In Mykolaiv, a court has suspended the case involving embezzlement during a building renovation for the third time

A court in Mykolaiv has suspended proceedings for the third time in the case of a construction company director accused of embezzling public funds during the renovation of a high-rise building’s roof. The reason was the need for a second expert examination, without which the hearing cannot proceed.

This was reported by the Center for Public Investigations.

According to the investigation, in 2020, the Department of Housing and Public Utilities of the Mykolaiv City Council entered into a contract with Budtechnologia-MK LLC for the major repair of a residential building’s roof. The cost of the work exceeded 607 thousand hryvnias. Law enforcement officials believe that after the repairs were completed, the company’s director entered false information regarding the scope and cost of the repairs into the certificates of completion. According to the prosecution, this resulted in losses to the local budget amounting to more than 47,000 hryvnias.

During the hearing, an expert from the Odesa Research Institute of Forensic Expertise asked the court to provide additional materials for a re-examination. Specifically, this included electronic files of cost estimates, construction drawings, invoices, and certificates for building materials.

The prosecutor stated that the requested electronic documents do not exist and that all available materials are already included in the case file. The defense shared this position, arguing that a new expert examination was unfounded.

As a result, the court denied the motion to request additional documents but forwarded all available materials from the criminal proceedings to the experts for review. The case has been suspended pending the new expert opinion.

As Intent reported, in March 2026, the court had already suspended hearings in this case due to the appointment of a second expert examination. This decision was made after the previous examinations yielded conflicting results.

Back in November, the Center for Policy Researchreported that experts had reached radically different conclusions regarding the work performed. One construction and technical expert assessment found that the cost had been overstated by more than 47,000 hryvnias. In contrast, another study showed that work had been performed in excess of the contract by more than 117,000 hryvnias, particularly when taking into account funds from the homeowners’ association.

It was precisely because of these discrepancies that the prosecutor insisted on a new expert assessment. The accused company director did not admit guilt and considered a repeat assessment unnecessary. Despite this, the court agreed that a new expert assessment was necessary and once again suspended the proceedings.

Анна Бальчінос