Acquittal Verdict of the High Anti-Corruption Court: Defense of an Official in the Case of the Municipal Enterprise “Maritime search and rescue service”

The High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine delivered an acquittal verdict regarding the leadership of the municipal enterprise "Maritime Search and Rescue Service". The legal strategy implemented by Letrado's managing partner was a significant factor in the success. It was based on proving the prosecutor's version was unproven, identifying violations during the initiation of the pre-trial investigation, and substantiating the inadmissibility of most key prosecution evidence.

Essence of the Case

Within the case, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) charged the first deputy director with committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — abuse of official position causing severe consequences. The prosecution claimed that the conclusion of operational leasing contracts for vehicles in 2016–2017 (Volkswagen cars) was economically disadvantageous, and officials acted against the interests of the service, allegedly causing the state losses amounting to 6.5 million UAH.

The proceedings were opened based solely on the fact of signing the contract. At the same time, the prosecution equated the hypothetical possibility of overpayment in the future with already caused actual damage. Meanwhile, significant procedural violations were allowed during the investigation.

Defense Strategy and Course of the Process

The defense line was built on fundamental principles of criminal law, particularly the standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a detailed analysis of commercial legislation:

• Refutation of the material elements of the crime: The defense proved that the prosecution was based on hypothetical calculations of future periods, whereas Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine requires the presence of real, actually caused damage at the time of the act. Moreover, after signing an additional gift agreement, all vehicles ultimately became the property of the enterprise free of charge. The court fully agreed with these arguments, stating in the verdict that "potential losses" cannot be grounds for criminal liability.

Judicial arithmetic: the net difference between the money actually paid under the contract and the real value of the property according to the expert assessment was 78,500.76 UAH (or 129,745.76 UAH from the initial property value). However, even these figures are not pure losses, as they do not consider the economic feasibility of the contract itself and the related mandatory expenses of the enterprise (insurance, state registration, etc.).

• Economic justification of actions: Thanks to the analysis of internal documents and witness interrogations, the court was shown that operational leasing was perceived by management as the only tool to maintain operational activities amid a shortage of capital investments.
• Absence of criminal intent: The defense provided evidence that the contract signing was preceded by a legitimate collegial decision of the tender committee, of which the defendant was not a member. The draft contract underwent a full internal compliance procedure and was approved by the heads of relevant departments. Witnesses confirmed the absence of any pressure from management, and the temporary replacement of the director during his business trips was standard management practice. Moreover, it was at the initiative of the deputy head, even before any investigative actions began, that a lawsuit was filed against the lessor, which allowed optimizing leasing payments and reducing financial obligations under the contract. This conclusively proved the complete absence of private or selfish interest, which automatically excludes the crime's elements.

During the court session, the defense initiated the exclusion of key prosecution evidence (tender documentation and contract copies) based on Article 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, since the investigation provided the court with improperly certified copies of documents, and the originals were never examined. However, the High Anti-Corruption Court did not separately assess the admissibility of this evidence, as it did not consider them at all due to the absence of an offense.

Result

The panel of judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court fully acquitted the defendant due to the lack of proof of the elements of a criminal offense in her actions. Thanks to a consistent defense strategy, the court applied the highest standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and issued a full acquittal verdict in case No. 991/2018/21.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.