Prosecutor from Kharkiv Region Banned from Promotion for Three Months Due to Case That Fell Apart in Courts

The Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors decided to hold the prosecutor of the Berestynskyi District Prosecutor's Office of Kharkiv Region, Denys Leshchenko, disciplinarily liable and to impose a penalty in the form of a three-month ban on transfer to a higher-level prosecutor's office or appointment to a higher position.

As stated in decision No. 255dp-26 dated June 10, the basis for the review was a disciplinary complaint from the head of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office regarding possible improper performance of official duties within the framework of procedural supervision and support of public prosecution in a criminal proceeding.

Content of the disciplinary complaint

According to the complainant, prosecutor of the Berestynskyi District Prosecutor's Office of Kharkiv Region, Denys Leshchenko, as the senior prosecutor of the group, from April 3, 2023, exercised procedural supervision in a criminal proceeding initiated under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft under martial law) on suspicion of a person stealing material assets of the private enterprise "Andriivka".

According to the complaint, the prosecution side did not obtain sufficient and proper evidence of the person's involvement in the alleged crime, and the collected materials contained contradictions and did not confirm the guilt of the accused. Nevertheless, on November 17, 2023, the prosecutor approved the notice of suspicion, and on January 16, 2024, approved the indictment and sent it to court.

Subsequently, he supported the public prosecution in the court of first instance.

As a result of the case review, the Kehychivka District Court of Kharkiv Region acquitted the accused on July 25, 2025, due to lack of proof of committing the criminal offense. The Court of Appeal on October 30, 2025, upheld this verdict, rejecting the prosecutor's appeal.

The complaint also states that due to improper performance of official duties, the prosecutor failed to ensure the fulfillment of the criminal proceeding's objectives in compliance with its general principles, which led to the court issuing an acquittal verdict regarding the person.

Based on the above, the complainant believes that the actions of prosecutor Leshchenko contain signs of a disciplinary offense — improper performance of official duties, as provided by paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 43 of Law No. 1697-VII.

Findings during the disciplinary proceedings

As established from the review of materials, Denys Leshchenko, holding the position of senior prosecutor of the group, from April 3, 2023, exercised procedural supervision in a criminal proceeding opened under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft under martial law) regarding suspicion of theft of material assets of the private enterprise "Andriivka".

According to the case materials, the chief engineer of the private enterprise was accused of stealing diesel fuel from the enterprise's territory. The total volume of stolen property, according to the prosecution, amounted to 740 liters of diesel fuel worth 36,829.80 UAH. The fuel was allegedly stored at the place of residence and used at will.

These actions were qualified by the pre-trial investigation body under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — as secret theft of another's property (theft) committed under martial law conditions.

After approving the indictment on January 16, 2024, the case was sent to the Kehychivka District Court of Kharkiv Region for substantive consideration.

During the trial, the court concluded that the guilt of the accused was not proven.

On August 11, 2025, the prosecutor filed an appeal, but by the ruling of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal on October 30, 2025, it was dismissed, and the acquittal verdict remained unchanged.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings. The ruling stated that the panel of cassation courts agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts and considered that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt with admissible and sufficient evidence the guilt of the man in the alleged criminal offense.

The Commission concluded that when approving the notice of suspicion and the indictment, the prosecutor did not ensure the presence of sufficient, proper, and admissible evidence, particularly regarding the time of the offense, the amount of damage, and its proof.

Prosecutor's explanation

The prosecutor noted that before the written approval of the notice of suspicion, he reported to the leadership on the status of the pre-trial investigation, the results and quality of the collected evidence of the person's guilt, simultaneously providing the materials of the criminal proceeding; these issues were also discussed and recorded at operational meetings. The leadership reviewed the materials and agreed on the sufficiency, relevance, and admissibility of the collected evidence to notify the man of suspicion.

Therefore, the prosecutor requested to close the disciplinary proceedings against him due to the absence of grounds for disciplinary liability.

Commission's decision

The Commission noted that the prosecution provided evidence that, although collected legally and admissible, the court recognized as improper because they did not directly or indirectly confirm the existence or absence of circumstances subject to proof, particularly the time of the crime and the amount of material damage caused to the victim.

Moreover, the court pointed out that the prosecution did not properly assess copies of three gas station receipts, according to which the suspect was issued 600 liters of diesel fuel.

Analyzing the circumstances established during the trial, the Commission concluded that at the time of approving the notice of suspicion on November 17, 2023, the prosecutor was informed that the investigation had not established the exact time of the crime, the actual quantity of stolen and seized fuel, its cost, and other objective data that would unequivocally confirm the presence of the crime under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the suspect's actions.

Under these conditions, the Commission believes that the actions of prosecutor Leshchenko in the criminal proceeding regarding the suspect contain signs of improper performance of official duties, which led to the acquittal verdict of the court due to lack of proof of the person's commission of the criminal offense.

The Commission indicated that according to paragraph 26.4 of Order No. 309, prosecutors during court proceedings must prove to the court the relevance and admissibility of evidence collected by the prosecution, objectively evaluate the totality of evidence regarding their sufficiency to prove guilt.

However, in the Commission's opinion, prosecutor Leshchenko, despite not having sufficient, proper, and admissible evidence of the suspect's guilt during the trial, unjustifiably guided the court toward issuing a guilty verdict against the man.

"The acquittal verdict became possible as a result of prosecutor Leshchenko D.V.'s improper performance of his procedural (official) duties, which led to failure to ensure the fulfillment of the criminal proceeding's objectives in compliance with its general principles," the Commission stated.

The decision can be appealed in administrative court or to the High Council of Justice within a month from the receipt of the document copy.

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.