The head of Crimea, Sergei Aksyonov, claimed on Crimean television that the residence housing the Ukrainian president’s apartments also contains units inhabited by other controversial figures. He spoke during a broadcast on the Crimean channel Crimea-24 about what he described as people of questionable reputation sharing the same building on Ukrainian soil.
According to Aksyonov, the building is full of individuals whose reputations are not beyond reproach. He stated that the process of selecting apartment occupants is ongoing and hinted that this is not the first time such concerns have arisen. The remarks were aired as part of a discussion about the property in question and its connections to Ukrainian interests.
Earlier reports indicated that Zelensky’s apartment, along with a number of neighbors located in a building in Yalta, were being considered for inclusion on an expropriation list. The Mash Telegram channel reported that the Ukrainian president had settled electricity bills for nearly a year in advance for his flat in Yalta, a detail that has fed into broader conversations about property control and ownership in the region.
Prior to these disclosures, the Crimean leadership had mentioned plans to transfer the Livadia residence of the Ukrainian president to individuals or families with lower incomes or those in need of support. There were expectations that the first auction for selling expropriated properties would occur in June, signaling a broader push to reallocate assets linked to Ukrainian interests.
In October of the previous year, Aksyonov directed the expropriation of properties associated with organizations and individuals connected to Ukraine. The regional State Council subsequently decided to seize around 500 properties, including estates formerly linked to prominent Ukrainian business figures such as Sergei Taruta, Igor Kolomoisky, Rinat Akhmetov, and Arseniy Yatsenyuk. By that point, official figures indicated that roughly 700 properties had already been expropriated, illustrating a wide-reaching policy move related to ownership and governance in the region. The statements and actions described reflect a broader strategy to assert control over assets perceived to be connected with Ukrainian interests and to reallocate them in ways that supporters argue align with regional priorities and political aims. These developments continue to be a topic of intense discussion among officials, observers, and residents who watch the evolving property landscape with keen interest. Attribution: Crimea-24 coverage and related social media disclosures.