Judge Ukrainets seeks appeal court post despite double debt recovery scandal

Career growth despite negative conclusions

Vitalii Ukrainets, head of the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv, continues his push for a position as a judge at the Kyiv Court of Appeal. He recently passed an interview at Panel No. 2 of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (VQJC), receiving a high score. Despite the Public Integrity Council (PIC) issuing a negative conclusion on his candidacy, the plenary session of the VQJC will consider it. If approved, the commission will submit the decision to the High Council of Justice (HCJ), which will in turn send it to the president for signature.

The Centre for Counter Corruption (CCC) drew attention to this process in a publication dated 20 October. “Тепер ключове питання: чи отримає Українець "зелене світло" вже від всього складу ВККС. Якщо так, то нехай суспільству пояснять, якими доказами усунуті сумніви. На кону – довіра до Київського апеляційного суду та конкурсної процедури, яка формує його склад» (Now the key question is: will Ukrainets get the 'green light' from the full VQJC composition. If so, let them explain to the public what evidence has dispelled the doubts. At stake is trust in the Kyiv Court of Appeal and the competitive procedure that forms its composition), the organisation emphasised.

Scandal over double debt recovery

The judge's professional activity is controversial. A case he recently concluded ended with a complaint from the defendant's side to the HCJ, requesting that Ukrainets be held disciplinarily liable. The application dated 19 October cites gross violations of procedural norms and the adoption of an unlawful decision.

The dispute arose between two Kyiv entrepreneurs. On 22 April 2024, they signed a loan agreement for $443,665 for a term of 12 months at 18% per annum. The obligation was secured by the transfer of corporate rights in two companies, whose charter capital included 16 real estate objects valued at $1.195 million. It was agreed that after the debt was repaid, the corporate rights would return to the borrower.

The entrepreneur delayed full repayment: on 3 June 2025, he returned only $200,000. However, a few days before this, the creditor replaced the directors of the securing companies, personally heading them and removing the borrower from management. In fact, the creditor repaid the debt himself using the acquired assets, but in August he applied to the Solomianskyi Court demanding the recovery of another $327,500. He claimed that the transfer of the companies did not constitute repayment of the loan, so the debtor had to pay the remaining amount, interest, and penalties.

During the court proceedings, the plaintiff realised five real estate objects that previously belonged to the debtor, and their value covered the “debt”. The creditor confirmed this fact on 11 May 2026 at a hearing in the Kyiv Commercial Court. However, Judge Vitalii Ukrainets ignored this evidence – the minutes and video recording of the session acknowledging the actual repayment of the debt.

At the hearing on 9 September 2026, the judge considered only part of the materials and immediately moved to closing arguments, refusing the defendant's representative the opportunity to examine the remaining evidence. In the verdict dated 21 September 2026, the court ruled that the debtor must pay the creditor $237,117 and €83,577 again. The text of the decision contains no mention of the video evidence or an explanation of why it was not taken into account. Such actions constitute a violation of the Civil Procedure Code (Articles 213 and 229), which obliges a judge to examine all evidence during a hearing.

Issues with declarations and property

Earlier, in March this year, the CCC published an investigation revealing that the judge had failed to declare property. In the village of Stari Bezradychi near Kyiv, Ukrainets bought a 0.12-hectare land plot in 2020 for 130,000 UAH. Since 2021, an elite cottage worth $150,000–$200,000 has been under construction on it, which significantly exceeds the family's declared savings. The judge did not list this unfinished construction in his declarations for 2021–2025. Amendments to the 2025 declaration were made only three hours after a conversation with a CCC journalist.

The market value of land in this area starts from a few thousand dollars per hundred square metres. The plot is featured in National Police criminal case No. 42025112340000284 regarding the possible seizure of lands of the Kozyn Forest Farm. Ukrainets purchased it from the “Druzi” (Friends) gardening association, linked to Daniil Pryvalov – the son of the late Kharkiv mayor Hennadii Kernes.

CCC journalists appealed to the NABU, NAC, and VQJC, requesting a legal assessment of these facts. Anti-corruption bodies have not responded yet. On 2 September, the VQJC decided to conduct a review of the judge's integrity declarations for 2023 and 2024 with a six-month deadline, but this did not prevent him from continuing his participation in the competition.

History of impunity and connections

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Vitalii Ukrainets in 2018 and 2019, but in both cases the HCJ refused to hold him liable. In 2019, the VQJC demanded that the judge be punished for lying in his 2016 declaration, where he concealed his involvement in the persecution of participants of the Revolution of Dignity.

On 13 February 2014, Ukrainets imposed a fine on Oleksandr Yakymenko, whom the police accused of moving in a car convoy with Euromaidan symbols near the “Mezhhyhirya” residence on 29 December 2013. According to PIC conclusions, such decisions were made on the instructions of the Administration of President Yanukovych. Despite this, the judge did not undergo lustration: he concealed the fact in his declaration, received an indulgence from the HCJ, and successfully passed re-attestation in 2019.

In 2017, the judge was known for a decision regarding the son of then-Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov – Oleksandr. On 1 November 2017, Ukrainets refused to take young Avakov into custody, despite prosecution demands and NABU suspicions of embezzling 14 million UAH in purchases of backpacks for the National Guard. Instead of arrest, a personal undertaking to wear an electronic bracelet and surrender his passport was chosen. Two months later, these restrictions were “quietly” not renewed.