{"id":622960,"date":"2026-10-07T01:13:26","date_gmt":"2026-10-06T22:13:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/2026\/10\/622960\/in-the-bribery-case-involving-the-mayor-of-bashtanka-an-item-of-evidence-has-disappeared-the-prosecutor-does-not-know-where-the-5-000-hryvnias-are\/"},"modified":"2026-10-07T01:13:30","modified_gmt":"2026-10-06T22:13:30","slug":"in-the-bribery-case-involving-the-mayor-of-bashtanka-an-item-of-evidence-has-disappeared-the-prosecutor-does-not-know-where-the-5-000-hryvnias-are","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/en\/2026\/10\/622960\/in-the-bribery-case-involving-the-mayor-of-bashtanka-an-item-of-evidence-has-disappeared-the-prosecutor-does-not-know-where-the-5-000-hryvnias-are\/","title":{"rendered":"In the bribery case involving the mayor of Bashtanka, an item of evidence has disappeared: the prosecutor does not know where the 5,000 hryvnias are"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the criminal proceedings against the mayor of Bashtanka, Oleksandr Berehovyi<\/strong>, which have been ongoing for more than 10 years<\/strong>, another, to say the least, extraordinary turn has occurred. The prosecution was unable to provide the court with the money<\/strong> that the investigation calls the object of an unlawful benefit.<\/strong> The defense claims these are physical evidence that were supposed to be stored in a designated place. However, during their examination it turned out that the money is not there. This was reported<\/a> by the lawyer of Oleksandr Berehovyi<\/strong>, Volodymyr Tymoshyn<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIn the criminal proceedings that have been going on for more than 10 years<\/strong>, physical evidence has disappeared, namely cash that, according to the author of the indictment, is the object of an unlawful benefit of our client. At the place where they should have been stored they are not there. That turned out to be rather awkward,\u201d the lawyer wrote on Facebook<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The situation looks particularly interesting against the background of the fact that this is not some paper lost in an office, but a piece of physical evidence<\/strong> that the prosecution was supposed to present to the court for examination.<\/p>\n

In a comment<\/a> to MykVisti<\/strong>, Volodymyr Tymoshyn<\/strong> explained how the court came to this unexpected discovery. According to him, the examination of documentary evidence in the case was completed, after which the defense filed a motion to examine physical evidence \u2014 in particular, the money.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWe requested that the prosecutor bring the money to the court hearing for examination to confirm whether it actually exists, but the prosecutor asked for a short technical break, and after it informed that their whereabouts are unknown,\u201d the lawyer said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

After that the court adjourned for about a week<\/strong>. At the next hearing the situation had not fundamentally changed: the prosecutor reported that the money had still not been found. That is, after 10 years<\/strong> of consideration the parties finally reached the physical evidence \u2014 and it turned out that it still needs to be located. The trial seems to have decided to add elements of a detective story to the classic genre of criminal drama.<\/p>\n

According to Volodymyr Tymoshyn<\/strong>, as early as 2016<\/strong> the storage location for the physical evidence was designated as office No. 18<\/strong> on Dekabristiv Street<\/strong> in Mykolaiv<\/strong> \u2014 the then Central police department.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe prosecutor does not know where the money is. This is already the 10th or 12th prosecutor<\/strong> in the proceedings. That is, he was not there from the beginning. So we have the fact of missing physical evidence,\u201d the lawyer said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The defense also noted that the money had been specially treated at the time because it could not remain in circulation. After the proceedings were completed, they were, according to him, supposed to be destroyed. Now a simple question has arisen: where are they now?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Volodymyr Tymoshyn<\/strong> said he plans to file a motion with the court requesting a separate ruling and to appeal to the Office of the Prosecutor General<\/strong>. The goal is to obtain an investigation into the circumstances of the disappearance of the physical evidence.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI plan at the hearing to file a motion for a separate ruling \u2014 an appeal to the Office of the Prosecutor General to open a criminal proceeding on the fact of the disappearance of physical evidence. It is necessary to establish whether investigators or other persons may have appropriated it, i.e., a banal theft could have occurred,\u201d the lawyer said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

At the same time, it is important to note: claims about possible appropriation or theft are currently the defense\u2019s position and do not mean that the fact of a crime has already been established<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The criminal proceedings against Oleksandr Berehovyi<\/strong> were registered back in 2016<\/strong>, when he was a district council deputy. He is charged under Part 3 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine<\/strong> \u2014 receiving<\/a> an unlawful benefit for himself or a third person for influencing the decision of an authorized person, combined with extortion of such a benefit.<\/p>\n

At that time the Department for the Protection of the Economy of the National Police of Ukraine stated that Oleksandr Berehovyi<\/strong> had demanded 5,000 hryvnias<\/strong> from an entrepreneur for not obstructing business activity \u2014 in particular, sanitary cleaning of shelterbelts. Over ten years the case has gone through not only several stages of consideration but, according to the defense, about 10 prosecutors<\/strong>. Now one more item can be added to that list: the search for a piece of physical evidence that was supposed to be stored by law enforcement<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

This year the case\u2019s consideration was also accompanied by other procedural difficulties. On 6 May 2026<\/strong> the court was unable to question the witness Ihor Bloshko<\/strong>, who did not appear at the hearing. The situation repeated on 19 May<\/strong>. Bloshko<\/strong> sent a letter to the court stating that he does not consider himself a witness in this proceeding and has nothing to explain.<\/p>\n

And already in September 2026<\/strong> the defense requested the recusal of Judge Sergii Yanchuk<\/strong>. Among the arguments, the lawyer cited, in particular, the holding of a hearing via video link from a hospital and changes in the wording of court rulings that were later called \u201ctypos.\u201d The court denied the recusal.<\/p>\n

Despite the latest problem with the physical evidence, the defense says it is ready to move to court debates. The lawyers plan to ask the court to make a decision based on the evidence that is actually present in the case and was examined during the trial.<\/p>\n

So in the case that began 10 years ago<\/strong> with a story about 5,000 hryvnias<\/strong>, a new mystery has now appeared: the money that was supposed to be physical evidence was not shown to the court, and their whereabouts are currently unknown<\/strong>. One can only hope that the search will not take another 10 years<\/strong> \u2014 otherwise the case risks turning not into a trial but into a multi-episode detective story with a very slow ending.<\/p>\n

\n

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