The head of the Zavodskyi Court disagrees with the NACP's conclusions regarding his declaration

Serhii Shcherbyna, Head of the Zavodskyi District Court. Photo: NikVesti

Serhii Shcherbyna, Chairman of the Zavodskyi District Court of Mykolaiv, disagrees with the conclusions of the National Agency for Corruption Prevention. The judge claims that the NACP's comments are based on an incomplete assessment of his family's income.

He said this in a comment to a correspondent from NikVesti.

The judge notes that the verification of his declaration was not initiated automatically, but at the request of an unknown person, as a result of which the NACP drew up an administrative report under Article 172-6 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences — violation of financial control requirements. However, he emphasises that this is not a corruption offence, but an administrative offence related to corruption, which, according to the law, does not imply the presence of a mercenary motive or abuse of official position.

Support those who keep the city informed every day

Club NikVesti — a place where the reader and the editorial team are on the same side.

Members have access to a private chat, an exclusive newsletter with behind-the-scenes stories from journalists, see the news earlier, and influence the changes.

Join us. Together we keep the city bright

One-time support Monthly

€ 1 € 2 € 10

Donate

by phone

---

by card

€ 2

by phone

---

by card

€ 5

by phone

---

by card

€ 10

by phone

---

by card

Secure payment

The recipient of donations is the NGO “Mykolaiv Media Hub” (EDRPOU 45160758). By making a donation, you confirm that the amount is non-refundable and may be used by the NGO to implement its statutory activities, including supporting independent journalism and creating socially significant content. Public offer.

On 14 January, the Vitovskyi District Court of Mykolaiv Region began hearing the administrative case against Chairman Serhii Shcherbyna.

«An audit is a routine procedure that everyone goes through. In my case, as I was informed and as stated in the certificate itself, it was conducted at the request of an unknown person. Based on the results of the audit, a report was drawn up. The report was drawn up and brought to administrative responsibility under Article 172, mark 6 — violation of financial control requirements. This provision in the Code of Administrative Offences is located in Chapter 13A, which is entitled «Administrative offences related to corruption.» There is a specific legal terminology: corruption offences and offences related to corruption. They are different. If we look at the law on preventing corruption, which explains this terminology, an offence related to corruption is an offence that does not have signs of corruption but is related to a violation of financial discipline. I wanted to emphasise that this is not a corruption offence. They drew up a corresponding protocol on bringing me to administrative responsibility, noting the shortcomings they found. The administrative protocol describes the composition of the administrative offence. They wrote in the protocol that I allegedly provided false information about my ability to make financial savings,» explains Serhii Shcherbyna.

The judge explains that as of 2020, he had 1.8 million hryvnias, to which were added savings for 2021. As a result, he indicated 2.3 million hryvnias in his declaration.

The NACP claims that Serhii Shcherbyna could not have had such an amount due to certain expenses. However, the judge insists that the anti-corruption agency did not take into account the 1 million hryvnias earned by his wife.

«It's unpleasant when people say that my wife didn't work. I strongly disagree with that. My wife worked. She and her partner organised a children's acting school in Kherson. The children went to film sets, starred in films, and famous actors came to visit them and give master classes. The children were there until the evening. We all felt her absence at home, and to say that she didn't work is not really correct. In fact, my wife was there until 24 February 2022. As officials, we declare any income received by members of our family. If my wife and I worked together, me at my job and her at hers, then, according to family law, this is our combined family income. We have to declare it. We do not distinguish between her funds and mine. There is no difference. It is our joint property. My wife's income is indicated in the declaration. Nothing was indicated among her savings. All the remaining funds that we had, which are joint, were reflected as my savings. Moreover, I show that it was I who withdrew the relevant funds from my cards and added them to my savings. I will not get ahead of myself, but we will provide the court with the relevant evidence,» the official assures.

Separately, the presiding judge commented on the issue of corporate rights to Eiland LLC and a Range Rover Sport vehicle, which were not mentioned in the official's 2021 declaration.

He explained that the limited liability company was registered by his wife before they got married. The judge claims that the company has not actually been operating for many years. According to the judge, these circumstances were not subject to separate analysis in the NACP protocol.

«The LLC was registered by my wife before she married me. Then, most likely, the company was not closed and formally existed. I didn't even know about it and did not mention it in my declarations for 2018, 2019 or 2020. Since 2013, no one has used this company, not a single penny has been received there, and my wife simply forgot about it,» he explained.

He also commented on the unreported 2021 Range Rover Sport. According to him, this property was not investigated by the NACP because the judge explained to them that before purchasing the new car, his wife owned a 2018 Range Rover, which was traded in at a car dealership in 2021.

«We went to the car dealership, where our car was appraised and accepted as part of the cost of the new one with an additional payment. We left the old car there, and it was sold in January 2022. In fact, I had neither the right of ownership nor the right to use it. The new car was registered and indicated by me in the declaration,» he said.

The judge explained that he had taken out a loanfor the new car, which cost more than 4 million hryvnia, by selling his previous Range Rover Evoque, which he had owned since 2021.

«I want to say that practically all the vehicles I have bought in my life were on credit. I took out a loan for the Evoque. I paid for it for three years, paid it off and sold the car. These funds, with a small difference added, covered 50% of the cost of the new car. And again, I took out a loan for it. The bank checked my financial solvency, approved the loan and thus I became the owner of a new Range Rover Sport car,» said Serhii Shcherbyna.

Commenting on whether the case has not only legal but also public and reputational implications for the judicial system, the president of the court noted that such administrative cases are common in judicial practice. At the same time, he acknowledged that in cases involving persons in particularly responsible positions, public attention to such proceedings increases significantly.

«When it comes to individuals who hold particularly responsible positions, any offence attracts increased attention. While this may be a routine case for the court, it certainly has a corresponding resonance for society,» he noted.