Controversial ex-official Portnov visited Ukraine days before being killed in Madrid, news outlet reports
According to three interlocutors with knowledge of Portnov's movements — including sources in law enforcement and his inner circle — he was in Ukraine on May 17-18 and reportedly met with top law enforcement officials.
Portnov, a lawyer and longtime political operative, was shot at least five times outside the American School in Madrid. Two or three individuals are believed to have taken part in the killing.
Citing police sources, El Pais reported that Portnov was hit by at least three bullets, including one to the head, which proved fatal. No arrests have been reported so far.
The killing comes amid resurfacing scrutiny of Portnov's activities in Ukraine, particularly his alleged ties to the judiciary and law enforcement.
Portnov was Yanukovych's deputy chief of staff responsible for the judiciary and head of his administration's legal department. Even after Yanukovych was overthrown during the 2014 EuroMaidan Revolution, Portnov reportedly retained significant influence over the judiciary.
He fled Ukraine after the EuroMaidan Revolution, first relocating to Russia and later to Austria. He returned to Ukraine in 2019, but left again in 2022 following Russia's full-scale invasion — reportedly skirting the wartime travel ban for military-age men.
In 2021, the U.S. sanctioned Portnov for suspected corruption, accusing him of using influence over Ukraine's judicial system to secure favorable rulings and amass wealth.
Portnov was also widely regarded as one of the most litigious figures among Ukraine's ex-officials.
In 2024, a Kyiv court ruled in his favor in a defamation suit against several outlets, including the Kyiv Independent, over references to him as "pro-Russian." The contested article was authored by Glib Kanievskyi, now a defense ministry official.
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) investigated Portnov over alleged involvement in the Russian occupation of Crimea. A treason case against him was opened in March 2018, but was later closed.
Read also: Hated, tainted, and covertly pro-Russian — Andriy Portnov, the top Ukrainian ex-official shot dead in Spain
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
16 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats
Stanford's student newspaper sued the Trump administration on Wednesday for threatening to deport any noncitizen who criticizes Israel or U.S. foreign policy, saying the government is violating freedom of speech and intimidating campus journalists into censoring their own articles. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' lawyers for the Stanford Daily, the university's independent 133-year-old publication, wrote in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose. They said staff writers holding legal U.S. visas 'are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their immigration status.' One editor resigned from the newspaper, another editor and present and former reporters have asked to have their articles removed from the website and 'international students have also largely stopped talking to Stanford Daily journalists,' the suit said. It was filed a day after Stanford officials announced that they might lay off 363 non-teaching employees this fall because of a $750 million tax increase imposed by President Donald Trump's budget bill. The lawsuit is among multiple legal challenges to the Trump administration's attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters and their universities. A central issue, cited by the newspaper's lawyers, is Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that he can order deportation of any noncitizen for statements he considers 'anti-American' or 'anti-Israel.' Rubio cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if the secretary decides the person's 'beliefs, statements or associations … compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' He invoked that provision against Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was arrested in March and held in a Louisiana jail for 104 days before a federal judge ordered his release. Other campus activists have also been jailed, and Stanford reported that the visas of six students were revoked less than two weeks after Rubio's announcement in March. The lawsuit said Rubio's claim that a student's criticism of Israel harms a 'compelling United States foreign policy interest' is questionable — but regardless, his actions violate the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects noncitizens under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling. 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,' wrote the attorneys, Marc Van Der Hout of San Francisco and Conor Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. They asked a federal judge for an injunction that would halt the threats of deportation against critics of Israel or U.S. foreign policy. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, called the suit 'baseless.' 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable,' McLaughlin said in a statement. She said the United States has 'no room' for 'the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers.'
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
Elina Svitolina ripped bettors for crossing line after Naomi Osaka loss
In case it wasn't already clear, bets you make on any sporting event are your responsibility and YOUR responsibility alone. An athlete is not obligated to follow through and will not tailor their performance based on whatever transaction a complete stranger agreed to behind the scenes (not to mention the ethical and legal concerns). And the moment you start venting out your frustrations to an athlete who "let you down," you've lost the plot entirely. That seems to be what's happened with Elina Svitolina. After losing to Naomi Osaka in the National Bank Open quarterfinals on Tuesday, the No. 13-ranked tennis player in the world took to her Instagram story to share screenshots of a handful of "shameful" messages from bettors filled with vitriol and anger over her failure at the hands of Osaka. Svitolina included messages that invoked death threats. Some mocked Svitolina's Ukrainian heritage amid the country's ongoing war with Russia. Others made racist comments about her husband, Gaël Monfils, a Black fellow professional tennis player. For obvious sensitivity reasons, I will not link out any of the images here. You can find them in Svitolina's story if you're so inclined. To say the least, this is not OK. Not at all. 'To all the bettors: I'm a mom before I'm an athlete,' Svitolina wrote in her Instagram story. 'The way you talk to women – to mothers – is SHAMEFUL. If your moms saw your messages, they'd be disgusted.' Friends, please remember what I'm about to say. Just because you lost a bet over a sports outcome does not mean you get to start harassing the person you think cost you money. Athletes are still, and stay with me here, human beings who deserve common decency like any of us. They're not props. The only person who costs you money in these kinds of situations is you. The betting buck starts and stops with you. Always.
New York Post
16 minutes ago
- New York Post
Russia secondary sanctions still on track for Friday after Putin, Witkoff meeting
WASHINGTON — US sanctions targeting nations that buy Russian oil will kick in on Friday after Vladimir Putin refused to end his invasion of Ukraine by President Trump's deadline, a senior White House official said following direct talks between Washington and Moscow on Wednesday. Following a three-hour meeting between Putin and Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff, the Kremlin said it wanted to continue talking — which Trump has publicly suspected of being a strategy to 'tap along' his administration. 'The Russians are eager to continue engaging with the United States,' the US official said in a statement, adding: 'The secondary sanctions are still expected to be implemented on Friday.' Advertisement US sanctions targeting nations that buy Russian oil will kick in on Friday after Vladimir Putin refused to end his invasion of Ukraine by President Trump's deadline, following direct talks between Washington and Moscow on Wednesday. GAVRIIL GRIGOROV/SPUTNIK/KREMLIN POOL/EPA/Shutterstock The official also said Witkoff's discussion with Putin 'went well.' Wednesday marked the first time the parties had met for such talks since April, when it became evident little progress was being made toward an end to Europe's bloodiest conflict since World War II.
