Case description
The NABU and SAPO accuse the former acting director of Zaporizhtsyvilproekt SE and three accomplices of attempting to embezzle public funds. The defendants allegedly sought to obtain over UAH 18.8 million by fabricating fictitious debts and orchestrating the sale of the company's real estate.
According to the investigation, the scheme was organized by the former acting director of Zaporizhtsyvilproekt, Tsybulskyi, in collaboration with his deputy Dmytro Abramchuk and accomplice Yulia Kalinina-Zaiets. The group is suspected of creating fictitious debts to a controlled private company using forged documents. After securing a court ruling to enforce the recovery of this debt, the defendants planned to sell the company's real estate assets.
The fraudulent scheme involved an agreement between Zaporizhtsyvilproekt and Vesta Mark LLC to design a multi-storey residential complex valued at UAH 155 million, divided into 12 stages. To execute the project, the state-owned enterprise hired subcontractor Proektbudstandard PE for work valued at UAH 117 million. Former MP Oleksandr Onyshchenko, also implicated in the case, is alleged to have overseen the subcontractor company, which signed the agreement without performing any actual work.
The subcontractor reportedly copied parts of the project documentation previously created by Zaporizhtsyvilproekt and signed work acceptance certificates for UAH 18.8 million. By acquiring the right to claim these funds from the state-owned enterprise, the subcontractor company managed to have the artificial debt recognized and enforced through the courts.
Following the decision of the Economic Court of Zaporizhzhia region, enforcement proceedings were initiated, and the funds were to be recovered through the sale of the SE's real estate. However, law enforcement authorities intervened, stopping the crime at the attempt stage. During the trial, Tsybulskyi claimed that the debt resulted from the company's previous financial activities, but the investigation's evidence suggested it was artificially created. The other defendants argued they were simply following orders from their superiors.
The actions of the defendants were classified under Article 15, Part 3, Article 191, Part 5, Article 28, Part 3 and Article 366, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
