The case of attorney Toporkov on bribery of the former head of the SPFU Sennychenko

The case of attorney Toporkov on bribery of the former head of the SPFU Sennychenko
Start of the trial 1 March 2021
Instance HACC
Stage of criminal proceedings Judicial proceedings

The HACC issued a ruling imposing compulsory medical measures on Mykola Toporkov due to his insanity at the time of committing the incriminated act under Article 369(4) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The lawyer was subjected to compulsory hospitalisation.

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.

Dmytro Sennychenko. Photo: The State Property Fund of Ukraine
Dmytro Sennychenko. Photo: The State Property Fund of Ukraine

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. 

Toporkov's detention. Photo: NABU press service
Toporkov's detention. Photo: NABU press service

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. 

On January 23, 2026, HACC judges found that lawyer Mykola Toporkov had committed a socially dangerous act while legally insane. In connection with this, he is to be committed to a psychiatric hospital. Simultaneously, the court lifted the asset freezes.

A notable point: nearly USD 200,000 that Toporkov had handed to Sennychenko as the first installment of the bribe was, back in 2022, to be transferred for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the basis of a relevant commander’s order. The court did not apply special confiscation to those funds, even though this is possible where a person is found legally insane. Read the full story on our HACC Decided platform.

Proceeding No. 52020000000000389
Case No. 991/1453/21
Date the hearing was scheduled 01/03/2021
Subject
  • Lawyer
Qualification
Article 369, part 4
Pre-trial cases №
  • 991/501/21
  • 991/5770/20
  • 991/8122/20
  • 991/8121/20
  • 991/8124/20
  • 991/7428/20
  • 991/5729/20
  • 991/7486/20
  • 991/7443/20
  • 991/5919/20
  • 991/6545/20
  • 991/6227/20
  • 991/6228/20
  • 991/5917/20
  • 991/5766/20
  • 991/5913/20
  • 991/5838/20
  • 991/5762/20
  • 991/5767/20
  • 991/5765/20
  • 991/5761/20
  • 991/5764/20
  • 991/5769/20
  • 991/5768/20
  • 991/5763/20
  • 991/5720/20
  • 991/5719/20
Instance Key parties
HACC 01/03/2021 Panel of judges: Koliush O.L., Dubas V.M., Tkachenko O.V.
CASE OF MYKOLA TOPORKOV
Judicial proceedings

Attorney Mykola Toporkov was accused of offering a bribe to the then head of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, Dmytro Sennychenko. The HACC found Toporkov legally insane at the time he committed the socially dangerous act.

Article 369 (2) of The Criminal Code of Ukraine

  • pic
    July 9, 2020
    Law enforcement officers detained Toporkov red-handed immediately after transferring USD 200,000 to Sennychenko’s intermediary
  • pic
    July 10, 2020
    the NABU served Toporkov with a suspicion notice
  • pic
    July 21, 2020
    The HACC set a bail of UAH 16 million for Toporkov
  • pic
    August 27, 2020
    The HACC Appeals Chamber reduced the bail to UAH 3.2 million
  • March 10, 2021
    The HACC began hearing the case
  • July 8, 2021
    The HACC refused to approve Toporkov’s plea deal due to its inconsistency with the requirements of the Code and the public interest
  • January 12, 2022
    The HACC Appeals Chamber suspended the proceedings to conduct a panel forensic medical examination
  • pic
    June 1, 2022
    The HACC reduced the bail amount to UAH 86,000 The amount by which the bail was reduced — over UAH 3.2 million — was transferred to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine
  • July 9, 2025
    Due to the finding of Toporkov’s incompetence, the HACC changed the procedure for the trial and appointed a legal representative, modified the preventive measure to placement under the care of a guardian, and returned the bail to the defendant
  • pic
    January 23, 2026
    The HACC found that Toporkov had committed a socially dangerous act while legally insane and ordered his compulsory hospitalization

Decisions from the Register

Case No. Court Decision type
991/1453/21 HACC 23/01/2026 Decision to cancel the seizure of property
991/1453/21 HACC 05/11/2025
991/1453/21 HACC 05/11/2025
991/1453/21 HACC 15/09/2025
991/1453/21 HACC 15/09/2025
991/1453/21 HACC 09/07/2025
991/1453/21 HACC 09/07/2025
991/1453/21 HACC 09/07/2025
991/1453/21 HACC 09/07/2025
991/1453/21 HACC 20/01/2025 Decision on temporary access
991/1453/21 HACC 20/01/2025 Decision on temporary access
991/1453/21 HACC AC 03/06/2024
991/1453/21 HACC 15/05/2024
991/1453/21 HACC 15/05/2024
991/1453/21 HACC 01/05/2024 Decision on temporary access
991/1453/21 HACC 01/05/2024 Decision on temporary access
991/1453/21 HACC 07/02/2024
991/1453/21 HACC 07/02/2024 Decision on temporary access
991/1453/21 HACC 07/02/2024 Decision on temporary access
991/1453/21 HACC 07/02/2024
991/1453/21 HACC 11/12/2023 Decision on temporary access
991/1453/21 HACC 11/12/2023 Decision on temporary access
991/1453/21 HACC 20/11/2023
991/1453/21 HACC 20/11/2023
991/1453/21 HACC 20/07/2023
991/1453/21 HACC 20/07/2023 Separate opinion of the HACC judge
991/1453/21 HACC 20/07/2023
991/1453/21 HACC 17/03/2023
991/1453/21 HACC 17/03/2023
991/1453/21 HACC 01/03/2023
991/1453/21 HACC 01/03/2023
991/1453/21 HACC 08/06/2022 Decision to cancel the seizure of property
991/1453/21 HACC 08/06/2022 Decision to cancel the seizure of property
991/1453/21 HACC 01/06/2022
991/1453/21 HACC 01/06/2022
991/1453/21 HACC 12/01/2022 On the suspension of court proceedings
991/1453/21 HACC 12/01/2022 On the suspension of court proceedings
991/1453/21 HACC 08/07/2021 Separate opinion of the HACC judge
991/1453/21 HACC 08/07/2021 Decision on the refusal to approve the agreement
991/1453/21 HACC 07/04/2021
991/1453/21 HACC 07/04/2021
991/1453/21 HACC 10/03/2021 On the appointment of a trial
991/1453/21 HACC 01/03/2021 On the appointment of a preparatory court hearing
991/501/21 HACC 04/02/2021
991/501/21 HACC 04/02/2021
991/5770/20 HACC AC 07/10/2020 Decision on partial granting of appeals
991/8122/20 HACC 07/10/2020
991/8121/20 HACC 07/10/2020
991/8124/20 HACC 07/10/2020
991/5770/20 HACC AC 07/10/2020 Decision on partial granting of appeals
991/5770/20 HACC 07/10/2020
991/7428/20 HACC 15/09/2020
991/5729/20 HACC 15/09/2020
991/7428/20 HACC 15/09/2020
991/7486/20 HACC 09/09/2020
991/7443/20 HACC 09/09/2020 Decision on closing the criminal proceedings
991/5729/20 HACC AC 27/08/2020 Decision on partial granting of appeals
991/5729/20 HACC AC 27/08/2020 Decision on partial granting of appeals
991/5919/20 HACC 19/08/2020
991/5919/20 HACC 19/08/2020
991/5919/20 HACC AC 19/08/2020
991/5919/20 HACC AC 19/08/2020
991/6545/20 HACC 17/08/2020
991/6227/20 HACC 30/07/2020
991/6228/20 HACC 30/07/2020
991/5917/20 HACC 28/07/2020
991/5917/20 HACC 28/07/2020
991/5766/20 HACC 23/07/2020
991/5766/20 HACC 23/07/2020
991/5729/20 HACC 21/07/2020
991/5913/20 HACC 16/07/2020
991/5913/20 HACC 16/07/2020
991/5838/20 HACC 15/07/2020
991/5838/20 HACC 15/07/2020
991/5762/20 HACC 14/07/2020
991/5767/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5765/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5761/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5767/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5764/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5769/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5768/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5762/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5763/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5762/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5768/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5761/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5765/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5764/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5769/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5763/20 HACC 13/07/2020
991/5720/20 HACC 10/07/2020
991/5720/20 HACC 10/07/2020
991/5719/20 HACC 10/07/2020
991/5719/20 HACC 10/07/2020

Case news