In Mykolaiv Oblast, a former credit union executive was acquitted in a case involving 45 million

It took nearly two decades for one of the financial cases in the Mykolaiv region to reach a conclusion. But instead of issuing a verdict, the court dismissed the case, leaving the question of liability unresolved.

This was reported by Intent, citing a ruling by the Mykolaiv Central District Court.

According to the case file, the “Flagman” credit union had been operating since 2001 and accepted funds from its members into deposit accounts. The credit union promised to return the members’ money, along with interest, upon the expiration of the contracts. Natalia Kopetska served as chair of the board; in accordance with the bylaws, she had the authority to manage the institution’s finances and enter into contracts on its behalf.

Investigators believed that in late 2008, the credit union’s director orchestrated a scheme under which depositors’ funds began to be misappropriated. According to the prosecution, she persuaded the credit committee to issue loans totaling several million hryvnias to the Kyiv-based “Akord” Credit Union, even though she was aware of its impending insolvency. Furthermore, the agreements did not include adequate mechanisms to ensure the repayment of funds, such as collateral.

The court ruling states that between August and October 2008, the “Flagman” Credit Union entered into loan agreements with the “Accord” Credit Union totaling 9.37 million hryvnias. In fact, however, more than 9.2 million hryvnias were transferred and disbursed in cash. Subsequently, the borrower repaid only about 382,800 hryvnias of the principal debt. According to investigators’ estimates, the losses from this incident alone amounted to over 8.8 million hryvnias.

Law enforcement officials noted that a total of 1,054 depositors had deposited over 45.8 million hryvnias with the credit union. According to investigators, after the loans were issued, some of the funds were embezzled for the benefit of third parties, and a significant amount was disbursed without properly executed loan agreements. As a result, the credit union was unable to fulfill its obligations to depositors.

Another part of the case involved 517 depositors who had deposited over 16 million hryvnias with the credit union. According to the prosecution, these funds were also not returned upon the expiration of the deposit agreements.

Despite the scope of the charges, the prosecutor did not object to the application of the statute of limitations during the court hearing. The defendant’s attorney filed a motion to that effect, which the defendant herself supported. She agreed to the dismissal of the case and stated that she understood the legal consequences of such a decision. Some of the victims opposed the dismissal of the case; however, the court noted that their position does not affect the application of Article 49 of the Criminal Code if the statute of limitations has already expired.

The court also emphasized that the defendant had not evaded the investigation or the trial and had not committed any new serious crimes during this time. Under these circumstances, the law requires the court to exempt the individual from criminal liability after the expiration of the established statute of limitations.

The judge dismissed the criminal case, and the depositors’ civil claims were not considered. The victims were informed that they could file claims for compensation for damages through civil proceedings. In addition, the judge lifted the seizure of several land plots, which had been imposed as part of these proceedings back in 2014–2015.

Also in Mykolaiv, a court found the former chair of a homeowners’ association— whoalso worked for the police—guilty of embezzling funds belonging to the building’s co-owners. Over the course of several months, she withdrew more than 163,000 hryvnias from the association’s cash register and bank accounts—funds that were intended for the building’s maintenance. 

Анна Бальчінос