Court clears MIA official of liability for false declaration due to statute of limitations

Court ruling and acknowledgement of the offence

Kyiv's Pecherskyy District Court concluded the review of a case concerning an administrative offence related to corruption involving Andriy Strokach. He holds the position of deputy head of the incoming correspondence registration department within the department for documenting official activities of the document flow and control department of the MIA apparatus. Judge Oleg Solovyov ruled to close the proceedings, citing paragraph 7 of part 1 of Article 247 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences (CAO). The reason was the expiry of the period for imposing a penalty at the time the case was reviewed.

At the same time, the judge established that the official's actions constituted an administrative offence. This concerns the submission of knowingly false information in his 2024 declaration for an amount exceeding 1.06 million hryvnia. Such actions are qualified under part 4 of Article 172-6 of the CAO.

What was not stated in the declaration

A full verification of documents conducted by the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) revealed several facts of asset concealment:

• Land plot: An area of 1,200 square metres in the Zazymka village council of Brovary district (cadastral number 3221282800:05:001:0057). The value at the time of acquiring the right was 150,000 hryvnia. Strokach's wife has been the owner of the plot since 25 April 2018. On that very day, he personally provided notarised consent to the conclusion of a purchase and sale agreement. The court noted that this refutes the claim of being uninformed. The official's awareness as of the end of 2024 is confirmed by satellite images and the subsequent use of the property by the family. It also emerged that an adjacent plot belonged to Strokach's father, and in 2025 it was gifted to the official himself along with a garden house.
• Car: A 2022 Tesla Model Y worth 662,000 hryvnia. The car has been owned by his wife since 20 September 2024 (the vehicle was imported from abroad). The court noted that after receiving a proposal from the NACP, Strokach submitted an amended declaration on 4 February 2026, in which this car was already listed. This indicates his awareness of a family member's assets.
• Bank accounts: Balances as of 31 December 2024 were not declared, totalling 248,000 hryvnia.

Defence and prosecutor's positions

In court, Andriy Strokach did not admit his guilt. He claimed that he had no intent to conceal assets and was deprived of information by his wife regarding her assets. His defence insisted on closing the case specifically due to the expiry of the statute of limitations.

The prosecutor, conversely, demanded that the official be held liable with a fine within the minimum limits of the sanction. The state prosecutor considered that the date of the offence's detection should be regarded as the day the protocol was drawn up, which would extend the validity period to November 2026. However, the court rejected this position.

Chronology and calculation of deadlines

The court determined 23 January 2026 as the date of the offence's detection — it was then that the NACP's full verification was completed and the corresponding certificate was drawn up. The first summons for the drawing up of the protocol reached Strokach only on 23 March 2026, i.e. two months later. The protocol was drawn up later, approximately at the end of May, and the case materials reached the court on 4 June 2026 — almost six months after the violation was detected.

The court did not recognise Strokach's own delay in appearing before the NACP (he was summoned five times) as grounds for extending the deadline. According to Article 38 of the CAO, a penalty for a corruption offence may be imposed within six months of the day of detection, but no later than two years from the day of commission. These deadlines are final.

Appeal prospects

The ruling can be appealed to the Kyiv Court of Appeal within ten days. It is worth noting that the court had previously issued a decision on the compulsory bringing of Strokach, as he failed to appear at hearings on several occasions.