{"id":610384,"date":"2026-08-31T16:16:07","date_gmt":"2026-08-31T13:16:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/2026\/08\/610384\/in-mykolaiv-the-case-against-the-former-head-of-ks-flagman-was-closed-because-the-statute-of-limitations-had-expired\/"},"modified":"2026-08-31T16:16:10","modified_gmt":"2026-08-31T13:16:10","slug":"in-mykolaiv-the-case-against-the-former-head-of-ks-flagman-was-closed-because-the-statute-of-limitations-had-expired","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/en\/2026\/08\/610384\/in-mykolaiv-the-case-against-the-former-head-of-ks-flagman-was-closed-because-the-statute-of-limitations-had-expired\/","title":{"rendered":"In Mykolaiv, the case against the former head of KS \"Flagman\" was closed because the statute of limitations had expired"},"content":{"rendered":"

Central District Court of Mykolaiv<\/strong> considered the case of the former chair of the board of the credit union “Flagman”<\/strong>, Nataliya Kopetska<\/strong>. She was accused of embezzling another’s property on an especially large scale.<\/p>\n

The defense asked to terminate the criminal proceedings because the statute of limitations had expired. The accused supported this motion, and the prosecutor did not object. The victims, on the contrary, opposed closing the case.<\/p>\n

\n

“I understand the consequences of closing the case and ask to be relieved of responsibility,” the defendant said in court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The court established that from 2001 to 2010<\/strong> the credit union “Flagman”<\/strong> attracted over 45 million hryvnias<\/strong> in deposits. According to the investigation, these funds were embezzled for the benefit of third parties.<\/p>\n

In particular, in 2008<\/strong> Flagman issued loans to the credit union “Accord”<\/strong> totaling more than 9 million hryvnias<\/strong>. The loans were not repaid.<\/p>\n

Despite the scale of the losses, the court relieved Nataliya Kopetska<\/strong> of criminal liability under paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine<\/strong>. The proceedings were closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n

Separately, the court considered the issue of the seized land plots. The owner’s petition was granted and the seizure was lifted, since after the case is closed measures of restraint cease to apply.<\/p>\n

The civil claims filed by depositors who considered themselves defrauded were left without consideration by the court.<\/p>\n

Source: as reported<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier we wrote:<\/strong><\/p>\n