HACC Appeals Chamber Finally Confiscates Property of Head of Odesa Customs Tkachenko

On June 5, the panel of judges of the HACC Appeals Chamber, consisting of Mykola Hlotov, Viktor Pankulych, and Ihor Panaid, changed the HACC decision of January 25, 2024, on the confiscation of the assets of Viktor Tkachenko, head of a department of Odesa Customs.   

The changes concerned the fact that the panel of judges decided to recover Tkachenko’s property, but not the same apartment that was mentioned in the case, but more than 2.4 million dollars and two parking spaces.  

In March 2024, the SAPO prosecutor and the defendant filed appeals against the decision of the court of the first instance, adopted on January 25. Then the HACC granted the appeal of the SAPO prosecutor; it recognized assets worth UAH 2.8 million as unjustified and decided to recover this amount to the national budget.  

This concerns the apartment of 121.5 sq. m., worth UAH 2.44 million, and two parking spaces in the center of Odesa with an area of 23.3 and 15.2 sq. m., with a total cost of UAH 384,000.  

In the appeal, the prosecutor asked to change the decision of the court of the first instance, namely to remove the restrictions to confiscate Tkachenko’s property. According to the prosecutor, the court unlawfully reduced the amount of property to be confiscated since all property can be collected, regardless of its further appreciation.  

The defendant and his representative, for their part, asked to overturn the decision of the court of the first instance, which had found the assets unjustified. Tkachenko referred to the fact that the HACC did not take into account the testimony of the witness and the availability of a promissory note. He claimed that the witness had provided an interest-free loan for the purchase of the apartment. 

To confirm the legality of the acquisition of assets, Tkachenko also referred to the fact that his official income was enough to fully purchase one parking space and a part of the other, and his mother had bought the apartment with funds borrowed from the above-mentioned witness. According to the defendant, the HACC did not take into account the testimony of the lender and the availability of a promissory note.

By the way, during the appeal consideration, Tkachenko changed his stance. In the court of the first instance, he stated that the parking spaces and the apartment had been purchased by his mother using borrowed funds, whereas in the HACC Appeals Chamber, Tkachenko stated that his personal income was enough to fully purchase one parking space and a part of the other.  

Interestingly, the witness effectively lent more than UAH 2 million to an 85-year-old woman whose annual income was less than 1% of the loan amount. When asked by the panel of judges how Tkachenko’s mother would repay the debt, he mentioned the fact that his family planned to sell a house in the city of Rozdilna. But this debt has not been repaid yet.  

According to the defendant, the witness received UAH 25 million as a gift from her mother. This money was received by the witness’s mother as a result of the sale of non-residential premises to a commercial bank. 

In the course of court hearings, the panel of judges tried to find out why the 81-year-old mother of Tkachenko needed two parking spaces, although she did not have cars or even a driver’s license.  

In the future, the decision of the appellate instance may be contested with the Civil Cassation Court within 30 days from the date of its announcement.