The Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv denied the prosecutor’s office’s motion to remove Volodymyr Repik from his position as director of the Finance Department of the Kyiv City State Administration in the case involving the issuance of Kyiv City Council domestic local bonds totaling nearly 2.6 billion hryvnias. 

The defense, represented by attorneys from Barristers Law Firm, demonstrated that the charges in the domestic borrowing case were unfounded. The attorneys noted that the bond issuance procedure was entirely lawful, approved by the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine, and confirmed by the State Audit Service, which found no violations during its audit.

According to the investigation, between 2020 and 2023, the official initiated the issuance of local government bonds worth over 2.5 billion hryvnias. During the same period, the prosecution claims, the city of Kyiv’s budget was in surplus—revenues exceeded expenditures—so there was no objective need to raise additional funds. Thus, the city took out loans unnecessarily and paid interest on them.

The defense’s key argument was that the prosecution’s claim that borrowing was impossible with a budget surplus is not based on any provision of law. Furthermore, Volodymyr Repik merely initiated the process before the Kyiv City Council within the scope of his duties, and the city’s development budget was in deficit at that time. The defense also pointed out the lack of expert verification for the alleged 581 million hryvnia in damages, since the expert report in the case merely calculated the costs of the bond issuance without classifying them as budgetary losses.

The court’s decision allows the official to continue working while his attorneys prepare to further prove his innocence and secure a full acquittal. This marks the defense’s second victory in this case over the past week. Vladimir Repik is being represented by partner Yuriy Radzievsky and attorneys Ivanna Chernyi and Dmytro Hrytsko, who are determined to completely refute all charges brought against him, which they call absurd.