Ukraine’s Supreme Court Judge Nadiia Stefaniv resides in a luxury apartment in Kyiv owned by a Russian citizen whose official income records raise serious questions about how the property was acquired. The findings come from an investigation by Schemy, the investigative journalism unit of Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).

Russian relative owns property — but denies it

The 2,207-square-foot (205 m²) apartment is located in the upscale Andersen residential complex in central Kyiv. Ukrainian property records show it was purchased in June 2016 by Valentyna Khoroshavtseva, a citizen of the Russian Federation and niece of Judge Stefaniv.

In her 2024 asset declaration, Judge Stefaniv reported using the apartment rent-free since 2020. She identified the owner as a “foreign citizen” and named Khoroshavtseva.

However, when contacted by journalists, Khoroshavtseva stated:

“I absolutely did not buy any apartments.”
She then abruptly ended the call.

Incomes don’t match property values

The apartment was declared at ₴1.8 million (about $135,000 USD) — but real estate listings at the time show the market value to be ₴5 million (approximately $375,000 USD).

From 2008 to 2016, Khoroshavtseva’s total official income in Russia was around 1.6 million rubles, which was approximately ₴600,000 or $45,000 USD — not enough to afford even the declared price, let alone the market value.

Judge’s daughter also lives in property owned by Russian niece

Judge Stefaniv’s daughter, Nadiia Mykytyn, a judge at the Ivano-Frankivsk District Administrative Court, lives in a 1,055-square-foot (98 m²) apartment in western Ukraine. That property is also owned by Khoroshavtseva, who reportedly bought it in 2011 when she was just 23 years old. It was acquired for around ₴400,000 (~$50,000 USD) — again, a purchase unsupported by verified income.

In addition, Khoroshavtseva owns another apartment in Ivano-Frankivsk (1,098 ft² / 102 m²), acquired in 2014, and a garage.

Contradictory explanation from Judge Stefaniv

Judge Stefaniv claimed her relatives planned to relocate to Ukraine and purchased property using money from selling real estate in Russia. However, her sister Oksana Khoroshavtseva — the mother of Valentyna — died in January 2016, five months before the Kyiv apartment was purchased.

“They were ready to relocate, but she died — it was a tragedy,” Stefaniv told Schemy.

However, records show that after acquiring apartments in Ukraine, the family continued buying property in Russia — not selling it, as the judge claimed.

Connection to Russian nuclear industry

Khoroshavtseva and her husband both worked at the Siberian Chemical Combine, a Russian state enterprise that, according to Ukrainian think tank DixiGroup, produces materials supporting the Kremlin’s nuclear weapons program.

Her husband earned about 120,000 rubles per month (~$1,600 USD) as of 2020, drove a 2008 Ford Mondeo, and lived in a 1,022-square-foot (95 m²) apartment in Seversk, Tomsk Oblast.

Legal concerns over hidden assets

Experts warn that using foreign relatives to hold property may be a tactic to conceal assets from anti-corruption scrutiny.

“A judge can hide assets potentially obtained illegally by registering them under relatives in Russia. During wartime, this makes official verification extremely difficult,” said Karina Hasymova from the anti-corruption watchdog DEJURE Foundation.

Judge Mykytyn declined to comment publicly but said she would address the matter during a 29 May judicial interview. However, she requested that discussions about family property be held behind closed doors and without live broadcast.

Background on Judge Stefaniv

Judge Stefaniv studied law in Russia and began her career as an investigator in Tomsk Oblast before moving to Ukraine in 1986. She became a judge in 1990, later heading the Ivano-Frankivsk Court of Appeal. In 2017, she was appointed to the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court, and in 2023, she temporarily served as its acting head.

During the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, she supported controversial laws that expanded government powers and restricted civil liberties. She justified the measures as necessary for ensuring “access to justice” and backed a ban on revealing judges’ home addresses.