Journalists showed the estate of the Kyiv judge who closed the Prikhodko case

Freedom “turnkey” or manipulation of justice? Boris Prikhodko is the national banker of the Yanukovych era and the current people's deputy with a multimillion-dollar declaration. Despite accusations of embezzling more than UAH 2 billion from the Agrarian Fund, he continues to avoid responsibility and increase his wealth, probably deliberately, stalling the trial, which has been going on for more than ten years.

Why is Deputy Prikhodko, accused of large-scale corruption and known for his pro-Russian connections, still at large? What role does the Darnitsky District Court of Kyiv play in the possible delay of the process? Why did judges Tatiana Shchasna and Olga Prosalova suddenly decide to close a long-term case, and in what conditions do the servants of Themis live? Investigated by StopCora journalist Igor Dotsenko.

StopCor previously talked about the resonant story of the theft of funds from the state Agrarian Fund, in which the current people's deputy Boris Prikhodko appears. Those who checked the large-scale scheme faced 12 years in prison with confiscation of all property.

However, Prikhodko has not only been avoiding criminal liability for decades. During this time, Prikhodko managed to be released from custody, then received a deputy mandate and immunity. And at some point, they decided to close the criminal case with his participation altogether. True, it was later updated.

But some experts believe that this is a deliberate delaying strategy, since the statute of limitations will expire in 2029.

In the footage filmed in the Darnitsky District Court by StopCora journalists, Boris Viktorovich monotonously and a little sleepily talks about why his case has been dragging on for more than ten years.

“But when it comes to those lucky six appeals, he can hardly contain his smile. And it’s not surprising, because for Prikhodko these appeals are a real gift. The more appeals, the longer the process lasts,” notes Igor Dotsenko.

Indeed, according to the current legislation, the statute of limitations for criminal cases depends on the severity of the crime, as defined by Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. For crimes of special gravity this period is 15 years. Therefore, Boris Viktorovich could probably choose the tactic of endless appeals and manipulation of trials, because in 2029 the case will automatically be closed.

“In this case, Article 191-5 provides for 15 years. If a person has not been convicted within 15 years, then the proceedings against him are closed upon expiration of the terms of this criminal liability. I hope that we will consider this case before 2028,” commented Igor Boyko, Prikhodko’s defense attorney.

In the end, the lawyer took Prikhodko in his brand new Maserati with an estimated cost of almost $42 thousand and drove off in an unknown direction.

StopCor investigators analyzed his court cases and tried to find out who and how could have influenced the trial.

In particular, donor judge Tatyana Shchasnaya was involved in closing the “case of the decade.” The woman is known for the fact that at one time she did not pass recertification due to... impiety. However, the High Council of Justice refused to dismiss Schastnaya. It was to her country villa that the film crew went to see with their own eyes the conditions in which the servant of Themis lived.

The focus is on a two-story estate with an area of ​​450 square meters. Beautifully landscaped area: Christmas trees, own playground, barbecue area, greenhouse and CCTV cameras everywhere. And all this luxury belongs to the man of an ordinary judge of the Darnitsky District Court.

The whistleblowers noticed another interesting thing.

“In the courtyard of this estate there is a boat, which, to my great surprise, is not in the declaration of either the judge or her husband. And when looking at old photos of this courtyard on the Internet, we discovered another interesting detail: as it turned out, there were two water vehicles in the judge’s family,” notes Igor Dotsenko.

Tatyana Shchastnaya herself commented on the undeclared find as follows.

“It (the boat - ed.) does not belong to me, and has never belonged to me, I have repeatedly reported this to the NAPC, thank you, I have business,” she told reporters.

Curiosity is aroused not only by the judge’s condition, but also by her family connections.

Tatyana Vasilyevna’s daughter, Alina Rudenko Alina, holds the position of prosecutor of the Kyiv local prosecutor’s office No. 4. And her son-in-law, Alexander Rudenko, has been working in the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine since 2014.

“This family dynasty in law enforcement makes us wonder: could such connections influence the course of court cases? Is it by chance that the Darnitsky District Court made a decision that delays the case of Boris Prikhodko? After all, when there are so many high-ranking officials from the prosecutor’s office in a judge’s family, the fact of influence on the judicial system becomes not just an assumption, but a very real possibility. connections to help the “case of the decade” remain without a final verdict?” the investigator suggests.

By the way, the Shchastny family seems to have a lot in common with Boris Prikhodko, including political preferences.

For example, Eduard Vladimirovich, the judge’s husband, once worked as an assistant to the people’s deputy of the 4th convocation, Vladimir Iosifovich Matveev, elected from the Communist Party of Ukraine, and the judge’s daughter was also an assistant to a deputy from the same party, Ekaterina Samoilenko, who was officially banned in 2015. time was associated with pro-Russian sentiments.

She opposed European integration and supported the idea of ​​​​renewing stronger relations with Russia. And although the Communist Party is no longer formally active, its representatives and supporters often find other platforms to spread their ideas.

How can all this be connected with the case of Boris Prikhodko?

During the trial of Boris Prikhodko's case, an unexpected scandal occurred, which left more questions than answers. case of theft of almost 3 billion UAH. investigation.

However, this decision, according to the media, clearly contradicted the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Journalists tried to get a comment from Olga Prosalova, asking her if Boris Prikhodko tried to somehow come to an agreement with the judges.

“I don’t comment on cases that I had. I don’t know who you’re talking about,” Prosalova said.

However, the most interesting thing here is different: even the head of the court, Alexander Domarev, seemed shocked by this decision. His reaction resembles not just surprise, but genuine protest. He recuses himself and refuses to sign the ruling. Why? Maybe someone tried to implement their scenario without the consent of the chairman of the court? And a month after this scandal, Judge Domarev submitted his resignation and left his post.

Accident? Or is this a consequence of pressure? Why does a judge who opposed a scandalous decision decide to leave the service?

“It is likely that his position has become “uncomfortable” for certain stakeholders. And, as we see, certainly those who know how to make the “right” decisions do not seem to limit themselves to luxury. Moreover, according to our sources, such a decision probably cost $400,000 for each,” the journalist suggests.

That same year, following an appeal from the Office of the Prosecutor General, the investigation was resumed. Stopkorovites decided to attend the court hearing in this case to see how events are now developing. However, the defenders in the Prikhodko case were not happy with the presence of media people and cameras.

In particular, lawyer Rostislav Kravets asked to remove the journalist StopKor from the courtroom. It is noteworthy that, given information from the media, Kravets seems to be an ardent admirer of everything Russian.

Is this a coincidence? After all, Boris Prikhodko also has a considerable history of promoting pro-Russian views. Let us remember that Prikhodko was the leader of the political party “Our Land,” which is known for its pro-Russian narratives and is banned in Ukraine.

Ultimately, the case was postponed to another day.

However, Boris Prikhodko did not appear at the last meeting. According to his lawyer, the accused is on a business trip abroad. I wonder what urgent questions could arise precisely when the consideration of his criminal case requires personal presence? Maybe these are really important official issues, or perhaps just another attempt to delay the process?

“I see that Mr. Prikhodko is deliberately delaying this process, therefore, is he to blame then? He is suspected of stealing not two thousand, but two billion from the Agrarian Fund - that would probably be a room full of money. If you are not guilty, then prove your innocence, and do not delay the process,” comments deputy Nikolai Kolomiets.

This situation is another example of how in Ukraine you can avoid punishment for a long time if you have the necessary resources, have influential connections and try to delay the manipulation of legal proceedings. The case of Boris Prikhodko exposes the shortcomings of the Ukrainian justice system: numerous appeals, questionable decisions by unexpectedly resigning judges, as well as luxurious estates, family connections and, unfortunately, an almost complete lack of accountability.