Ukraine’s High Council of Justice (HCJ) unanimously rejected a prosecutor’s motion to detain Vitalii Dudchenko, Chairman of the Berestyn District Court in Kharkiv Oblast, who is suspected of taking a $2,000 bribe. The council cited procedural flaws in the prosecution’s filing as the reason for the refusal.
According to investigators, Dudchenko—head of the Berestyn (formerly Krasnohrad) District Court—accepted the illicit payment inside his official office in March. The funds were handed over by Ihor Tverdokhlib, a senior investigator with the local police department.
Law enforcement authorities allege that the $2,000 bribe was accepted to guarantee a favorable outcome in a civil lawsuit. Specifically, the agreement allegedly involved manipulating the automated case allocation system to ensure the case was assigned to Dudchenko, who would then rule in favor of the plaintiff.
Based on the gathered evidence, the judge’s actions were classified under Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (acceptance of an offer, promise, or receipt of an unlawful benefit by an official).
«The judge received the improper advantage in exchange for creating conditions that guaranteed the automated court case distribution would assign the matter to him, as well as for issuing a positive ruling in the plaintiff’s favor,» the prosecution statement noted.
The motion requesting permission to hold the judge in custody was submitted to the HCJ by First Deputy Attorney General Mariia Vdovychenko. However, following a review of the documents and an extended debate, council members voted against granting approval.
The primary ground for the refusal was that the motion failed to comply with the statutory requirements set out in Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. HCJ members voted unanimously to reject the filing.
Vitalii Dudchenko was elected to his administrative post as head of the Krasnohrad District Court (later renamed Berestyn District Court) by a assembly of judges in August 2024. While the HCJ’s refusal prevents immediate detention, it does not halt the criminal investigation. Prosecutors must address the procedural deficiencies before pursuing further detention requests.