Sept. 30, 2025, 2:16 p.m.
(Anatolii Khmilkivskyi, a deputy of the Odesa District Council. PHOTO: procherk.info)
The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court has scheduled proceedings on the appeal of Anatoliy Khmilkivskyi, a deputy of the Odesa District Council, against the verdict of the High Anti-Corruption Court, which sentenced him to five years in prison with confiscation of property.
The Appeals Chamber issued the decision on September 29.
The participants in the proceedings were given a deadline of October 6 to file objections to the appeal and submit new evidence.
On August 12, the High Anti-Corruption Court found the MP guilty of incitement to give an unlawful benefit and fraud. At the trial, the MP did not admit guilt, claiming that he had provided consulting services for the registration of a land plot and estimated them at USD 50 thousand, as well as received an advance payment. He explained that the conversations recorded during covert investigative actions concerned only official expenses, such as the development of a land management project, expert examinations, geodesy, and annual rent.
The fact is that in 2023, the entrepreneur planned to lease a 4-hectare land plot for a truck parking lot near the highway towards Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi. Through his acquaintances, he got in touch with a deputy who offered to solve the issue for $450,000, calling it "representation expenses." According to the prosecution, he planned to keep the money for himself and not transfer it to the head and deputies of the village council, and the businessman transferred him an advance of $10,000.
The court concluded that Anatoliy Khmilkivskyi's explanations did not correspond to the content of the recorded conversations and the evidence of the examination, and the so-called commission fee significantly exceeded the actual services he was going to provide. The list of consultations was too generalized, and the assessment of their value was questionable. The defense argued that the entrepreneur provoked the crime, but the court found no evidence of this and did not agree that the applicant was a provocateur.
Кирило Бойко