The Solomyanskyi District Court of Kyiv has closed administrative offense proceedings against Oleksiy Zghurskyi, former head of the Solomyanskyi District Housing Management Company. Former official was accused of knowingly submitting false information in his 2023 financial declaration totaling over 941,000 UAH; however, the court found no intent to commit a violation.
According to the Strategic Investigations Department of the National Police in Kyiv, law enforcement flagged two undisclosed items. These included an 18.5 sq m utility space leased by his wife for a hair salon (valued at 393,000 UAH) and her income from selling a share in an apartment totaling 548.5 thousand UAH.
Oleksiy Zghurskyi did not plead guilty in court. He explained that he filed the asset declaration on March 29, 2024, in a state of severe exhaustion following a sleepless night caused by a massive Russian missile attack on Kyiv’s civilian infrastructure. Additionally, he was managing urgent municipal tasks to wrap up the heating season per Mayor Vitali Klitschko’s instructions.
His defense attorney, Svitlana Panova, emphasized that the property valuation of 393,000 UAH was used strictly to calculate monthly rent, which amounted to just 982.5 UAH. Furthermore, both the lease agreement and property sale were officially registered in the State Register of Rights to Real Estate, ruling out any intentional attempt to conceal assets.
«I submitted the declaration on March 29, 2024, in a state of severe fatigue after a sleepless night linked to heavy shelling of civilian infrastructure, while managing critical efforts to conclude the heating season.»
Prosecutor Natalia Kuzo from the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office argued that the offense under Part 4 of Article 172-6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses is formal, meaning the discrepancy alone was sufficient to establish guilt.
However, Judge Hanna Serhiyenko rejected the prosecution’s argument. The court ruled that Article 172-6 requires direct or indirect intent, and actions resulting from negligence exclude administrative liability. Given that the information was fully transparent and available in public state registries, the court found no evidence of intent to hide assets or submit intentionally false data.
The court officially dismissed the administrative case under Clause 1, Part 1, Article 247 of the Code of Administrative Offenses due to the absence of an administrative offense.