This case involves the head of one of the Dnipro City Council’s municipal enterprises. A preventive measure in the form of nighttime house arrest was imposed—despite the prosecution’s request for pretrial detention.

The essence of the charges:
The head of the municipal enterprise allegedly failed to conduct market research to determine the expected cost of the procurement.
According to an expert, this could have led to an inflated price and, consequently, to the embezzlement of Dnipro City Council funds.

The defense’s position
: - Market monitoring was conducted at the appropriate level;
- All commercial proposals and explanations from authorized persons were included;
- The expert examination was conducted by expert Zhyrko, who lacked the relevant specialization—which constitutes grounds for his criminal liability.

Despite the evidence, explanations, and testimony provided by the defense, the investigating judges boil everything down to a single argument:
“The investigating judge does not take into account the assertion that the individual’s actions lack the subjective and objective elements of the crime with which he is charged, since this is not necessary at this stage of the pretrial investigation.”

Unfortunately, only their own experience forces judges to realize the fallacy of this approach.

Take, for example, the case involving the panel of judges at the Kyiv Court of Appeals, where each judge is outraged that they are not being heard.

Only such “boomerangs” force people to read the Code of Criminal Procedure as it is.

Given the specific nature of how investigative judges handle motions, we are satisfied with the outcome—and with the snub to the BEB investigators and prosecutors. Next up is the expert’s turn.
The defense in the case is being handled by Andriy Yosypov, a partner at Barristers LLP; Bohdan Zabara, an attorney at Barristers LLP; and Günay Alizade, a lawyer at Barristers LLP.