The “Maidan Judge” Is Back to Her Old Ways: How Larisa Trofimova Is Destroying Businesses in Cherkasy

In 2014, Judge Larisa Trofimova had already decided who in Cherkasy was allowed to participate in peaceful protests and who was not. At that time, during the Revolution of Dignity, she banned an unspecified group of people from holding pickets, rallies, meetings, demonstrations, and other peaceful events on Soborna Square and in the surrounding areas of the city. Subsequently, the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeals overturned this decision entirely, and the Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice ruled that the judge had exceeded her authority.

Twelve years have passed. Larisa Trofimova continues to serve as a judge on the Cherkasy District Administrative Court and is once again ruling on an issue that determines people’s ability to exercise their rights—though this time, not regarding peaceful assemblies, but regarding the right to work.

Cherkasy District Administrative Court Judge Larisa Trofimova

This servant of Themis is hearing a case in which the State Service for Food Safety and Consumer Protection and the State Environmental Inspection are demanding that production be halted at Omega Three LLC (trademark “Happy Chicken”). This is the very same company that employees pleaded not to shut down while gathered outside the district administrative court building. People came out with signs and a single, shared plea to save their jobs. Hundreds of people work at the company, and for them, the court’s decision determines whether they will be unemployed tomorrow. 

Larisa Trofimova: What Is Known About the Judge

At one time, the Public Council on Integrity found Judge Trofimova to be in violation of integrity criteria. During the qualification assessment, this conclusion did not automatically serve as grounds for dismissal: the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) panel determined that the judge was fit for her position. However, due to the Public Integrity Council’s conclusion, the final decision was to be made by the Commission’s plenary session.

The essence of the current dispute surrounding Omega Three LLC is actually quite trivial if viewed as yet another conflict between the poultry farm and regulatory authorities: violations were found, orders were issued, the company corrected some issues and is challenging others. A familiar story. However, in this case, the government does not want to force the company to correct the deficiencies but rather to completely shut down its operations. The company, for its part, does not deny that violations were identified during the inspections. But it asserts that it has already remedied some of them and is challenging the remaining orders and rulings in court. The defense’s position boils down to a straightforward question: Why shut down all production if specific deficiencies can be corrected without completely halting operations?

The court should have thoroughly examined the nature of the violations to determine whether they pose a real threat to human life, health, or the environment. But Judge Larisa Trofimova chose a different path.

Is the court rushing things?

On September 11, Judge Trofimova opened proceedings in Case No. 580/9753/26 and immediately designated it for consideration under the rules of simplified litigation. The hearing was scheduled for September 30. Under the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, simplified proceedings are designed to expedite case review; for this category of cases, the court explicitly sets a time limit of up to 60 days from the opening of proceedings.

During the hearing on September 30, the defense requested a transition to general litigation, which is understandable: if the decision could force the company to shut down, the parties should be given the opportunity to fully examine the evidence and explain their positions to the court. Larisa Trofimova refused, systematically rejecting all of the attorney’s motions one by one. The judge explained that this case does not fall under the category of administrative disputes, which by law must be heard under the rules of general civil proceedings, but emphasized that the case has indeed garnered public attention,  and did not expand the proceedings; on the contrary, she kept them within the expedited procedure.

What is the reason for this?

There could be many possibilities. A simple desire to conclude the administrative case more quickly, or the judge’s belief that all necessary evidence is already in the case file and that further delaying the proceedings would change nothing. One could also imagine entirely different reasons, such as someone’s interest in shutting down the company as quickly as possible. 

Luxury real estate for zero hryvnias and more: what the judge’s declarations are hiding

The wealth and financial maneuvers of Larisa Trofimova and her family deserve special attention, especially if one closely examines her declarations for 2022 and 2023. There, it’s hard not to notice a trend toward large-scale real estate acquisitions. The year 2021 proved particularly fruitful for the family. It was then, on a single day—February 20, 2021—that Larisa Trofimova became the owner of a spacious 164-square-meter apartment in the capital, as well as a residential house (74.6 square meters) and a plot of land (1,500 square meters) in the village of Khoroshiv in the Zhytomyr region. Just a few months later, on May 18, 2021, her husband, Viktor Zhidetsky, registered another house (74.9 square meters) and two plots of land (1,500 square meters and 4,710 square meters) in the same village. The value of the Kyiv residence and most of the Zhytomyr properties is either not specified or marked as “not applicable” in the 2022 and 2023 declarations. The judge’s family concealed from the public the actual value of the real estate acquired during that period.

Equally intriguing are the schemes involving the registration of property in the names of immediate family members. For example, as of July 10, 2023, the judge has declared that he is renting an apartment in Cherkasy (48.5 square meters, with a declared value of 720,000 UAH) owned by Kateryna Viktorivna Zhidetska. At the same time, a Nissan Juke (manufactured in 2011, with a declared value of 200,000 UAH), which the couple actively uses, has been registered to Viktoria Viktorivna Zhidetska since 2011. In addition, since November 8, 2023, Larisa Trofimova has been declaring an unfinished construction project—a 46.02-square-meter apartment in Cherkasy—which is being built with her own funds, although the land plot on which the building is being constructed belongs to a third party, Frunze Kazaryan. Such arrangements are often used to conceal true wealth and minimize official expenditures.

The judge’s financial activity during a full-scale war is also striking. Larisa Trofimova’s family is tirelessly accumulating wealth. According to the 2023 declaration, the judge’s salary at the Cherkasy District Administrative Court amounted to 1,561,156 UAH, while her husband’s pension was 141,475 UAH. In addition, the judge received 96,842 UAH in interest on deposits and 57,736 UAH in income from securities and investment gains.

The judge is equally active in investing in government bonds (OVDP): in 2023 alone, she purchased new OVDP portfolios (specifically, on June 20—4 bonds worth approximately 159,000 UAH; on November 16—8 units worth approximately 290,000 UAH; and on December 28—271 units with a face value of 1,000 UAH each) and received payments from the Ministry of Finance for the redemption of OVDPs in various currencies totaling over 349,000 UAH (in hryvnia, euros, and U.S. dollars). During the same period, in November 2023, Trofimova incurred a new financial obligation in the amount of 687,000 UAH to PP “Nadiya” under a transaction regarding a capital construction project in Cherkasy (with a one-time expenditure of 500,550 UAH). As of the end of 2023, the family also held over 349,000 UAH in bank accounts and significant cash savings (50,000 UAH, 15,000 UAH belonging to her husband, and 400 euros).

So while “Omega Three” employees have every reason to worry about their jobs and the future of their families, Judge Trofimova is confidently increasing her own wealth.

In conclusion

Larisa Trofimova’s portfolio already bears the label “Maidan judge.” In 2018–2019, she attempted to climb the career ladder and applied to the Supreme Court, but was eliminated from the competition based on the results of her interview. Having failed to pass the integrity screening at the national level, the judge returned to local cases, where she continues to employ unusual procedural approaches. The judge’s haste in the case against Omega Three LLC can be explained by procedural efficiency. But given Larisa Trofimova’s wealth, another thought somehow comes to mind: could it be that someone is breathing down her neck—someone who is all too interested in shutting down the poultry farm as quickly as possible and who, perhaps, is already preparing a new “token of gratitude” to add to the judge’s extensive real estate portfolio?

In any case, the Gospel principle states: “There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed!”