The Peresypsky District Court has concluded its hearing of the criminal proceedings against Pavlo Ostapenko, a former investigator with the Organised Crime Control Department (UBOP). This story lays bare the inner workings of attempts to evade mobilisation through ‘long-standing connections’ and demonstrates how the law enforcement system operates when documenting such offences.
The conflict – or rather, the criminal collusion – began with an everyday situation: the birthday celebration of a female employee at the District Territorial Centre for Recruitment and Social Support (DTRCS). During the party, the future complainant mentioned that he was facing ongoing legal issues and needed to resolve matters relating to mobilisation.
The birthday girl offered to put him in touch with someone who was allegedly able to resolve such matters. This person turned out to be Pavlo Ostapenko, a former colleague from the law enforcement agencies. In the past, both individuals involved in the case had been associated with the law enforcement system (the applicant worked at the Suvorov Police Station in Odesa from 2006 to 2019, whilst Ostapenko served in the Organised Crime Control Department). This lent their communication a specific professional jargon and a sense of confidence in their own impunity.
During telephone conversations and face-to-face meetings, Ostapenko presented himself as someone with immense administrative clout. He claimed to be in contact with serving prosecutors, the leadership of the Organised Crime Control Department (UBOP) and judges.
The scheme offered a wide ‘range of services’ depending on the client’s financial means:
Legal deferral — a standard legal procedure, which for some reason was accompanied by commercial ‘assistance’.
Travelling abroad — organising border crossings via illegal or semi-legal channels at a cost of 20,000 US dollars.
Fictitious military service — enlisting relatives (in particular, a son-in-law who was a serving soldier) for employment in a rear unit for 35,000 dollars. This was intended to halt the court proceedings against the applicant by means of a formal call-up.
During one demonstration of the seriousness of his intentions, the accused allegedly even rang his daughter on speakerphone, after which, a few minutes later, an unknown male voice called back and confirmed that the plan could be carried out.
Realising the scale of the extortion, the former police officer decided to follow the instructions and contacted the relevant law enforcement agencies. All subsequent steps, including the transfer of funds and the discussion of details, took place under the supervision of the security services. The case file contains dozens of audio recordings in which the sums, deadlines and course of action are clearly discussed.
In court, Pavlo Ostapenko adopted a strategy of denying guilt by presenting the case as ‘trolling’ or an experiment. He claimed that he immediately recognised his interlocutor as a law enforcement agent and decided to ‘play along’ to see how the situation would unfold. According to the defendant, he had no real connections, and the money was allegedly offered by the complainant himself in exchange for help in securing a job. The court viewed such arguments critically, but took into account the absence of any signs of severe physical coercion or genuine threats to life.
The court’s verdict was a compromise legal decision. On the one hand, the court fully confirmed the fact of abuse of influence — Ostapenko accepted money in exchange for a promise to use his professional or personal connections. On the other hand, the court dismissed the charge of extortion, as the complainant admitted that he did not perceive the threat of being sent to the front line as a real danger, but handed over the money due to the defendant’s excessive persistence and constant telephone calls.
The fine of 1.45 million hryvnias corresponds to the amount of unlawful gain received. Experts note that such verdicts are an important indicator of the system’s purge of former officials who attempt to capitalise on the issues of mobilisation and martial law.