A case regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of multimillionaire and investor Adnan Kivan and possible medical malpractice during his treatment has been ongoing in Odesa for more than eight months. The founder of the KADORR Group died on October 27, 2024. A few months earlier, starting in June 2024, he had been receiving treatment at the private Odrex clinic.
In October 2025, law enforcement authorities charged two clinic specialists with possible medical negligence during the treatment of his cancer. According to investigators, the cause of death was sepsis, which developed as a complication of the cancer.
Later, the clinic’s lawyers appealed to the Office of the Prosecutor General, requesting a review of the prosecutor’s office’s actions and the objectivity of the investigation. According to them, the investigation into this specific case of a patient’s death had turned into systematic pressure on the clinic. Several industry publications have previously reported on the possible use of this case for personal revenge.
UA.News continues to monitor this high-profile case and its implications for both the clinic in question and the Ukrainian healthcare system as a whole. We spoke with Leonid Kuchuk, founder of the Odrex clinic, about the course of the proceedings, the investigators’ allegations, and claims of possible pressure. We also express our willingness to publish the prosecution’s position on this case.
What is known about the trial against the doctors
The case is being heard on its merits by the Kyiv District Court of Odesa. According to the court’s ruling, the criminal case is being heard in closed session. Two medical professionals are on trial: surgeon Vitaliy Rusakov and oncologist Maryna Bilotserkovska. They are charged under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (negligent performance of professional duties by a medical professional). According to the investigation, their failure to properly perform their professional duties may have led to the death of businessman Adnan Kivan.
The trial is intended to examine and determine whether the doctors’ actions complied with state standards and protocols for the provision of medical care.
The prosecution insists that during the patient’s treatment, the doctors violated established standards, which, in turn, led to tragic consequences. The defense, however, categorically denies that the doctors’ actions constitute a crime.
On August 4, it was reported that the Kyiv District Court of Odesa extended the pretrial measure for doctors Vitaliy Rusakov and Marina Belotserkovskaya—in the form of a personal pledge—for another two months. In addition, according to Vitaliy Rusakov, the court also extended his suspension from his positions as head of Surgical Department No. 2, surgeon, and endoscopist at Medical House “Odrex” LLC.
Specifically, during the court hearing, the prosecutor stated that Rusakov allegedly continued to practice medicine outside the medical facility and failed to record information about the medical procedures he performed in the medical records.
Commenting on this information, attorney Andriy Turiy explained that performing surgical procedures without proper documentation and outside a licensed medical facility may constitute a violation of professional standards. At the same time, he emphasized that criminal liability for a healthcare professional is possible only if there are serious consequences for the patient.
The allegations made by the prosecution during the court hearing have not yet been established as facts by the court. The criminal proceedings are currently in the trial phase. And the court has not yet proceeded to examine all the evidence intended to establish whether there is a causal link between the defendants’ actions and the death of businessman Adnan Kivan.
The court examined some of the prosecution’s evidence concerning the actions of one of the doctors during the hearing on August 7. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for September 3.
The court is expected to continue examining the body of evidence, analyzing medical records, expert reports, and other materials in the criminal case. This should help establish the sequence of the patient’s treatment: what diagnoses were made, what tests were conducted, what medications and procedures were prescribed, how his health condition changed, and how the medical staff responded to possible complications.
Leonid Kuchuk, founder of the Odrex Clinic, commented in more detail on the progress of this high-profile case. He also explained why the clinic is calling for an open and impartial trial.
How is the case initiated by Adnan Kivan’s family progressing?
First of all, I want to say what I always start with. A person has passed away, and for his family, this is a loss that the clinic respects. No one has ever questioned—nor does anyone now—the right of the bereaved to demand that the circumstances of the death be investigated.
Now to the heart of the matter. Let me remind you that we’re talking about a possible medical error. This is a misdemeanor offense. Despite this, the case was initially registered under the charge of intentional homicide, and the doctors were subject to preventive measures typically applied to suspects in serious crimes: suspension from work, restrictions, and monitoring. The case is currently being heard on its merits in court.
I want to emphasize one thing for the sake of accuracy. The charges have been brought against specific doctors, not the clinic. Odrex is not a defendant in these proceedings. But these are our doctors, and the clinic stands by them because it has no moral right to turn its back on people who have been saving patients for years.
The court must render a decision in this case, and the clinic is awaiting it without jumping to conclusions.
Why is the court holding the hearing in camera?
Let me emphasize the main point right away: this decision is not in the clinic’s favor, and the clinic is interested in the opposite outcome.
An open trial best protects everyone: the doctors, the clinic, and, incidentally, the family of the deceased, who also have the right to see that justice is served transparently, not behind closed doors.
As far as we know, the hearing was closed not at the initiative of the doctors’ side or at the clinic’s request, but specifically at the request of the prosecution.
The clinic’s position is that openness in this case would not be detrimental; on the contrary, it would dispel a significant portion of the questions that have accumulated in society. Unfortunately, so far the government apparatus has demonstrated its unwillingness to be transparent and allow the public to assess its impartiality.
What are the defense’s key arguments?
We must be precise here. The clinic is not a party to the defense in this case. The doctors are represented by separate, independent attorneys, and it is they—not the clinic—who determine the defense strategy. It would be wrong and unfair to the proceedings to disclose or comment on their tactics on their behalf.
Therefore, I will not speak about the defense’s tactics, but rather about the principled position that the clinic has the right to express.
The clinic is not asking for any leniency for the doctors. It has only one request: an open and impartial trial, in which the presumption of innocence applies and in which every piece of evidence is examined on its merits, not under pressure from headlines. Until there is a court verdict, no one is guilty. This is not merely a formality—it is a fundamental guarantee for every person. And it is precisely this adherence to these guarantees and transparency that is lacking today.
To what extent does the trial affect the clinic’s operations?
The clinic is operating. It was operating yesterday, it is operating today, and it will be seeing patients tomorrow. Operations have not been suspended for a single day.
During this time, the clinic has been inspected repeatedly, and it passed its most recent inspection by the Ministry of Health without any violations. This is the conclusion of a government agency, not a statement from the clinic itself.
But there is a cost to people, and it shouldn’t be ignored. When an experienced surgeon in frontline Odesa is removed from the operating table, it is the patients he could have operated on who suffer first and foremost. This is the true cost of this story, and it is the patients—not the owners—who are paying it.
For our part, we are acting exclusively within the legal framework to defend ourselves: through the courts, appeals, and protecting our reputation within the bounds of the law. We have not chosen—and will not choose—any other path.
