In Odesa, a court denied the investigation's request for bail for a government official in a case of official negligence

An attempt by investigators to secure bail for an Odessa City Council official ended in failure. The woman is accused of official negligence during the restoration of a building following a Russian strike. 

This was reported by Intent, citing the Khadzhibey District Court of Odesa.

The court heard the case regarding official negligence against Natalia Lesnaya, the former head of the Public Procurement Coordination Division of the Odessa City Council’s Department of Municipal Services, who is suspected of official negligence.

According to investigators, during the procurement of restoration work for an apartment building at 18 Viyskovyi Uzviz—which was damaged as a result of Russian aggression—the official unjustifiably included value-added tax in the contract price. As a result, law enforcement officials believe that more than 573,200 hryvnias in VAT was illegally transferred from the Odesa city budget to the account of the private joint-stock company “Repair and Construction Division ‘Odesgolovpostach.’”

Law enforcement officials believe that the official, who served as the authorized procurement officer, failed to properly verify the legality of including VAT in the estimated procurement cost and the contract price, even though the relevant work was exempt from taxation under the Tax Code. She was notified of her status as a suspect in a case of official negligence resulting in serious consequences.

The prosecutor asked the court to impose a preventive measure on the suspect in the form of bail in the amount of 628,900 hryvnias. They justified this by citing the risks of her potentially absconding from the investigation, influencing witnesses, and obstructing the criminal proceedings.

However, the court did not agree with these arguments. During the hearing on the motion, the defense insisted that the official had no functional responsibilities regarding verifying the correct inclusion of VAT in the contract. The attorney noted that she merely coordinated the procurement process and uploaded documents to the Prozorro system, while determining the contract value and performing financial calculations fell within the purview of other officials, specifically employees of the finance department.

In addition, the court noted that the contractor had already returned to the budget, back in December 2025, the funds that the State Audit Service had deemed to be unlawfully paid VAT. The defense provided the relevant payment documents, and the judge noted that this indicated the absence of material damage.

The judge concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the necessity of imposing bail. Furthermore, the ruling states that there are “substantial doubts regarding the validity of the suspicion,” and that the needs of the pretrial investigation do not justify such an interference with the suspect’s rights. As a result, the judge denied the investigator’s motion to impose a preventive measure.

Also, in the Odesa region, a case against a government official regarding the purchase of pellets at inflated prices was dismissed. The court concluded that the statute of limitations had already expired. 

Анна Бальчінос