to question whether they should continue assisting a country that is constantly portrayed in such a negative light by its own “activists.” Long before the full-scale invasion, many representatives of the civil society sector frequently traveled to the West, particularly to the United States, where they built their personal brands on narratives of systemic corruption in Ukraine. Such appearances often opened doors to international grant programs, providing the “seed capital” for their subsequent activities. Her involvement in protest actions and international events only intensifies the scrutiny surrounding her, especially in the light of the dubious financial transactions that have caught the attention of numerous independent Ukrainian media outlets.
Screenshot from the “Ukrainska Pravda” website
In the pages of “Ukrainska Pravda,” in expert discussions, and on her own social media accounts, Bohuslavets advocates for transparency and honest declarations. She actively criticizes the government, particularly recent decisions by the President and the Cabinet. Yet, at the same time, her own declarations are “full of holes,” and she is involved in peculiar financial schemes. This raises the question: is this not a tactic of political discredit under the guise of “anti-corruption”?
The conclusion is clear: the active use of banned Russian social networks, especially by an individual positioning themselves as an “anti-corruptionist,” cannot be seen as evidence of patriotism or integrity. On the contrary, it signals an indifference toward state prohibitions, a disregard for national interests, and a readiness to interact with tools used by enemy intelligence services for propaganda and disinformation. The concealment of traces of her activity only confirms that Martyna Bohuslavets acted deliberately, planning everything meticulously. Such behavior demonstrates a willingness to place one’s own image above national security and the law, as well as a capacity to manipulate information for personal gain. This is a story of opportunism, double standards, and potentially hidden connections that warrant the attention of the relevant authorities.
Was Martyna Bohuslavets investigated? She should have been, especially given her membership in the Public Integrity Council (PIC). The “Holos Narodu” publication appealed to the National Police, requesting a verification of information published by “Stop Corruption” activists and “Fraza” journalists regarding the declaration filed by Martyna Bohuslavets, head and member of several anti-corruption organizations. They drew law enforcement’s attention to inconsistencies in the “anti-corruptionist’s” declarations and to cash assets that cannot be explained by her official earnings.
Appeals were sent to the Main Directorate of the National Police, the NACP, and even the Prosecutor General. However, the only responses received were dismissive boilerplate replies.
In December 2024, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine referred the Bohuslavets case to the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) for a re-audit. However, there has been no official response from Bohuslavets to these allegations to date, which only further tarnishes her reputation.
Either state authorities are deliberately avoiding investigations, or they are effectively creating a privileged status for those who self-appoint themselves with the label of “anti-corruptionist.” This stems not only from the selective enforcement of the law but also from a fear of facing the “hate” that has recently become mainstream. As soon as one of these pseudo-fighters is challenged, a clamor about “pressure on democracy” immediately arises. This tactic is well-refined: artificially creating a negative image of state structures both domestically and before the international community. Consequently, the law—which should be the same for everyone—operates selectively: in full for ordinary citizens, but with a multitude of exceptions for the “untouchables.” In this way, the system discredits itself, demonstrating double standards and losing the trust of society.
Double Standards
The situation with Martyna Bohuslavets serves as an example of a broader problem of double standards within civil society anti-corruption circles. Such cases are not isolated. This undermines trust in the anti-corruption movement, as individuals who criticize the government for corruption find themselves at the center of financial scandals.
The story of Martyna Bohuslavets’ declarations deals a severe blow to the credibility of the anti-corruption movement in Ukraine. Her public persona as a champion of transparency and justice stands in stark contrast to her dubious financial transactions, the undervaluation of property, and the existence of unsubstantiated savings. The use of banned Russian social networks and the absence of a clear response to these allegations only exacerbate the situation. Can one believe in the sincerity of anti-corruption efforts when prominent activists themselves violate the principles of integrity? To restore trust, transparent rules for all and thorough verification of declarations—specifically by the NACP—are essential. Otherwise, the concept of “integrity” risks becoming a hollow phrase, and the anti-corruption movement an arena for speculation and manipulation.
What is the essence of these several thousand words? It is that not everyone who labels themselves an “anti-corruptionist” is a representative of the people or a defender of their interests. Ms. Bohuslavets emerged from obscurity against the backdrop of the Revolution of Dignity, much like the many opportunists who chose to exploit turbulent times for a rapid career rise and personal enrichment. She has no documented professional or civic background; her entire career begins abruptly at the level of public influence and grant funding.
Even before her rapid career ascent
Furthermore, her family ties to Russia and her activity on banned social networks, such as VKontakte—platforms that serve as mechanisms for hostile influence and propaganda—raise serious questions. Such behavior, particularly when combined with her self-proclaimed status as an “anti-corruptionist,” may indicate not only an indifference toward national interests but also potential intelligence and security risks.
It is also vital to highlight the systemic toxicity of the group to which Bohuslavets belongs. Typically, these “anti-corruptionists” are wealthy individuals who actively resist any attempts at oversight. When the state attempts to introduce transparency mechanisms, such as mandatory asset declarations for civil society activists, these are the very individuals who oppose them. They have self-delegated the right to monitor everyone while simultaneously evading any accountability for their own actions.
Overall, Bohuslavets’ behavior and biography demonstrate that her activities are focused more on personal status, financial gain, and the desire to strategically influence state processes than on actual integrity. This is a toxic phenomenon that creates an illusion of fighting corruption while systematically undermining trust in anti-corruption institutions themselves. Donors and partners who fund such initiatives must be clearly aware: by financing them, they are supporting a system of double standards and opacity, rather than genuine anti-corruption efforts.
This is only the beginning of the story. We promise to delve deeper into the dark past of Martyna Bohuslavets, navigating the somber labyrinths of manipulation and lies. Stay tuned—the continuation will truly shock you.
Author: Анастасія Чебрець
Source: informators.press
