Case description
The SAPO accuses lawyer Mykola Toporkov of bribing former Head of the State Property Fund of Ukraine Dmytro Sennychenko.
According to the prosecution, in June 2020, an acquaintance of Dmytro Sennychenko, then head of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, asked him to assist in extending the agreement for the processing of tolling raw materials and manufacturing products between Odesa Portside Plant and Energy Equivalent LLC, as well as in appointing controlled persons to senior positions at the Odesa Portside Plant and Cherkasyoblenergo. Such actions “cost” USD 800,000.
It was agreed that the contact person in this matter would be attorney Mykola Toporkov, and that Sennychenko would be represented in the negotiations by his advisor Olha Batova, who later received the status of a whistleblower in the case. At the same time, USD 200,000 was provided for the extension of the agreement, and USD 500,000 and USD 100,000 for the appointment of heads of Odesa Portside Plant and Cherkasyoblenergo.
Toporkov was detained at the scene while handing over $200,000 inside the premises of Industrialbank.
The actions of Toporkov were qualified under Article 369(4) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Toporkov attempted to make a deal with the prosecutor, but the court did not approve it because it did not meet the requirements of the Criminal Procedural Code and the public interest. The court proceedings were suspended due to Toporkov’s prolonged medical treatment.
Incidentally, this was the second attempt to bribe Sennychenko. The first attempt was made by politician Serhii Shcherbak and his accomplices; a verdict has already been delivered in that case. In March 2023, the NABU exposed Sennychenko for embezzling UAH 500 million from state-owned enterprises in 2019–2021. According to the investigation, Sennychenko refused bribes for a long time only to create a positive image of a whistleblower against corruption.
According to an expert opinion, Toporkov was found to have a mental disorder that existed at the time the offense was committed, rendering the defendant incompetent.
The defense counsel and legal representative asked the court to transfer the bail amount to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but the court ruled to return the bail to the defendant, noting that this issue cannot be decided without establishing the defendant’s position and will be resolved later in accordance with civil law procedures.
