In 2025 and the first half of 2026, PrivatBank customers transferred more than 2.8 billion hryvnias to charity. According to the bank, in 2025 alone the volume of donations exceeded 1.8 billion hryvnias, while from January to June 2026 it was another 1 billion plus. Anton Razumnyi, PrivatBank board member for compliance, in an exclusive column for RBC-Ukraine published in August 2026, revealed the institution's internal statistics and gave seven practical recommendations for those organizing fundraising. In his words, despite the general trend of declining donor activity against the backdrop of economic exhaustion, the bank's statistics show the opposite dynamic: Ukrainians continue to transfer funds to the military, medical workers, children, and people who have lost their homes.
Trust as a fragile asset: what sociological data shows
Razumnyi emphasizes that every transfer begins with trust, and it is precisely volunteers that Ukrainians trust the most today — 81% of citizens, according to KIS data. At the same time, according to the results of a study conducted by PrivatBank together with the Center for Social Change and Behavioral Economics, 70% of respondents named regular and clear reporting as the determining factor shaping trust in charitable initiatives. “Ukrainians are no longer satisfied with just knowing that the collection was successful. They want to understand exactly how the funds were used and what result they produced,” notes the bank's board member. He characterizes this trend as a shift from a culture of emotional donating to a culture of responsible help, where transparency becomes as important as the speed of collection.
Seven rules: how not to fall under financial monitoring
The central part of Razumnyi's column is a practical algorithm for fundraising organizers. The first and, in his words, most common violation — receiving large sums to a personal card. Regular inflows from a large number of people inevitably come under the attention of financial monitoring, since the bank cannot independently determine that anomalous activity is related to a charitable collection. Financial institutions are required by law to request explanations for suspicious transactions, and they have no right to ignore such requests. Razumnyi recommends notifying your bank in advance about a planned collection: communicate the purpose, the approximate amount, and the expected increase in the number of payments.
Documentation, tools, and tax safety
The second block of recommendations concerns documentary support. The organizer needs to keep receipts, invoices, acceptance-transfer acts, bank statements, and other confirmations of the targeted use of funds. Razumnyi also advises using specialized collection tools — as an example he names the “Koverty” (Envelopes) service, which allows the donor to see the purpose of the collection, current progress, and the remaining amount. This, in his words, increases the donor's confidence and reduces the risk that the tax authority will recognize the received funds as personal income with the accrual of taxes and fines. The necessity of adhering to the stated purpose of the collection is separately emphasized: funds cannot be redirected to personal needs. If the target amount was not fully used, the remainder should be returned to donors or directed to a similar charitable purpose.
Reporting as the main factor of repeat donation
The column concludes with the thesis that it is precisely reporting that determines whether a donor will return to the organizer next time. Razumnyi asserts that simply publishing the final collection total is no longer sufficient. Ukrainian charity, in his assessment, is “maturing”: society demands systematic transparency across the entire cycle — from the launch of the collection to the final reporting. He formulates this as the need to “systematically invest” in trust, viewing it as an asset that multiplies only with regular and clear communication with donors.
