Ternopil Court Deputy Head Petro Babuk Became a "Millionaire on Gifts" and "Spanish Legends"
Maria Babiuk and her son Petr Babiuk. Photo collage by Telegraph
While Ukrainian society hopes for a cleansing of the judiciary, a truly "magical" story of enrichment is unfolding in Ternopil. Local judge Petro Babyuk is demonstrating phenomenal luck: in just a few months in 2026, his assets were replenished with luxury real estate and cash gifts totaling more than ten years' worth of the average Ukrainian's income, reports Telegraf.
But behind every successful judge is... a generous mother?
Lucky Judge Petr Babuk and the Real Estate Rain
The protagonist of the story about the rapid increase in assets is Petro Mykhailovych Babyuk, deputy head of the Ternopil District Administrative Court. His entire career has been tied to this institution, where, from 2010 to the present, he has risen from a lowly judge to senior positions.
Judge Petr Babiuk
In his hometown, Petro Babuk is known for handling high-profile cases. Specifically, in November 2024, he denied the reinstatement of former Ternopil Regional Council head Mykhailo Golovko. Interestingly, the former official himself appealed this verdict, but without success, and just a few months later, he was sentenced to nine years in prison for bribery.
However, despite such professional uncompromisingness, Petro Babuk's property record periodically raises questions. These became particularly clear in 2019 during the qualification assessment, when the Public Integrity Council drew attention to the discrepancy between the wealth of Judge Mykhailo Babuk's father and his official income. While earning 122,3 hryvnias over five years, Babuk Sr. spent 1 million hryvnias more, buying an apartment in Ternopil for himself and his granddaughter, a Volkswagen Touran, and gifting his son 200 hryvnias.
Explanation regarding the origin of funds
The judge then defended himself with a story about a "Spanish mother-in-law" who had been working abroad for over 20 years and allegedly helped him purchase a share of the property. He explained that the renewal of his vehicle fleet was due to the sale of another car. Regarding the 388-square-meter mansion in Baikivtsi, which Petr Babyuk received as a gift from his mother, Maria Babyuk, back in 2010, he explained that his parents had built it themselves over the course of twenty years. The High Qualification Commission of Judges accepted these explanations and determined that Babyuk was fit for the position he held.
However, already in 2026, the judge was unexpectedly showered with gifts from relatives.
On just one day, March 31, Maria Babyuk presented her son, a judge, with a "non-cash gift" worth a total of 8,7 million hryvnias. This gift included a 200 square meter apartment in Ternopil and an 80,7 square meter garage.
Gift Information. Screenshot of the declaration.
Just a few days later, on April 4, the mother made another gesture: she gave her son a share in a 52,4-square-meter apartment in Truskavets (Lviv Oblast). The value of this gift was estimated at 1,4 million hryvnias (the property's total value is 2,9 million hryvnias).
Gift Information. Screenshot of the declaration.
On July 30, the judge's father gave him 400 hryvnias in cash, and the very next day, the judge spent almost the entire sum on purchasing a 1509 square meter plot of land in the village of Isakivtsi in the Khmelnytskyi region.
Gift Information. Screenshot of the declaration.
From fake diplomas to business on draft dodgers?
Who are these generous parents? There's little information about Mykhailo Martynovich Babuk in open sources, and no record of any successful business. However, court records do contain a ruling on a lawsuit against Delta Bank, in which Babuk Sr. has had a 400 hryvnia deposit "stuck" since 2014.
Moreover, in July 2026—four weeks before the cash gift to his son—Babiuk Sr. acquired a 586-square-meter plot of land in the Ternopil district.
Maria Petrovna Babyuk, on the other hand, is very well known, having headed the V. Chornovil Halytskyi Professional College for many years and served as a member of the Ternopil City Council for the Svoboda All-Ukrainian Union. Overall, the judge's mother has a substantial income from her work; for example, in 2025, she earned 1,17 million hryvnias—a combination of salary, pension, interest, and property rental income.
The judge's mother and college principal Maria Babiuk
Meanwhile, Maria Babuk spent nothing on lavish gifts for her son, but effectively transferred ownership of the property she purchased in 2021 and 2008 to him. Why did she decide to sell it now? The answer may be that the Galician Professional College has come under close scrutiny from the State Bureau of Investigation due to suspicions of embezzlement of budget funds.
Detectives established that a mobilization-prevention scheme may have been in place at the educational institution from 2023 to 2025. Fifteen draft-age men were fictitiously placed at the college as teachers and vocational training supervisors, earning 0,75 of a full-time salary. They rarely showed up for work, but their status as teachers granted them a legal deferment from military service. The most piquant detail: according to the State Bureau of Investigation, the college administration appropriated the wages of these "dead souls."
Description of the criminal scheme. Excerpt from the court ruling
Although the names of the defendants in the criminal proceedings are hidden behind identifiers like "person_4," official documents confirm that Maria Babyuk has been the director of the Galician Professional College for many years. Coincidentally, she began gifting property to her son, a judge, three weeks after the State Bureau of Investigation conducted searches of the educational institution and the residences of potential participants in the scheme.
This story becomes even more intriguing when we recall the director's "old sins." In 2018, the prosecutor's office filed an indictment for using fake PhD diplomas. These documents, after all, had allowed Babuk to receive salary bonuses for her academic degree for 18 years. While the authorities effectively confirmed the fraud, they were unable to punish the director. In November 2020, the Ternopil City and District Court dismissed the case due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Thus, Maria Babuk continued to lead the educational institution and now once again found herself at the center of a scandal.
"Private Law": The Babiuk Family's Position and Ethical Impasse
Telegraf's editorial team contacted both Petro Babuk, Deputy Chairman of the Ternopil District Administrative Court , and his mother, Maria Babuk, for comment. We asked for their position on the reasons for the donation of real estate worth over 10 million hryvnias, as well as whether this generosity was connected to law enforcement's interest in the V. Chornovil Galician Professional College. And, most importantly, about the existence of a "draft evasion scheme" at the educational institution.
In his response, Judge Petr Babjuk confirmed the acquisition of ownership rights to the property, but noted that the property had been in the family's possession for approximately 20 years and was purchased before his appointment as judge, and the 2026 valuation is simply "tens of times" higher than the initial assessment. The judge cited the retired father's many years of work as an accountant, a branch manager for an insurance company, and 30 years of farming on his own plots as the source of his income.
Petr Babiuk explained the urgency of the gifts solely by "family circumstances": the advanced age of his parents and the prolonged, serious illness of his mother. He also emphasized that his mother is not a suspect in any criminal cases, and he himself has complied with the legal requirements to declare changes in his property status.
The college administration, represented by Maria Babyuk, sent our editorial team official letters outlining their position on the events. However, before doing so, they immediately requested confirmation of the authenticity of the request and the editor-in-chief's authority, as the email address for inquiries was not listed in the publicly accessible details on the website.
And the position of the educational institution and its director boiled down to the following:
1. Investigative secrecy. As the head of the educational institution, Maria Babyuk declined to comment on the case of "fictitious teachers," citing Article 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (inadmissibility of disclosing pre-trial investigation information) and the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Response from the college administration
2. Gifts are personal. Maria Babiuk notes that gift agreements for her son constitute "an exercise of her private rights" under the Civil Code and are in no way related to her professional activities or criminal proceedings.
3. Confiscation is not provided: The director called the editorial board's assumption that the gifts were an attempt to save property from possible confiscation "legally invalid." After all, Part 4 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine does not provide for confiscation of property as a form of punishment.
Maria Babiuk's response
However, there's a certain legal quirk here. Although Part 4 of this article does not specify confiscation as the primary punishment (the provision was removed in 2022), the law allows prosecutors to file civil suits for damages to the state in such cases.
Moreover, if the investigation establishes a large scale of theft or concludes that the property was seized by an organized criminal group, the case may be reclassified under Part 5 of Article 191. In this case, confiscation is mandatory.
Subscribe to our X channel and Telegram channel!
Stay informed about who is doing business, in politics, and supporting corruption in Ukraine!
Thus, the coincidence during the searches and the transfer of property to the son still raises reasonable questions about the real purpose of these gifts.
Although the presumption of innocence applies until a court verdict is reached, the very fact of an investigation raises a serious conflict of interest and a moral challenge. As deputy chair of the court hearing cases against government agencies and officials, Petro Babyuk finds himself in a precarious position. A logical question arises: is it compatible with administering justice in the name of Ukraine while acquiring assets from an individual who may be involved in organizing a scheme to evade public funds and embezzle budget funds?
Skelet.Org
On the topic : A judge who has failed to prove her ability to administer justice, with a hint of illicit enrichment and convenient relatives
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, Facebook , Twitter , VK - Only new faces from the SKLEP section!