Mudra Discussed Bvlgari and Van Cleef; They Were Absent From Her Same-Day Declaration

Scans circulated in Ukrainian media and social networks on September 22 have been described as pages from investigative materials concerning Mudra and Mykytas.

Journalist Volodymyr Boiko previously said he had obtained material from a five-volume motion concerning a preventive measure in criminal proceeding No. 52026000000000092, including declassified records of covert investigative measures. Public HACC records independently confirm that a criminal proceeding with that number exists. The complete original package containing the newly circulated pages has not, however, been located through an official court source, so their precise provenance still requires verification before publication.

Jewelry discussed hours before the declaration was filed

According to the pages provided to the newsroom, at 9:18 a.m. on March 23 Mudra asks Mykytas what she should do with jewelry when filing her declaration — whether she should “not show” it.

The conversation then turns to Bvlgari. Mudra says an item cannot be shown because it exceeds the relevant value threshold. Mykytas responds by discussing the need to arrange income and later declare Bvlgari and at least Van Cleef.

Another passage records Mudra discussing whether one item could be explained as something she borrowed from “Karina” for one occasion. Van Cleef is discussed differently: the speakers consider saying that it is fake.

Mudra also says that if it became known that she had bought jewelry for herself during the war, “it would be f***ed up.”

Those statements are potentially significant but do not by themselves establish ownership, value or a legal duty to declare any particular piece.

The official declaration followed that afternoon

Ukraine’s public asset declaration register records Mudra’s annual declaration for 2025 as filed on March 23, 2026 at 5:33 p.m. She identified the Office of the President of Ukraine as her workplace and her position as deputy head of that office.

Its valuable movable property section lists an Audemars Piguet watch, a Graff diamond ring and a Cartier Juste un Clou gold bracelet. It does not list Bvlgari or Van Cleef.

That absence is not, on its own, proof of a false declaration.

Ukraine’s National Agency on Corruption Prevention says valuable movable property is reportable when its value exceeds the statutory threshold of 100 subsistence minimums and relevant ownership, possession or use conditions are met. Whether an item belonged to the declarant at year-end, or how long it was used, can affect the reporting obligation.

A legal conclusion would therefore require evidence establishing the jewelry’s authenticity, value, ownership, acquisition date and actual use.

“Income has to be formed”

Other transcript pages dated March 21 contain a broader discussion about explaining income and property.

Mudra refers to a “fictitious sale.” Mykytas discusses formally selling property to a sister or an acquaintance and refers to “professionally trained people” who know how to structure such matters.

In another passage he says that income does not necessarily mean someone simply has income — it “has to be formed.”

These statements may be relevant to investigators, but the conversation alone does not prove that any fictitious sale or other transaction actually took place. Contracts, banking records, registry changes or a court finding would be needed before describing the discussion as an executed scheme.

Her salary was not her only declared income

The transcripts also show Mudra complaining about an official salary of roughly UAH 50,000 per month.

Her 2025 declaration reports UAH 523,196 in salary from Ukraine’s State Management of Affairs. But that was not her entire declared income: the filing also contains government bond interest and redemption proceeds, dividends, rental income and bank interest. Describing roughly half a million hryvnias as her total official annual income would therefore be inaccurate.

A Range Rover and an unclear Koncha-Zaspa project

A March 22 conversation records Mudra saying she wanted Mykytas to buy her another car and making a disparaging remark about driving a Range Rover.

Another excerpt refers to an unspecified “project” in Koncha-Zaspa and later mentions Ukroboronprom.

The available pages do not establish what the project was, who controlled it or what assistance was being sought. The fragment is too limited to support a separate allegation of wrongdoing.

The jewelry issue itself was already public

The basic allegation involving Bvlgari and Van Cleef is not entirely new.

During an August HACC hearing, a Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office prosecutor had already described conversations in which Mudra and Mykytas allegedly discussed the jewelry and possible transactions intended to explain expensive assets. Ukrainian media and the Anti-Corruption Action Center reported those claims at the time.

What is new now is the publication of more detailed transcript pages containing the wording and timing of the March conversations, allowing them to be compared with the declaration filed later the same day. A September 22 media report also documented the latest release of those excerpts.

Mudra denies criminal wrongdoing

Mudra has previously denied committing criminal offenses and argued that investigators’ allegations were being presented publicly as though guilt had already been established.

She also told the court that most conversations used in the case had been recorded through the microphone of one person she trusted, referring to Mykytas.

No specific public response from Mudra or her defense to the newly circulated March 21–23 excerpts, or to the same-day comparison with her declaration, was found during this review.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy dismissed Mudra as deputy head of the Presidential Office on August 19, 2026. NABU and SAPO list a deputy head of the Presidential Office among the suspects in the “Forest Gump” and “Themis” investigations. These remain allegations by investigators and prosecutors; criminal guilt has not been established by a final judgment.

As of September 16, the full UAH 20 million bail had not been paid and Mudra remained in custody, according to information provided by HACC to Ukrainian News.