Search

The case of Ukrzaliznytsia officials Petro Naumenko, Yurii Merkulov, and Liliia Petrenko, on granting unfounded benefits for cargo transportation

  • Date of commencement of the case: 05/12/2019
Track case progress If you would like to follow the case, leave your email and get updates sent straight to your inbox
The case of Ukrzaliznytsia officials Petro Naumenko, Yurii Merkulov, and Liliia Petrenko, on granting unfounded benefits for cargo transportation The case of Ukrzaliznytsia officials Petro Naumenko, Yurii Merkulov, and Liliia Petrenko, on granting unfounded benefits for cargo transportation

Case description

On February 18, 2022, the HACC acquitted 3 Ukrzaliznytsia officials—Petro Naumenko, Yurii Merkulov, and Lilia Petrenko. They were accused of unreasonably granting 14 companies preferential tariffs for cargo transportation. 

According to the investigation, in 2014, Naumenko, former UZ Deputy Chair; Merkulov, Director of the Commercial Department of UZ; and Petrenko, Deputy Head of one of UZ's branches; influenced the UZ Tariff Commission to grant benefits to a number of companies.

 

In March 2014, officials as members of the Tariff Commission allegedly broke into the Tariff Commission's office, rummaged through documents and a company computer, and at a meeting of the Commission, the Russian Rosneft and 13 other companies were illegally added to the list of companies with benefits for cargo transportation. They were granted the benefits on the basis that they would fulfill the guaranteed volumes of transportation, but later the companies failed to do so. It was noted that, as a result of such fraud, UZ lost about USD 7 million in revenue. 

The officials were charged with Article 28, part 2; Article 364, part 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. However, the HACC did not find an offense in the actions of the defendants and found the NABU's evidence not very convincing, as Naumenko, Merkulov, and Petrenko acted within their authority. UZ's civil claim was also dismissed.

The appellate instance confirmed the acquittal of the first instance.

  • Proceeding No.: 42016000000000977
  • Case No.: 757/11969/18-к
  • Incriminated: Article 364, part 2
Instance Key parties Instance /Key parties:
CCC
16/02/2023

Panel of judges: Korol V.V., Antoniuk N.O., Marynych V.K., Marchuk N.O., Bushchenko A.P., Yanovska O.H.

HACC AC
21/03/2022

Panel of judges: Mykhailenko D.H., Kaluhina I.O., Semennykov O.Yu.

HACC
06/07/2020

Panel of judges: Fedorak L.M., Maslov V.V., Strohyi I.L.

Lawyer: Karpenka V.M., Munky O.M., Rokytskoho V.A., Spasibukhovoi O.L., Yeva M.V., Plakhotniuka O.A.

Prosecutor: Sydorenko V.A.

CCC
05/12/2019

Panel of judges: Storozhenko S.O., Borodii V.M., Yeremeichuk S.V.

Lawyer: Munky O.M., Khrulenka M.V.

Infographics

THE CASE OF UKRZALIZNYTSIA OFFICIALS PETRO NAUMENKO, YURII MERKULOV, AND LILIIA PETRENKO

Petro Naumenko, Yurii Merkulov, and Lilia Petrenko, UZ officials, were accused of illegally granting a number of companies benefits for freight transportation and, as a result, causing losses to Ukrzaliznytsia. The High Anti-Corruption Court acquitted them.

  • February 26, 2014
    the Tariff Commission granted benefits to companies, including 14 companies allegedly illegally added to the list by the accused officials (according to the investigation)
  • pic
    August 16, 2017
    the NABU served three officials with suspicion notices of abuse of office in collusion
  • pic
    February 18, 2022
    the HACC acquitted Naumenko, Merkulov, and Petrenko
  • November 18, 2022
    the HACC Appeals Chamber upheld the verdict of the first instance

Decisions from the Register

Case No. Court Decision date Decision type
757/11969/18-к CCC 05/12/2019
757/11969/18-к HACC 06/07/2020 On the appointment of a preparatory court hearing
757/11969/18-к CCC 09/07/2020 On the refusal to open cassation proceedings
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 23/07/2020
757/11969/18-к HACC 27/07/2020 Decision on the refusal/granting of the motion for the return of the indictment
757/11969/18-к HACC 27/07/2020 On the appointment of a trial
757/11969/18-к HACC 27/07/2020 On the appointment of a trial
757/11969/18-к HACC 27/07/2020 Decision on the refusal/granting of the motion for the return of the indictment
757/11969/18-к HACC 14/06/2021
757/11969/18-к HACC 14/06/2021
757/11969/18-к HACC 16/09/2021
757/11969/18-к HACC 16/09/2021
757/11969/18-к HACC 18/02/2022 Verdicts
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 21/03/2022 Opening of appeal proceedings
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 18/04/2022 Completion of the preparation and appointment of the appeal hearing
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 10/05/2022 Decision on the implementation of remote court proceedings
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 18/11/2022 On non-granting of the appeal and leaving the verdict unchanged
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 18/11/2022 On non-granting of the appeal and leaving the verdict unchanged
757/11969/18-к CCC 16/02/2023 On the opening of cassation proceedings
757/11969/18-к CCC 22/02/2023
757/11969/18-к CCC 03/03/2023 On the completion of preparation and appointment of the cassation hearing
757/11969/18-к CCC 12/05/2023
757/11969/18-к CCC 13/06/2023 Resolution on partial granting of cassation appeals and the appointment of a new hearing in the court of the first or appellate instance
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 05/07/2023
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 22/01/2024
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 29/01/2024
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 29/01/2024
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 16/02/2024 Verdict of the appellate court
757/11969/18-к HACC AC 18/03/2024 Decision on the application for procedure clarification to enforce the verdict
757/11969/18-к HACC 25/04/2024
757/11969/18-к HACC 25/04/2024
757/11969/18-к CCC 14/05/2024 Decision on the reclamation of materials, On the refusal to suspend the enforcement of the sentence / гіпотетично може може бути й про зупинення виконання вироку
757/11969/18-к CCC 14/05/2024 On the opening of cassation proceedings
757/11969/18-к CCC 16/05/2024 On the opening of cassation proceedings
757/11969/18-к CCC 22/05/2024 On the opening of cassation proceedings
757/11969/18-к CCC 27/05/2024 On the completion of preparation and appointment of the cassation hearing