Defenders of the law or cynical masters of schemes: how prosecutors arrange fake disability, sky-high pensions and the UBD

The situation with prosecutors receiving disability and exorbitant pensions on a massive scale is gaining resonance in Ukraine. Some of them even manage to apply for combatant status, despite the fact that they have never seen the frontline. How is it possible that officials who are supposed to uphold the law and justice use their positions for personal enrichment? At a time when true veterans and defenders of the country are struggling to receive the payments they are entitled to, prosecutors are securing a comfortable future at the expense of the state without risking their own lives. This injustice is causing public outrage and calling into question the principles of equality before the law.

The scandal with disabled prosecutors

The emblem of the Prosecutor General’s Office, officially approved by a presidential decree, bears the motto ‘AEQUITAS, LEX, DEFENSIO’ in gold letters. As ironic as it may sound, this motto seems to be more about the prosecutors’ own interests than about the people of Ukraine. How do prosecutors live up to it? Perhaps they have their own version of legality and justice, which consists of mass registration of disabilities?

Recently, the media reported that about fifty prosecutors in the Khmelnytsky region had received disability certificates, which were obtained by the former head of the Khmelnytsky Regional Centre of the Medical and Social Expert Commission (MSEC), Tetiana Krupa. It is no longer a secret that such ‘services’ have become a real business in Ukraine, but the extent to which this is happening among prosecutors is astonishing even to the most experienced anti-corruption activists.

The Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Andriy Kostin, seems to be overwhelmed by the scale of this scandal. He announced the launch of a large-scale internal investigation covering not only Khmelnytskyi region but also other regions. According to him, the investigation is ‘extremely important for the entire system’.

“A large-scale internal investigation concerns not only Khmelnytsky prosecutors, but all prosecutorial bodies – all levels, including the Office of the Prosecutor General – and is extremely important for the entire system. As of today, it has been established that 61 prosecutors in the Khmelnytsky prosecutor’s office have disabilities, and 80% of them – 50 people – had received disabilities before the full-scale invasion,” Kostin said.

It is quite logical to ask: are these heroes who defended law and order or just ‘office invalids’ who managed to use their positions to receive state payments and benefits?

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not stay away from this problem either. He convened a meeting of the National Security and Defence Council to discuss the critical situation around medical and social expert commissions (MSECs) and the massive issuance of fake disabilities. Zelenskyy clearly stated that the actions of such prosecutors are an internal enemy undermining the state from within.

“Unfortunately, in the rear here in Ukraine, things are happening that do not need any enemies. This is a real internal enemy. What is happening with the MSEC – medical and social expert commissions – and the impudence of people, including prosecutors, who took advantage of their connections with the MSEC and issued false disabilities,’ the Head of State said.

Indeed, this problem is no less threatening than external aggression, as officials are developing schemes that suck up the state budget, leaving the military and those who really need help without funds.

“Golden pensioners: how prosecutors protect their pockets

Prosecutors in Ukraine are not limited to issuing fake disabilities, they also manage to receive exorbitant pensions. Journalistic investigations into the declarations of regional prosecutors in different regions have revealed a shocking picture: 164 senior prosecutors have received pensions, either for disability or upon reaching the ‘maximum’ age. Most interestingly, in almost every region, the top prosecutors are ‘pensioners’, although most of them are barely forty years old. For example, the head of the Cherkasy Regional Prosecutor’s Office, Kateryna Shevtsova, received a record pension of UAH 785,435 in 2023. It is important to note that she is only 42 years old, which raises obvious questions. This became known from an investigation published on the Censor.NET website. According to her declaration posted on the NACP website, she started receiving pension payments back in 2020, when the amount of her pension was UAH 186,627. However, already in 2023, this amount increased to UAH 785,435, which is equivalent to approximately UAH 65,000 per month.

The declaration also shows her salary for her work in three regional prosecutor’s offices:

• Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office: UAH 1,200,990;
• Vinnytsia Regional Prosecutor’s Office: UAH 549,590;
• Cherkasy Regional Prosecutor’s Office: UAH 507,207.

In addition, according to the NACP, Shevtsova keeps UAH 429,556 in bank accounts and has UAH 750,000 in cash. She also owns a 2019 Toyota Camry, which cost her UAH 618,125, and has the right to use an apartment in Kharkiv, where her son lives, free of charge.

The journalists also drew attention to the fact that an investigation into the payment of disability pensions to 70 prosecutors has been ongoing for several years in Cherkasy region. At the same time, the declarations of Shevtsova’s deputies do not list pensions as a source of income, although they are listed in the declarations of other prosecutors in the region.

For example, Andrii Zamotailo, the head of the Cherkasy District Prosecutor’s Office, born in 1984, started his career in the prosecutor’s office in August 2006 and has held his current position since March 2019. His pension payments for the past year amounted to UAH 251,160, as indicated in his declaration.

In addition, the following persons are among the officials of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Cherkasy region who also receive pension payments:

• Oleksandr Petrovych Supryaga, 41, head of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Cherkasy region. Last year, he received UAH 85 thousand in pension payments.
• Svitlana Zinnik is a 58-year-old first deputy head of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Cherkasy region. In 2023, she received UAH 250 thousand in pension payments.
• Vitaliy Taran is a 40-year-old deputy head of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Cherkasy region. His pension payments for the past year amounted to UAH 70 thousand.
• Tatyana Petrovna Khilyk is a 52-year-old deputy head of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Cherkasy region. She received UAH 73 thousand in pension payments.
• Mykola Ivanovych Semyz is a 57-year-old deputy head of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Cherkasy region. He received UAH 62 thousand in pension payments.

In addition, some of the deputy heads of regional prosecutor’s offices received pensions of more than one million hryvnias in 2023, and their average age is 40.

Vitaliy Shabunin, head of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, said that prosecutors in Kharkiv and Sumy regions are not far behind in their pursuit of ‘sky-high’ pensions. Not only is the average age of these prosecutors around 45, but they have also managed to earn millions in payments. According to Shabunin, only 40 heads of prosecutor’s offices received more than UAH 11 million in pensions last year. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. We can only imagine what sums are hidden underwater if the same schemes are used in the police, courts and even the State Bureau of Investigation.

Based on the analysis of the declarations, journalists have compiled a list of 15 heads of regional prosecutor’s offices who receive the largest pensions:

1. Stanislav Muratov (43) – Deputy Head of the Kharkiv Prosecutor’s Office. In 2023, he received UAH 1,152,155 in pensions. For the first time, he indicated his pension in his 2020 declaration.
2. Andrii Kravchenko (39) – Deputy Head of the Kharkiv Region Prosecutor’s Office. In 2023, he received UAH 1,015,225 of pension. The pension first appeared in his declaration in 2021.
3. Oleksandr Filchakov (45) is the head of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office. In 2023, he declared UAH 823,071 of pension. He started receiving it in 2020.
4. Kateryna Shevtsova (42) is the head of the Cherkasy Regional Prosecutor’s Office, who received UAH 785,435 in pension in 2023. She first indicated her pension in her declaration in 2020.
5. Volodymyr Lymar (47) is the first deputy head of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office. His declaration for 2023 shows UAH 714,749 of pension. He started receiving his pension in 2019.
6. Vladyslav Hriuk is the deputy head of the Chernihiv Region Prosecutor’s Office. There are no data on his age in open sources, but it is known that he has been working in the prosecution service since 2000. In 2023, he received a pension of UAH 526,160. He first declared his pension in 2018.
7. Oleksandr Suzyi (41) is the deputy head of the Kharkiv Prosecutor’s Office. In 2023, he received UAH 439,576 of pension. He started receiving it in 2021.
8. Serhii Spilnyk (47) is the head of the Zaporizhzhia Regional Prosecutor’s Office. In 2023, he received UAH 433,713 of pension. He started receiving his pension in 2017, at the age of 40.
9. Andrii Rudnytskyi (51) – Head of Rivne Regional Prosecutor’s Office. In 2023, he declared UAH 424,671 of pension. The pension first appeared in his declaration in 2017.
10. Ihor Sydorenko (46) – Deputy Head of the Sumy Prosecutor’s Office. For the first time, he indicated a pension of UAH 406,224 in his declaration for 2023.
11. Denys Falchenko (42) is the acting head of the Mykolaiv Prosecutor’s Office. He has been working in the prosecutor’s office since 2004. In 2023, he declared UAH 393,120 of pension.
12. Oleksiy Lyashenko (39) is the deputy head of the Sumy Regional Prosecutor’s Office. Last year, he received UAH 385,499 in pension. His pension first appeared in his 2021 declaration when he was 36 years old.
13. Andriy Mykolaychuk (46) is the head of the Ternopil Region Prosecutor’s Office. In 2023, he received UAH 326,331 of pension. He started declaring his pension in 2021 when he was 43 years old.
14. Olena Nesterova (50) – Deputy Head of the Kirovohrad Prosecutor’s Office. In 2023, she received a pension of UAH 298,100. She started receiving her pension in 2017. She has been working in the prosecutor’s office since 1999.
15. Isa Tanriverdiev (36) – Deputy Head of Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office. In 2023, he declared UAH 251,160 of pension. The pension first appeared in his declaration for 2022, when he was 34 years old. He started his career in the prosecutor’s office in 2011.

The journalists managed to identify 215 such persons in different regions of Ukraine. That is, this phenomenon has become widespread – prosecutors not only receive fake disabilities, but also receive pensions at a fairly young age, which raises many questions about the legality and ethics of such actions.

Honesty or schemes: how prosecutors turned the law into a tool for their own enrichment

These investigations raise many questions. How did it happen that the people who were supposed to be guarding the law became the first to break it? Prosecutors who are supposed to ensure justice are turning into models of corruption, using their positions to create enrichment schemes that not only violate the law but also undermine public trust in the legal system. As it turns out, their actions are not aimed at protecting the rule of law and citizens, but at protecting their own interests.

Perhaps it’s time to change the motto on the logo of the Prosecutor General’s Office? After all, so far, ‘justice, law, protection’ is not true for all prosecutors. Each new investigation only reinforces this idea. And in this case, it is very strange that it was journalists who exposed these shameful phenomena, not the leadership of the prosecutor’s office, anti-corruption state bodies, or even the General Inspectorate or the internal security department of the prosecutor’s office, which should have been dealing with such cases. The conclusions are self-evident: everyone is ‘in on it’, ‘everyone is connected’.

Questions about the legal ethics of prosecutors are causing more and more public outrage. There have long been cases when prosecutors, having no relation to the hostilities, manage to obtain the status of combatants (combatants). Using their positions and connections, they create schemes that allow them to obtain this status without actually participating in the war. Combatant status provides a number of privileges, including cash payments, social benefits and increased pensions. But the main question is: how can one obtain this status without ever setting foot on a battlefield?

The use of such schemes is not new, but the scale of such schemes is growing every year. Prosecutors, who are supposed to uphold the law, circumvent it themselves by finding loopholes in the system and receive privileges intended for real defenders. The scheme is simple: it is enough to ‘work’ on the front line formally – through business trips or other legal fraud – and the status of a combatant is already in your pocket.

This situation causes great indignation, especially among those who really risked their lives defending the country. While real veterans receive minimal compensation and benefits, prosecutors are comfortably arranging their future at the expense of a fake status. This is not just a violation of the law – it is a blatant injustice that calls into question the integrity of the legal system as a whole.

The fact that such schemes have gone unpunished for years indicates a systemic failure of the fight against corruption and that there is a tacit conspiracy among prosecutors at the level of ‘their own’. But what allows these schemes to flourish? The answer, as always, lies in the lack of control, impunity and imperfect legislation, which prosecutors, having a law degree, have learnt to use to their advantage.

Back in 2014, the Law ‘On the Prosecutor’s Office’ was ‘slipped in’ a provision allowing prosecutors to retire regardless of age if they have 25 years of service, of which at least 15 years were spent as a prosecutor. The amount of the pension is set at 60% of the current monthly salary, which is a generous bonus for ‘exhausting’ years of service. And this is where the main problem lies. Legislative norms facilitating such ‘long service’ leave a lot of room for abuse. As a result, prosecutors, instead of defending justice, look for ways to circumvent it and ensure a comfortable life for themselves. They turn the law into a tool for their own benefit, while citizens increasingly lose trust in the system.

Until 2004, even higher education was counted as seniority, allowing prosecutors who started studying at the age of 17 or 18 and went straight to work to retire at 42 or 43. This law allowed them to receive pensions at a fairly young age, but the main irony is that even this was not enough for some prosecutors. Not only did they take advantage of the seniority provision, but they also created schemes to claim disabilities and combatant status to receive payments earlier than the law allowed.

The most cynical thing about all this is that the law, which is supposed to protect citizens from unlawful actions, is used for the personal enrichment of those who are supposed to implement it. Those who are supposed to ensure that justice is done are the ones who violate it, twisting the law in their favour. These shameful phenomena only underscore the depth of moral decline among those who should be examples of honesty and honour.

Thus, the system that is supposed to protect law and justice has become a springboard for the personal enrichment of those who are supposed to be its guardians. And this is all against the backdrop of a war when real heroes are fighting for Ukraine and barely receive the payments they deserve. The cynicism of this situation is striking: when the law serves only a select few, the very idea of justice becomes a soap bubble that bursts under the pressure of public discontent.