On January 28, 2025, HACC AC partially overturned the verdict in the case of damages incurred during the construction of Okhmatdyt in 2013. The panel of judges released Iryna Koval, former head of the state enterprise Ukrmedprojectbud, from criminal liability and closed the case due to the expiration of the 10-year statute of limitations. Thus, the judges granted the defense's motion. The civil claim against Koval was dismissed without consideration.
At the same time, another accused, Ihor Kuchma, head of the general contractor company, refused to be released from liability. The case against him will continue.
What is the case about?
According to investigators, the state enterprise Ukrmedprojectbud was the procuring entity for the construction of the new Okhmatdyt building in Kyiv. Its head, Iryna Koval, signed contracts with Okhmatdyt and Ukrprofmed LLC, led by Ihor Kuchma, for the supply of elevators and heating module components.
The company received a 100% advance payment but failed to deliver the equipment. Despite this, in 2013, Koval signed delivery invoices confirming the acceptance of the missing equipment and later, together with Kuchma, attempted to conceal its absence.
Progress of the case
In May 2020, the defendants in the case were formally notified of suspicion. After the indictment was submitted in September 2021, the trial faced delays due to groundless challenges. At one point, the defense lawyers challenged the presiding judge, claiming that the court secretary had informed them about the procedure for examining evidence. According to the defense, this suggested the judge's bias.
Hearings were sometimes scheduled only once a month, with additional lengthy delays in proceedings. For example, in the winter of 2021–2022, no hearings were held for over a month and a half, and between July and September 2022, the court repeatedly postponed sessions due to witness absences.
One witness did not provide a reason for their absence, another cited a serious psychological condition, and a third stated that they were in occupied territory and did not intend to participate in the hearing. The court ordered their compulsory appearance and even fined one witness UAH 5,200.
Permanent cancellations of court decisions
On December 26, 2022, the HACC found Iryna Koval and Ihor Kuchma guilty under Article 364, Part 2, and Article 366, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, sentencing them to five and four years in prison, respectively. However, due to the statute of limitations, they were released from punishment under Article 366, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
In March 2023, the appellate review began. However, the hearing was postponed due to the absence of defense lawyers. In December 2023, HACC AC held lawyer Anzhelika Moiseieva accountable. She submitted documents claiming the termination of her contract with the accused Koval and systematically failed to appear at hearings. The court found the explanations insufficient, stating that the lawyer had deliberately skipped the hearing just before the start of the debate, knowing that the statute of limitations was about to expire.
By the way, the Verkhovna Rada committee recently recommended that Parliament adopt draft law No. 11387, which proposes stricter penalties for contempt of court. However, according to TI Ukraine, the draft law, in its current form, does not fully address the issue. Instead, it creates additional burdens on the court and introduces other complications.
On December 18, 2023, HACC AC overturned the guilty verdict and closed the case due to a lack of evidence. However, nearly a year later, on December 5, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned this decision and ordered a new appellate hearing. According to the Supreme Court, the appellate court failed to examine a significant portion of the evidence, did not question key witnesses, overlooked certain documents, and did not order a second handwriting examination of the case documents.
Calculating the statute of limitations in cases is a long-standing problem. In our latest HACC monitoring report, we emphasized the urgent need to improve the concept of the statute of limitations. Parliament should expand the grounds for suspending the statute of limitations and reconsider the point at which they expire. Otherwise, other high-profile cases could risk dismissal in the future. A recent example is the case of former Kyiv City Architect and Ukrbuddevelopment director Oleh Maiboroda, which was closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.