According to the investigation conducted by journalists as part of the hromadske project, it has become known that the father-in-law of a high-ranking official of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the deputy head of the cybersecurity department of the Security Service of Ukraine, Colonel Ivan Kalabashkin, re-registered real estate in occupied Crimea in accordance with Russian legislation
This raises new questions regarding the sources of income and financial transparency of the family of one of the top officials of the security service amidst the illegal annexation of the peninsula, which remains a subject of heated public and political debate. According to Ukrainian property registry data, the father-in-law's property of the SBU colonel, Volodymyr Protyvenskyi, is located in Crimea and consists of three non-residential premises at recreational bases situated in the popular resort area of Koktebel. These premises were built in the 2000s, and experts estimate their total value could reach approximately $180,000 USD. The main aspect of the investigation was to establish that the recognized Crimean properties in the documents are registered in the name of Volodymyr Protyvenskyi with Russian cadastral numbers, indicating their re-registration in accordance with the laws of the aggressor country. Journalists obtained and reviewed the property ownership registration certificate from 2015, which confirms that the father-in-law of the SBU colonel was officially the owner of the Crimean real estate during that period. A notable detail is that these documents explicitly mention Volodymyr Protyvenskyi's name, meaning he became the official owner of the Crimean real estate at a time when Ukrainian law prohibits any transactions involving property in Crimea without proper legalization — which, in this case, was absent. This raises questions about the legality of such re-registration and prompts inquiries into the motives and aims behind it. Sources additionally established that the family of the SBU colonel owns a significant amount of real estate valued at nearly two million dollars USD. This fact increases interest in examining the financial standing of the high-ranking official’s family, especially considering his position and the nature of his activities. At the same time, Volodymyr Protyvenskyi refused to comment on his actions and the grounds for re-registering the real estate in Crimea for hromadske, which only heightens interest in further investigation and clarification of the circumstances surrounding this case. Thus, this case raises a number of questions and points to potential lack of transparency regarding the ownership and financial dealings of the family of the high-ranking official — issues that are particularly relevant amid ongoing efforts by Ukrainian authorities to counteract asset legalization obtained through the illegal annexation of Crimea. In the context of tense national circumstances and active international dialogue on sanctions mechanisms and anti-corruption measures, such cases attract particular public interest and may prompt future law enforcement investigations.