{"id":602103,"date":"2026-08-01T15:56:30","date_gmt":"2026-08-01T12:56:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/2026\/08\/602103\/kokos-take-a-mykolaiv-style-scam-the-bite-is-confirmed-and-the-police-don-t-see-any-crime\/"},"modified":"2026-08-01T15:56:33","modified_gmt":"2026-08-01T12:56:33","slug":"kokos-take-a-mykolaiv-style-scam-the-bite-is-confirmed-and-the-police-don-t-see-any-crime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/en\/2026\/08\/602103\/kokos-take-a-mykolaiv-style-scam-the-bite-is-confirmed-and-the-police-don-t-see-any-crime\/","title":{"rendered":"\"Kokos, take!\": a Mykolaiv-style scam - the bite is confirmed, and the police don't see any crime"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the Central District of Mykolaiv<\/strong>, a dog bit a serviceman in the shared corridor of an apartment building. The man sustained a bite and a lacerated wound, sought help from the emergency medical service (EMS), where his injuries were treated, he received a tetanus shot, and was issued a medical certificate. The police confirmed the bite itself, but entered the information not into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (URPI), but into the Journal of the Unified Record of Statements and Notifications.<\/p>\n

The victim’s wife informed the editorial office about the situation. She asks to draw attention not so much to the conflict between the former spouses over use of the apartment, but to the law enforcement response after the attack and to how the statements were registered, evidence collected, and the victim’s rights ensured.<\/p>\n

According to the woman, her husband is the sole owner of the apartment and the only person registered there. After the divorce, the man’s ex-wife brought dogs into the apartment. The victim’s family believes the animals may have been used to intimidate and obstruct the owner’s access to the residence.<\/p>\n

Before the attack the man called the police because of threats related to the dogs. In response to that report the authorities drew up an administrative file. However, the complainant says the family received no calls or notifications about the outcome. About a month later they went to the police station themselves and picked up the response.<\/p>\n

The document, the woman said, stated that a preventive conversation was to be held with the man’s ex-wife. The family does not know whether it actually took place. An officer allegedly explained that when the police arrived the woman was not at home, so they only spoke with neighbors.<\/p>\n

The complainant also provided the editorial office with a video recording made before the attack. According to her, the recording contains a threat involving the use of a dog.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cTake the child away, because the dog will eat her.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Some time later the man again tried to get into his own apartment. Outside the residence, in the shared corridor of the apartment building, a verbal conflict arose.<\/p>\n

According to the victim’s wife, during the argument the man’s ex-wife allegedly gave a command to one of the dogs, after which the animal attacked. The editorial office has no independent confirmation that the command was intended to prompt an attack.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cKokos, take.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

After the bite the family called the police and an ambulance. The man, his wife says, filed 2<\/strong> separate statements: about threats and obstruction of access to the apartment, and about the dog attack and infliction of bodily injuries.<\/p>\n

While the victim was filing the statements, the ambulance crew waited by the building. The medical attendant asked if they could already go to the hospital, but the man explained that he first had to finish the paperwork with the police. The family emphasizes: this was not a refusal of medical assistance.<\/p>\n

After filing the statements the couple went on their own to the EMS. There his wound was treated, he received the necessary vaccination and was issued a certificate. The doctors also explained that with this document he must contact the Mykolaiv Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

According to the complainant, the doctor said that the medical institution passes information about cases of bodily injury to the police. Thus, the police could have received a report not only from the victim himself but also from the hospital.<\/p>\n

When making the call the family asked the patrol officers to remove the dogs or at least explain how to ensure people’s safety. However, the complainant claims the investigative team did not come to the scene.<\/p>\n

The next morning the man went to the bureau of forensic medical examination. There they told him that an examination could not be conducted without a referral from the police. After that the couple went to the district police department.<\/p>\n

The family asked for the registration numbers of both statements. However, they were given only 1<\/strong> number. The couple could not determine whether one of the statements was not registered at all, or whether both were merged into a single file.<\/p>\n

The duty officer verbally informed them that the authorities did not see grounds to open a criminal case, and the incident was classified as an administrative offense. The family was also told that within administrative proceedings a referral for a forensic medical examination is not issued.<\/p>\n

At the police department, the complainant says, they were also told that the man had allegedly refused medical assistance. The family denies this and points to the EMS certificate confirming that the victim, after filing the statements, went to the hospital on his own and received care.<\/p>\n

The couple asked to attach to the materials the medical certificate, photos of the bodily injuries, information about a witness to the attack, and the earlier statement regarding threats involving dogs. At first, the woman says, they were told orally that a decision had already been made. Only after insisting were they allowed to submit additional materials in writing.<\/p>\n

The victim also requested a written explanation as to on what grounds the attack causing bodily injury was classified specifically as an administrative offense. According to his wife, the department replied that the investigative officer did not have time to prepare the document and that the written response could be picked up later.<\/p>\n

The family was not given the name and position of the police officer who is reviewing the materials and made the preliminary decision on the qualification. The couple also failed to get a personal appointment with the head of the unit.<\/p>\n

A separate problem arose due to the need for veterinary observation of the dog. The man contacted the \u041a\u041f \u201c\u0426\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u0437\u0430\u0445\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0443 \u0442\u0432\u0430\u0440\u0438\u043d\u201d (Municipal Enterprise \u201cCenter for Animal Protection\u201d), where, his wife says, they explained that to seize the animal and place it under observation for possible rabies a corresponding police act is required.<\/p>\n

The police did not issue such an act to the family. Because of this the dog, the complainant claims, was not seized and was not placed under veterinary observation. The couple fears that after a human bite this creates additional risks and forces the victim to worry not only about the wound but also about possible rabies infection.<\/p>\n

The family emphasizes that two separate situations must be distinguished in this story. The first is a civil conflict between the former spouses over use of the apartment. The second is the dog’s attack causing bodily injuries and the alleged command by the animal’s owner, which, the complainants believe, the authorities should investigate separately.<\/p>\n

Among the problems the couple say they faced are the unclear registration of 2<\/strong> statements under 1<\/strong> number, the lack of a referral for a forensic medical examination, the failure to provide a written decision, the absence of information about the responsible police officer, the non-arrival of the investigative team, and claims that the victim allegedly refused medical assistance.<\/p>\n

The complainant separately noted that her husband is a serviceman. At the same time the family is not asking for special treatment or for anyone to be declared guilty without an investigation. They demand a full, timely, and impartial investigation, proper registration of reports, and a written reasoned decision.<\/p>\n

In response to the editorial inquiry, the press service of the Mykolaiv Regional Police<\/strong> confirmed that the man had been bitten, but reported that at present it does not see signs of a criminal offense in the incident.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe fact that a dog bit the man has been confirmed. The corresponding statement was accepted by law enforcement and entered into the Journal of the Unified Record of Statements and Notifications<\/strong>, and not into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, because, according to our data, this offense does not contain signs of a criminal offense. The police are currently conducting a check into the indicated incident.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The law does indeed provide for administrative liability for violations of rules for keeping dogs that caused harm to a person’s health. At the same time Article 214<\/strong> of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine obliges authorities to enter information into the URPI no later than 24<\/strong> hours if the statement outlines circumstances that may indicate a criminal offense. Whether claims such as an intentional command to attack, prior threats, and the injuries sustained constitute such circumstances must be determined by law enforcement, the prosecutor, or the court after evaluation of the materials.<\/p>\n

Previously we wrote:<\/h3>\n