Vinnytsia court acquits former DTS official in case over destruction of 42,000 litres of alcohol

Court delivers verdict in favour of former official

The Vinnytsia City Court has concluded the review of the criminal proceedings against Pavlo Mykolaiovych Oliinyk, a former official of the State Fiscal Service (DTS). On 15 September 2026, the court fully acquitted the defendant under Part 1 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The basis for the acquittal was that the investigation failed to prove the presence of the elements of an offence.

Previously, prosecutors attempted to prove that the official's actions led to losses for the state budget due to the illegal destruction of over 42,000 litres of alcohol mixtures. According to the prosecution's version, Oliinyk was required to ensure the processing of the seized products at state-owned plants, which would have allowed for the recovery of funds from the processing. However, the court did not support this position.

Circumstances of the case: from seizure to disposal

The events that became the basis for the criminal prosecution took place in 2018. At that time, investigators from the fiscal service were seizing large batches of illegal alcohol and spirits, including those stored in tankers and barrels. Instead of being handed over for processing, these substances were sent for destruction to a specialised enterprise, in accordance with rulings by investigating judges. The disposal process involved diluting the raw material to a safe concentration and discharging it into sewage treatment facilities.

The investigation accused Oliinyk of failing to form a commission to assess the property, failing to conclude the relevant contracts, and failing to ensure the transfer of funds to the budget. According to the prosecution's assessment, this caused the state damages amounting to over 150,000 hryvnias.

Why the prosecution failed

Details that influenced the court's decision became known during the court hearing. It was established that:

• Court rulings explicitly indicated the need for the destruction of evidence, not its processing.
• The expert examination on which the prosecution relied was found to be defective. The experts calculated the value for different volumes and used processing tariffs, whereas the actual process involved disposal.
• Prosecutors independently approved motions for destruction and signed the relevant documents, often being personally present at the disposal site.

In the verdict, the court emphasised that the investigator acted in execution of official court decisions. Since the elements of the crime were not proven and the damage was not confirmed, Pavlo Oliinyk was found not guilty.