The High Anti-Corruption Court Did Not Approve the Agreement with MP Kachny in the Case of Illicit Enrichment
The High Anti-Corruption Court refused to approve the plea agreement reached between a prosecutor from the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and People’s Deputy Oleksandr Kachny. The decision pertains to proceedings regarding illicit enrichment.
In early September, the court received an indictment containing a plea agreement with MP Kachny, who is accused of illegal enrichment.
During the preliminary hearing, the MP pleaded guilty, confirmed that he had entered into the agreement voluntarily, and requested that it be approved.
His attorney agreed with his client’s position. At the same time, he asked the court to take into account that Oleksandr Kachnyy requires medical treatment. The politician must also repay his existing debts, the nature of which is not specified in the court ruling.
For his part, the prosecutor from the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office insisted on the court’s approval of the plea agreement. He emphasized that the defendant’s transfer of funds to a specific foundation is standard practice. In the prosecutor’s opinion, the funds in question will be used effectively.
In addition, a citizen named Ihor Zhukovsky spoke in court. He supported the notarized statement he had submitted to the court. He added that the apartment, house, and land plot were registered in his name, but in fact do not belong to him (in the 2025 declaration, the MP’s wife, Lyudmyla Kachna, indicated that she was renting a 136-square-meter apartment in Kyiv from a citizen named Ihor Zhukovsky).
While reviewing the plea agreement, the Anti-Corruption Court expressed doubts regarding the method chosen by the defendant to transfer 3 million UAH as financial aid to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Specifically, the agreement states that Oleksandr Kachnyi undertakes to transfer funds for the destruction of reconnaissance and strike drones as part of a project by the charitable organization “International Charitable Foundation ‘Come Back Alive.’”
In this regard, the court expressed reservations: directing a donation to the Armed Forces of Ukraine through the account of a charitable organization “is beyond the control of the signatories to the agreement and the court.”
At the same time, the court pointed out alternative ways to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine besides charitable foundations. These include a special account at the National Bank, as well as a donation account opened by the Ministry of Defense.
“The court agrees with the statements set forth in the plea agreement that ‘in the context of full-scale military aggression by the Russian Federation, the highest public interest and the most important function of the state is to provide the Armed Forces of Ukraine with the necessary resources to defend sovereignty and territorial integrity.’ However, the parties’ agreement in the plea bargain to transfer the relevant funds to the account of a charitable organization, based on the evidence available in the case file and in accordance with the procedural restrictions provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine when considering a plea agreement, does not allow the court to verify that these provisions are in the public interest,” the High Anti-Corruption Court’s ruling states.
Separately, the court assessed the possibility of applying special confiscation when concluding a plea agreement. In this regard, it was established that the prosecutor and the defendant agreed that special confiscation should be applied to property belonging to Mr. Zhukovsky. This is all the more so given that the court has his notarized statement of consent to special confiscation.
However, the Anti-Corruption Court noted that the previous owner of Zhukovsky’s 132-square-meter apartment was Irina Zhukovskaya, who passed away in October 2023. The property was then inherited by this man.
Interestingly, while Irina Zhukovska was still alive, her apartment was rented by the aforementioned wife of People’s Deputy Kachny.
At the same time, the Anti-Corruption Court stated that “it is unable to determine whether there are grounds for applying special confiscation to property owned by a third party who has no procedural status in the criminal proceedings,” in which the defendant is MP Oleksandr Kachny.
In conclusion, the High Anti-Corruption Court noted that the parties to the proceedings may resubmit a plea agreement if the grounds on which the court refused to approve such an agreement are eliminated.
Source: Glavkom
Earlier, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) concluded its investigation into MP Kachnyy in a case of illicit enrichment.
Prior to this, the Anti-Corruption Court set bail for MP Kachny.
