Judge Serhiy Stasyuk of the Commercial Court of Kyiv lodged formal complaints with the High Council of Justice (HCJ) and the Prosecutor General’s Office on August 25, citing interference in his judicial duties by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecution Office (SAP). The filing follows law enforcement actions linked to a high-profile corporate raiding investigation naming the judge, which included searches of his property and the public disclosure of pre-trial investigation data.
In his petition to the Prosecutor General, Stasyuk requested the initiation of criminal proceedings under Article 376 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which penalizes interference in the activities of judicial bodies. The judge claims that NABU detectives and SAP prosecutors prematurely released information implicating him in a criminal organization directly tied to an ongoing bankruptcy case under his jurisdiction.
The grievance also references searches conducted at Stasyuk’s home and chambers on August 13 under warrants issued by the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), alongside the publication of covert investigative materials citing his judicial rulings.
According to Stasyuk, the criminal proceedings—covering allegations under Articles 206-2, 368, 369, and 209 of the Criminal Code (illegal seizure of property, bribery, and money laundering)—rely solely on the substantive content of his procedural rulings in the bankruptcy matter.
«Other information concerning me personally amounts to conversations between third parties recorded during covert investigative actions to which I was not a party. The investigative judge’s warrants contain no data regarding actions or omissions outside the scope of rendering justice,» Stasyuk stated in his filing.
The underlying bankruptcy case involves Stasyuk’s decisions to open proceedings, recognize creditor claims (subsequently adjusted by an appellate court to UAH 568.4 million), impose a moratorium, and appoint a property administrator.
Stasyuk emphasized that his rulings underwent review by both the Northern Appellate Commercial Court and the Supreme Court, with none overturned as unlawful. He continues to preside over the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings and contends that public statements and actions by anti-corruption agencies constitute direct pressure on judicial independence.