Corruption scandals in Kharkiv: how investigations surrounding Terekhov’s entourage are hitting his political image

In May, a series of corruption scandals swept through Kharkiv, involving city council officials from the closest circle of Mayor Ihor Terekhov. After that, he was forced to dismiss several former associates and announced a "purge" in the city council.

Terekhov the manager’s problems are damaging the image of Terekhov the politician. The corruption scandals have negatively affected the image of the leader of the Association of Frontline Cities, which became the launchpad for the future “party of managers” or “Terekhov-Kim party.” It is possible that opponents of the Kharkiv mayor will use them to undermine his popularity.

“The perfect manager” in a storm of scandals

In May this year, Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov repeatedly had to justify himself for his subordinates.

The loudest scandal of recent years was the so-called "tram scheme", which became the subject of an investigation by the Kharkiv Anti-Corruption Center. It involves fraud in the purchase and lease of used Czech trams for the city through private shell companies linked to Nataliya Dorosh — the wife of Dmytro Lypovyi, former deputy mayor for construction and road management. Over 11 years, the city spent 40 million hryvnias on this lease. During the full-scale invasion alone, almost 14 million hryvnias were funneled to the shell companies.

On May 11, Dmytro Lypovyi was dismissed, reportedly at his own request. A month earlier, the cost of tram leases in Kharkiv dropped 20,000 times — to 1.20 hryvnias per car per month. But the damage to Ihor Terekhov’s image as a “strong manager” who generously funds free rides for residents was already done.

Dmytro Lypovyi at the tram depot. Photo: Serhiy Kozlov/KHARKIV Today

The next blow came quickly. On May 14, the SSU and the prosecutor’s office conducted searches at the Department of Digital Transformation of the Kharkiv City Council. Notably, shortly before these searches, both law enforcement agencies — the prosecutor’s office in February and the SSU in April — had new heads of their regional offices appointed. The new appointees had no ties to Kharkiv.

The prosecutor’s office confirmed the investigative actions but did not disclose details of the criminal case. According to KHARKIV Today’s sources, the case involves the embezzlement of budget funds in one of the department’s projects. It concerned the “Kharkiv Resident Card”: just days before the search, the Kharkiv Anti-Corruption Center reported that the department planned to spend another 10 million hryvnias from the budget to improve the project, but immediately after the searches, city hall abruptly changed its mind and canceled the contract. This time Terekhov was forced to comment on the incident and promised to conduct an internal review.

The third major blow to the image of Ihor Terekhov’s team was a road accident last week involving another of his deputies, Ivan Kuznetsov. His car collided with a motorcycle on Klochkivska Street — the motorcyclist died. While the tragic accident is, of course, unrelated to corruption allegations against officials, it became the final straw that forced the mayor to respond seriously to the scandals. Abandoning the Kharkiv City Council’s usual “tactic of silence” in public politics, Terekhov announced large-scale transformations in the city hall structure.

All these corruption scandals have severely damaged the image of the “perfect manager” that Terekhov, as head of the Association of Frontline Cities, had built since last summer. They will be used by both open opponents and former associates.

Has Terekhov become too popular?

In the summer of 2025, the Presidential Office began considering the creation of a party that would serve as a magnet for former voters of the banned OPFL. Although there are currently no preconditions for holding elections during the war, preparations began in advance. For this purpose, the Association of Frontline Cities was established. The project’s architects were named as David Arakhamia, head of the “Servant of the People” faction, and Danylo Hetmantsev, head of the Verkhovna Rada’s Finance Committee.

Since then, a campaign to popularize both Kharkiv in general and its mayor Terekhov specifically has begun in the media and on social networks.

“One of the myths of the Association of Frontline Cities on which it is built is, of course, the image of Kharkiv not only as a frontline city suffering daily from shelling, but also as a city where everything is free, everything is clean, with the best utility workers and the best mayor,” political scientist Anton Avksentiev told KHARKIV Today.

As intended when the association was created, Terekhov was positioned against Kyiv Mayor Vitaliy Klychko: during massive strikes on the energy sector, the capital suffered the most, making Terekhov’s governance look better by comparison. The ratings confirmed this: in January, he topped the mayoral trust rating according to a “Socis” poll, and in March, a new poll by the same company showed sensational results — a hypothetical Kim-Terekhov party would outperform “Servant of the People” in elections with 9.4% of the vote against 7.4%.

“Socis” rating

“When it became clear that this party’s ratings were comparable to the canonical ‘Servant of the People,’ that it was no longer a backup option but the main one, competition began. More negative information triggers appeared in the media,” explained Anton Avksentyev.

Terekhov at a meeting of the Association of Frontline Cities. Photo: Kharkiv City Council

In April, “Ekonomichna Pravda” published an article with a very telling title: “Communist Kharkiv. How Terekhov builds politics on debts for electricity and gas.” Anonymous high-ranking sources criticized the Kharkiv mayor for seeking publicity while driving the city into debt. This followed Terekhov’s statement that “a political project that would simultaneously include both Terekhov and Hetmantsev did not exist in the past, does not exist now, and will not exist in the future.” According to some unconfirmed reports, it was Danylo Hetmantsev who may have facilitated the publication in “EP” to punish Terekhov for disobedience. Even Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal, whom Terekhov had previously criticized for power outages in Kharkiv, joined the criticism of the Kharkiv mayor.

All of this looks like an internal conflict between different influence groups within the presidential party. It is likely that the corruption scandals in the Kharkiv city hall will be used in this intra-species competition.