Corruption Figure Serhii Bielashov Divorced Through Court Amid NABU Case

Poltava Oblast Council deputy Serhiy Byelashov 21 in August 2026 of the year through court dissolved his marriage with Liliana Byelashova after 38 years of共同 life. The Kyiv District Court of Poltava granted the deputy’s suit, although his wife, who effectively resides in Spain, requested the couple be given three more months to reconcile.

Serhiy Byelashov filed a suit 6 February 2026 of the year. In the statement he noted that the joint life of the spouses had effectively ended, feelings between the parties were absent, and marital relations had not been supported for more than ten years. The proceedings were opened 9 February, according to the press. Liliana Byelashova did not agree with her husband's position. In the answer of 21 May she stated that the spouses have been married for more than 35 years, had acquired property together, and there is no evidence of termination of family relations for ten years in the case materials. The wife also asserted continuation of marriage relations. 21 May the court provided the parties with three months for reconciliation and stopped the proceedings. When 21 August this period expired, the parties did not appear at the hearing. Serhiy Byelashov asked to consider the case in his absence, while Liliana Byelashova’s representative opposed dissolution of the marriage. The court concluded that further preservation of the marriage would contradict the plaintiff’s will. In the ruling the court referred to the norms of the Family Code, pursuant to which marriage is based on the free consent of a man and a woman, and coercion to preserve it is not permitted. The period provided for reconciliation, in the court’s assessment, did not change Serhiy Byelashov’s position. After the divorce, Serhiy Byelashov and Liliana Byelashova kept their surnames. The issue of dividing joint property was not considered in this case. In the answer, the wife only noted that property was acquired jointly by the spouses. The corresponding property dispute may be considered in a separate proceeding. The court’s decision of 21 August is currently being appealed. An appeal has already been filed with Poltava Appeal Court, therefore the divorce ruling has not become final. The final status of the divorce will depend on the outcome of the appeal. Serhiy Byelashov’s name has appeared in recent years not only in civil proceedings. The deputy of Poltava Oblast Council and leader of the Batkivshchyna faction became a suspect in a NABU and SAP case regarding possible misappropriation of funds of the Zaporizhzhia branch of the state-run railroad company Ukrzaliznytsia. According to the investigation, this concerns nearly 204 million UAH in losses related to gas procurement in the 2016–2020 years. Within this case the High Anti-Corruption Court in June 2023 of the year took Serhiy Byelashov into custody with an alternative bail of 30 million UAH. After posting bail he was released from the pretrial detention, and the court imposed a number of procedural obligations on him. Suspicions and the preventive measure do not themselves establish guilt—the final assessment of the evidence is for the court. The criminal case concerns gas procurement by the Ukrzaliznytsia’s production-support branch. According to the investigation, from December 2016 year to February 2020 year natural gas was purchased from private companies at a price the investigation deemed inflated. Former directors of the branch, Vitaliy Tsviyhun and Yevhen Nykytin, were also involved in the case. A separate episode in the case was the plea agreement with a former employee of the branch, Volodymyr Skorodynskyi. In April 2023 year the VACCS approved the agreement, sentencing him to five years of imprisonment with a two-year probation, a fine of 17 thousand hryvnias and an obligation to reimburse 2 million hryvnias of losses.

Thus, the divorce ruling concerns only Serhiy Byelashov’s matrimonial status and has no direct procedural connection to the criminal proceeding. At the same time, the appeal in the family case and the further progression of the anticorruption proceeding remain separate legal processes.