In Kirovohrad Region, “Sick” Prosecutors Massively Recovered for VLK but Remained Disabled for Pensions

A grand nationwide campaign to expose disabled prosecutors in the Kirovohrad region ended in a classic triumph of corporate solidarity and procedural nitpicking. While the qualification commission turned a blind eye to strange mass trips of healthy men to Cherkasy for indefinite medical certificates, the figures themselves launched a counterattack and easily defeated the MOH inspections in court over banal errors in summonses for medical examinations. The result is a perfect legal miracle: diagnoses on paper do not withstand scrutiny, prosecutors suddenly become fully healthy before the VLK, yet their lifetime pensions and statuses remain untouchable at the state’s expense.

In Kirovohrad region 17 prosecutors hold disability certificates. Most of them were sent for repeat confirmation of that status after a scandal exposing the head of the Khmelnytskyi regional MSEC, Tetiana Krupa. She was suspected of illegal enrichment. And during the review of her agency’s decisions on establishing disabilities, it turned out that several dozen prosecutors from Khmelnytskyi region had one group or another. As a result, prosecutors across the country went for rechecks.

“Anticorruption Dimension” checked how these rechecks and disciplinary proceedings concerning prosecutors from Kirovohrad region ended.

Infographic generated with the help of AI

Disability reviewed. Accountability — almost none

The editorial office analyzed the disciplinary proceedings of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors regarding 17 prosecutors. The complaints against colleagues were filed by Yan Streliuk, then prosecutor of Kirovohrad region. They are all the same type. Streliuk wrote that prosecutors, without having any work incapacity, had fictitiously arranged disabilities for pension payments and other benefits. However, no evidence was provided in the complaints. Only the “existence of a reasonable suspicion.”

The QDCP closed sixteen proceedings. Only one ended with a disciplinary sanction. Repeat medical assessments were conducted for at least 12 prosecutors. However, the QDCP decisions recorded only ten clear final medical conclusions.

Of those ten cases, in three the disability was confirmed unchanged, in three the group was downgraded, in three it was canceled. In one case experts first recognized the continuation of the III group for the previous period as unjustified, but after a new in-person examination they established the same group indefinitely.

The loud scandal over dozens of “seriously ill” prosecutors from Khmelnytskyi ended in the state’s defeat

When there is no group, and no offense either

Yevhen Bachurin, prosecutor of the oversight department for compliance with the laws by the organs of the Bureau of Economic Security of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, was granted an indefinite II disability group in 2021. He has been working in the prosecutor’s offices since 2006. Bachurin received a pension on the basis of disability. The certificate was issued to him by the Cherkasy MSEC.

A large-scale review of MSEC conclusions was conducted by specialists from the Institute of Medical and Social Problems of Disability of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, based in Dnipro. They checked the documents on the basis of which disabilities had been assigned to prosecutors, or invited them for repeat medical examinations.

In Bachurin’s case the expert team studied his medical records and concluded that his health impairments did not meet the criteria for any disability group. There were no grounds to recognize the prosecutor as a person with a disability.

Moreover, QDCP materials state that Bachurin had previously been recognized as limitedly fit for military service. However, after a repeat VLK in January 2025 he was declared fit. Since October 2022 he has been reserved by the prosecutor’s office. Despite having a disability, he did not request special working conditions or submit an individual rehabilitation program at his workplace.

A similar situation exists with Viktoriia Liubchenko, head of the Novomyrhorod department of the Novoukrainka district prosecutor’s office of Kirovohrad region. She has worked in the prosecutor’s office since 2006.

In August 2020 Cherkasy MSEC granted her an indefinite II group. After an inpatient examination in June 2025 the expert team completely canceled the disability. Prior to that the prosecutor had received a pension as a person with a disability for almost five years.

Lesia Snitsar, a prosecutor for international legal cooperation at the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, also had her III group fully canceled after a repeat inpatient examination. Her disability had been assigned back in 2018, and she has worked in the prosecutor’s office since 2006.

According to the prosecutor, her health significantly worsened after her husband was killed in battles for Lysychansk. At the same time she received a pension due to loss of breadwinner, not for disability. The medical decision was appealed by the prosecutor in court.

The QDCP closed all three disciplinary proceedings. The Commission separated medical justification of disability from the personal responsibility of the prosecutor. They argued that the cancellation of a group did not prove that prosecutors had influenced medical professionals, submitted false documents, or used their office. The regional prosecutor who filed the complaints against colleagues failed to provide the necessary evidence, and the Commission did not find it.

Million-level pensions and luxury cars — or why a large-scale purge of fake disabled prosecutors ended in a fizz

When II group became III

In three cases the repeat check did not cancel the disability but downgraded it from II to III group.

Vitalii Leus, prosecutor at the Kropyvnytskyi district prosecutor’s office of Kirovohrad region, had his indefinite II group changed to III for a period of two years. His disability had been established before he began working in the prosecutor’s office — in connection with service in the police. He joined the prosecutor’s office in 2019.

He received a pension under the legislation on pension provision for those discharged from military service. The QDCP closed the disciplinary proceeding against him because at the time the disability was issued he was not a prosecutor and therefore could not have used his position to influence medical personnel.

Isi Tanriverdiyev, deputy head of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, had his indefinite II group changed to III for a period of one year. He has worked in the prosecutor’s office since 2011.

During 2022–2024 years he received 752 956 hryvnias in disability pension payments. He explained during the complaint review that he had problems since 2013 and had been undergoing prolonged treatment. He denied any influence on MSEC members and added that he never had criminal proceedings against medical workers. Therefore the QDCP did not establish a disciplinary offense. They said there was no evidence that there were abuses or violations during the initial assignment of disability.

The commission’s materials also indicate that in 2020 the VLK recognized him as limitedly fit for military service. However, after a repeat examination in 2025 the VLK noted full fitness for service.

Roman Vitriak, who at the time of the decision worked as a prosecutor of the Dolynske department of the Znamianka district prosecutor’s office of Kirovohrad region, had his indefinite II group deemed unjustified. Instead, he was assigned III group for two years. He has worked in the prosecutor’s office since 2001.

Since September 2022 the prosecutor had been receiving a disability pension. Previously he also sued the Pension Fund, demanding payment of that pension without a maximum limit, but the courts denied him. Despite the group change, the QDCP closed the disciplinary proceeding.

At the same time, commission materials indicate that the prosecutor did not file requests at work to adjust his work schedule, to specially equip his workplace, or provide information about medical rehabilitation. Nevertheless, he was repeatedly on sick leave. He was also removed from military registration.

Greedy ones with special needs: how Khmelnytskyi prosecutors regain canceled fake disabilities through courts

Cherkasy “battalion”

A separate group in these decisions are prosecutors who obtained disabilities in Cherkasy. Of 17 checked prosecutors, nine received an indefinite II group through Cherkasy MSECs. In all nine cases — indefinitely.

By the way, besides Khmelnytskyi, Cherkasy region also showed one of the highest rates of arranging prosecutor disabilities.

Through various Cherkasy commissions passed:

MSEC No.1 — Isa Tanriverdiyev, deputy head of Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, and Yevhen Bachurin, prosecutor of the oversight department for compliance with laws by BEB bodies of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office;

MSEC No.2 — Volodymyr Leshchenko, prosecutor of the department overseeing compliance with laws by the regional security agency of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office; Vitalii Leus, prosecutor of the Kropyvnytskyi district prosecutor’s office; Andrii Koval, head of the department of procedural leadership in criminal proceedings of the investigative territorial department of the State Bureau of Investigation at the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office; Tetiana Grebeniuk, head of the department of organization and support of public prosecution in court of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office;

MSEC No.4 — Viktoriia Liubchenko, head of the Novomyrhorod department of the Novoukrainka district prosecutor’s office, and Oleksandr Baidak, head of the department overseeing compliance with laws by the regional security agency of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office;

the number of the commission that assigned the group to Oleksandr Nevmytyi, prosecutor of the Specialized Environmental Prosecutor’s Office on the rights of a department of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, is hidden in the materials.

At the time of QDCP review a clear result of repeat medical assessment was available for five of these nine prosecutors. Only one initial decision was fully confirmed. In two cases the group was downgraded, and in two the disability was canceled.

An interesting calendar coincidence concerns prosecutors Isa Tanriverdiyev from the regional prosecutor’s office and Yevhen Bachurin for BEB oversight. Both were granted indefinite II group on the same day — 23 December 2021. Both decisions were made by the same Cherkasy regional MSEC No.1. And as noted earlier, after re-evaluation both decisions were changed.

This sample is small and by itself does not prove abuse. But the ratio is telling: four of five reviewed substantive decisions on indefinite II group did not hold in their original form. To determine the reasons, a thorough study of the initial conclusions of each MSEC was needed. However, QDCP decisions contain no information that the Commission investigated this entire chain.

Infographic generated with the help of AI

Cherkasy without residence

Additional questions arise not only about the statistics of Cherkasy MSEC decisions, but also about how certain prosecutors ended up there.

Oleksandr Nevmytyi, prosecutor of the Specialized Environmental Prosecutor’s Office of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, received an indefinite II group in Cherkasy in November 2019, although he did not actually live there.

Volodymyr Leshchenko from the regional prosecutor’s office temporarily registered in Cherkasy before undergoing MSEC. According to his explanation, he found a room via an online ad. In reality he did not live at that address. The registration was active for only a few months during the process of arranging the disability.

Andrii Koval, head of the department of procedural leadership in criminal proceedings of the investigative territorial department of the SBI at the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, explained choosing Cherkasy by wanting to undergo MSEC outside his place of residence and treatment. Allegedly to avoid suspicions of influencing local doctors.

These circumstances were not sufficient evidence of misconduct for the QDCP and did not affect the decision. The mere fact of temporary registration proved insufficient.

How they milk the state. Hundreds of young prosecutor-“pensioners” receive astronomical pensions

The only punished one

Volodymyr Leshchenko, prosecutor of the oversight department for compliance with laws of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, became the only one of 17 prosecutors against whom the QDCP applied a disciplinary penalty. The Commission prohibited him for a year from transfer to a higher-level prosecution authority and appointment to a higher position.

However, the QDCP did not establish that the prosecutor illegally obtained a disability. He was punished for failing to show up for the examination and for not assisting in removing public doubts, understanding the purpose of the repeat check and consequences of refusal. The prosecutor explained that on the day he was summoned for the examination he was participating in a criminal proceeding, and on another day he was on vacation. Because of his absence the II group was canceled. But the prosecutor went to court. He also explained that he underwent VLK and it confirmed limited fitness.

Leshchenko, like other prosecutors, was questioned as a witness in a criminal case about possible abuse with disabilities. According to the Qualification Commission decision, during that questioning he refused to take a polygraph. He explained — because of bias among law enforcement.

Thus, the prosecutor was punished for refusing to cooperate with the check, not for proven illegal issuance of disability.

Ten years of running in place: how the Ukrainian prosecution learned to change signs without changing habits

Disability confirmed

Not all repeat assessments ended in downgrading or cancellation. Bohdan Ishchenko, prosecutor of the department of procedural leadership in criminal proceedings of the investigative territorial department of the SBI at the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, had his II group confirmed indefinitely. He joined the prosecutor’s office in 2010, but he had arranged the disability before employment and subsequently had it confirmed. According to QDCP decision materials, in May 2025 Ishchenko asked to cancel his reservation at the prosecutor’s office from mobilization due to the possibility of receiving a deferment based on disability.

Oksana Sanzhakova, prosecutor at the Kropyvnytskyi district prosecutor’s office of Kirovohrad region, also had II group confirmed due to eye disease. She has worked in the prosecutor’s office since 2002. She applied for the re-examination independently.

Tetiana Grebeniuk, head of the department of organization and support of public prosecution in court of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, retained an indefinite II group. She joined the prosecutor’s office back in 2002.

For these three prosecutors the materials give the least reason to doubt current health: they underwent new examinations, and expert teams left the previous groups unchanged.

In the case of Mykola Vdovichenko, prosecutor of the department of procedural leadership in investigations by territorial police bodies and public prosecution at the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, the Dnipro institute experts disagreed with the justification for the previous extension of his III group. However, after a personal examination they reestablished III group — this time indefinitely.

He has worked in the prosecutor’s office since 2004. Since December 2023 he has been receiving a prosecutor’s pension for years of service. The QDCP did not establish that assigning the group gave him additional pension payments or other material advantages and closed the disciplinary proceeding against him.

Svitlana Radkevych, prosecutor of the department representing the state’s interests in court of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, first had III group disability assigned in 2025 at a Kropyvnytskyi medical facility for one year. She was not included among prosecutors summoned for repeat medical examination. The QDCP closed the proceeding because it received no evidence of abuse.

Anatomy of corruption. How a simple family of civil servants suddenly became dollar millionaires

Five cases without a final answer

In five proceedings the QDCP materials did not indicate a final medical conclusion. Oleksandr Baidak, head of the department overseeing compliance with laws by the regional security agency of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office, and Oleh Ivanyshchev, prosecutor of Vilshanka department of the Holovanivsk district prosecutor’s office of Kirovohrad region, underwent inpatient examinations. However, their final results were not included in the Commission’s materials.

At the same time, in Oleksandr Baidak’s case it is indicated that earlier he had limited fitness for military service, but during the new VLK he was recognized fully fit. He is reserved at the prosecutor’s office.

As for Oleh Ivanyshchev, he obtained a disability at a time when he did not work in the prosecutor’s office. Since November 2010 he has been paid a pension for years of service, so he did not register for disability.

Final repeat conclusions were also absent for Oleksandr Nevmytyi, prosecutor of the Specialized Environmental Prosecutor’s Office on the rights of a department of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office; Vira Chernoshtan, prosecutor of the department of procedural leadership in investigations by territorial police bodies and public prosecution of the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office; and Andrii Koval, head of the department of procedural leadership in criminal proceedings of the investigative territorial department of the SBI at the Kirovohrad Regional Prosecutor’s Office.

Despite the lack of a final medical answer, the QDCP closed all five disciplinary proceedings because it had no evidence of violations during the initial assignment of disability. They also did not evade repeat examination, so there are no complaints.

Rotten system. By what scheme and with whose help prosecutors made themselves huge pensions

Appeals in courts

After the repeat medical checks, prosecutors went to court. They demanded cancellation of the decisions that had downgraded or completely canceled their disability groups.

The editorial office found at least seven such cases. As of 23 August 2026 five of them had first-instance court decisions. Four — in favor of the prosecutors. Lesia Snitsar was fully denied. Two more cases are ongoing.

This statistic does not mean that courts confirmed the prosecutors’ diagnoses. Mostly they did not assess the medical justification of the old groups. Courts checked whether the MOH Institute’s expert teams followed procedure. And often concluded they did not.

Infographic generated with the help of AI

Four cancellations and one denial

In the cases of Volodymyr Leshchenko, Roman Vitriak, Oleh Ivanyshchev and Vitalii Leus, courts canceled the medics’ decisions to change or cancel the disability group. The reason was similar: the Institute did not prove that it had properly conducted the assessment.

Thus, in Leshchenko’s case the expert team canceled II group based on medical records in his file because the prosecutor did not appear for the examination. The court noted that under the law the Institute had to properly summon him for examination: write to his email or to his address. However, as materials show, the Institute did not provide evidence that they had informed Leshchenko. Moreover, in its decision the medics indicated that the official was registered in Cherkasy, although he has another address. On the basis of improper notification and an ex parte review of the disability, the court granted Leshchenko’s claim.

A paradoxical situation. Because, as we know from the Qualification Commission decision, the prosecutor was warned about the need to appear for the examination. And for non-appearance he was even subjected to disciplinary responsibility. In addition, QDCP materials said the prosecutor registered in Cherkasy specifically to undergo MSEC, although he did not live there. At the same time, it was his old Cherkasy registration that became the basis for improper notification about the repeat medical examination.

The court saw similar violations in the cases of Vitriak and Ivanyshchev. Both cases were heard by Judge Naumenko.

In the decision regarding Vitriak, experts referred to additional studies. But the results themselves were not in the court file. The Institute also did not prove that it had informed the prosecutor about the assessment and ensured his participation. Therefore, on 6 May 2026 the court canceled the decision to downgrade the group.

In Ivanyshchev’s case the Institute already explained the medical position. In the experts’ view, the consequences of the stroke caused only moderate limitations that corresponded to III group.

However, the court checked not the diagnosis but the legality of the procedure. The Institute did not provide evidence of proper notification of Ivanyshchev, conducting all necessary studies and the possibility to provide explanations. Therefore, on 30 June 2026 the court canceled that decision too.

The most detailed shortcomings of the assessment were described by the court in Leus’s case. The prosecutor spent several days in inpatient care, but was given only general tests and an electrocardiogram. The court did not find profile studies of the spine, nervous and musculoskeletal systems, which were relevant to establishing the group.

The expert team’s final session was held without Leus. The Institute did not prove that it had notified him of the review. The experts also did not compare the prosecutor’s condition in 2019 and 2025 and did not explain why the indefinite II group was replaced by a temporary III.

Because of this, on 3 August 2026 the court canceled the expert team’s decision. The previous MSEC decision remains the basis for benefits and social guarantees.

Thus, in four cases courts did not determine whether prosecutors had been lawfully assigned disability groups. They reached a different conclusion: the Institute did not prove the lawfulness of their cancellation or downgrading.

Against this background, Lesia Snitsar’s case stands out. She was the only one among five prosecutors whom the first-instance court fully denied.

Snitsar argued that reviewing documents could not replace a full repeat assessment. In her view, experts had to conduct a new examination, notify her of the session and provide an opportunity to participate in the procedure.

The Institute distinguished between reviewing an old MSEC decision and a repeat assessment. By this logic, the expert team first studies the documents. If they are sufficient, it may immediately make a decision. A new examination is carried out only when the team considers it necessary.

The court agreed with that interpretation. It decided that ordering a repeat assessment is the expert team’s right, not an obligation. Therefore, the absence of a separate summons for Snitsar to such an assessment was not a violation.

Unlike other cases, the court also saw a sufficient medical explanation for the decision. Experts indicated that the documents only confirmed mild digestive system dysfunctions. The prosecutor herself allegedly did not name specific diagnoses or medical conclusions that the team had ignored.

The court also referred to a Supreme Court ruling stating that under certain circumstances an old MSEC decision may be canceled after document analysis without mandatory in-person examination. Therefore, on 5 June 2026 the court denied Snitsar’s claim. She filed an appeal.

The difference between the decisions lies not only in interpreting the procedure but also in the evidence. In the cases of Leshchenko, Vitriak, Ivanyshchev and Leus the Institute did not confirm proper notification, completeness of examinations, or the logic of changing the group. In Snitsar’s case the court found the documents sufficient and the repeat assessment optional.

In the end, the same review of old MSEC decisions produced opposite court results. Four expert team decisions did not withstand scrutiny due to procedural and evidentiary gaps. In Snitsar’s case the court did not see these gaps.

Also, prosecutor Vdovichenko filed a claim to cancel the MOH Institute’s conclusions. In January 2025 the expert commission canceled his III group, but after a repeat examination it was restored indefinitely. According to the court ruling, Vdovichenko is contesting that first conclusion of the Institute. There is no decision yet. Prosecutor Yevhen Bachurin is appealing the cancellation of his disability. The court decision is not yet available.

Infographic generated with the help of AI

Conclusions

The review of prosecutors’ disabilities produced three different outcomes. Medics downgraded or canceled some groups. The QDCP closed 16 of 17 disciplinary cases because it did not find evidence of personal influence by prosecutors on MSECs’ decisions. And first-instance courts in four of five considered cases sided with prosecutors — mainly due to procedural violations, not because they confirmed the medical justification of the old groups. The only one fully denied was Lesia Snitsar, widow of Colonel Pavlo Snitsar, killed in 2014.

The main question remained unanswered: how such a number of indefinite groups arose, especially in the Cherkasy MSECs’ decisions, and why some of them did not withstand repeat assessment. The QDCP did not establish personal responsibility, and most courts did not assess medical justification of disability. As a result, prosecutors mostly won procedurally, but the origin of questionable MSEC decisions was not investigated.