Operation “Victim of Repression”: How Komarnytskyi Tries to Avoid Extradition

We’ve all seen it before. A figure involved in a high-profile corruption case vanishes abroad — and almost immediately, a public statement surfaces claiming “political persecution.” But this time, the stakes are higher. Over the past two days, synchronized statements have appeared in Ukrainian media and Telegram channels, signed by Kyiv lawyer Denys Komarnytskyi. Every single message delivers the same line: “Operation ‘Clean City’ is fake,” and actions by NABU and the President’s Office allegedly resemble political repression reminiscent of the Yanukovych era.

At first glance, it’s a textbook PR move from someone facing serious charges. But this isn’t just about public image. Komarnytskyi — a controversial businessman and former Kyiv City Council deputy who left Ukraine illegally — has effectively launched a counter-operation to block his extradition. Through the media, he is presenting himself not as a suspect, but as a “victim of political pressure.”

“Clean City”: The Case Explained

On February 6, 2025, Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) launched a sweeping anti-corruption initiative codenamed “Clean City.” According to investigators, an organized criminal group operated inside the Kyiv City State Administration (KCSA — the executive branch of the Kyiv city government) and Kyiv City Council. The scheme involved siphoning off public land and assets via shell companies, complicit deputies, and either negligent or directly involved officials.

Ten individuals were named as suspects. Seven were detained. NABU conducted searches at KCSA offices. Deputy Head of the KCSA, Petro Olenych, was remanded in custody with bail set at UAH 15 million. According to prosecutors, the central figure behind the operation is businessman Denys Komarnytskyi.

Who Is Komarnytskyi?

Komarnytskyi served as a Kyiv City Council deputy from 2006 to 2011, elected from the Leonid Chernovetskyi Bloc. Even back then, he was linked to shady land deals. His name regularly appeared in investigative reports: land grabs, pressure on deputies, kickbacks on public tenders.

In 2020, audio recordings known as the “Komarnytskyi tapes” surfaced — with a voice resembling his giving instructions to deputies, discussing bribes, and coordinating with City Hall. Komarnytskyi claimed the tapes were doctored. Still, they left a lasting image.

Now, new recordings have emerged in the “Clean City” case. NABU published covert surveillance materials capturing conversations involving Komarnytskyi, Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko’s close associate Artem Palatnyi, deputy mayors, and the city council secretary.

A Corrupt Figure Beyond the Danube

On February 10, NABU officially declared Komarnytskyi wanted. By March 12, it became clear: he had fled to Vienna — illegally — with help from law enforcement officials. Those who assisted him have been dismissed and are facing criminal charges. It’s evident: the escape was premeditated and part of a broader plan to evade accountability.

On May 9, Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) issued a detention order in absentia. Komarnytskyi had ignored multiple summons and remained abroad. On June 11, the HACC Appeals Chamber upheld the ruling. This made the arrest order legally binding and enabled Ukrainian authorities to request Interpol’s assistance and initiate extradition proceedings.

Information Counterattack

The day after the court ruling took effect, nearly identical statements flooded Ukrainian Telegram channels and media outlets. Claims of “political persecution,” “attacks on local self-government,” and comparisons to the Yanukovych era were echoed almost word for word.

Their coordinated appearance across dozens of platforms in one day strongly suggests a paid and orchestrated media campaign — not spontaneous public outrage. The goal: to recast Komarnytskyi as a victim of persecution, rather than an architect of entrenched corruption.

Earlier, responding to journalists locating him in Vienna, Komarnytskyi stated: “My wife and children, like millions of Ukrainian women and children, are currently abroad. While visiting them, I noticed a suspicious car with heavily tinted windows near the house. Inside were two individuals conducting illegal surveillance.”

He admitted that one of the men was a reporter from Ukrainska Pravda. Komarnytskyi framed the incident as political harassment by Ukrainian security services. What he omitted: at the time, he was on the wanted list, subject to military conscription, and had illegally crossed the border — all facts that dramatically shift the narrative.

Komarnytskyi and his inner circle are now attempting to construct a media persona: not a criminal suspect, but a politically persecuted figure. This isn’t legal defense in the traditional sense — it’s a “legend for extradition,” a carefully crafted media shield aimed at European courts, human rights advocates, and foreign officials who may influence the extradition decision.

The Myth of Non-Extradition

In Ukrainian legal and political circles, a longstanding belief persists: “Vienna doesn’t extradite the powerful.” That perception stems from the case of oligarch Dmytro Firtash, whose extradition to the U.S. has been delayed for over a decade. The precedent helped shape Vienna’s image as a safe haven for elite fugitives from Eastern Europe.

Komarnytskyi’s media strategy appears to lean heavily on that myth.

But the reality has changed. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine has successfully extradited 151 internationally wanted individuals. NABU alone has sent dozens of mutual legal assistance requests — including to Austria, which ranks among Ukraine’s most cooperative partners.

One of the key shifts: the removal of formal grounds for denial. Previously, lawyers cited Ukraine’s poor prison conditions and war-related risks. Those arguments are losing relevance. Ukraine has built two new detention facilities in the west of the country, certified as compliant with Council of Europe standards. These prisons were designed specifically to house extradited individuals, and their conditions meet international human rights requirements.

In short: the main barrier is gone. Ukraine now demonstrates an ability to uphold European court decisions, provide humane detention, and ensure due process. That significantly narrows the legal escape routes for suspects trying to claim “political asylum.”

What Komarnytskyi Is Really Defending

Komarnytskyi isn’t defending democracy, transparency, or local self-governance. He’s defending one thing: his freedom. And possibly, the stability of an entire system where he wasn’t the sole beneficiary — but the fixer, the coordinator, the man who kept developers, officials, and deputies aligned.

Today, he’s waging an aggressive media campaign through loyal outlets, Telegram channels, and boilerplate statements about “persecution.”

But even the slickest PR can’t erase the facts: there’s a court ruling, an Interpol notice, and surveillance tapes implicating him in a citywide corruption scheme.

This case should not be decided on Telegram — but in a European courtroom, through extradition. Because it’s not about politics. It’s about Kyiv. And the sovereign right of a state to clean up its own capital.