The High Anti-Corruption Court sentenced the former head of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, Oleksiy Salnikov, to 3 years in prison for abuse of influence.
UNN reports this with reference to the court.
On Wednesday, August 6, the panel of judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court announced the verdict against the former head of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, according to which he was found guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (abuse of influence). The accused was sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to hold positions in state authorities and local self-government for a period of 3 years
At the same time, the said person was found not guilty of committing an offense under Part 2 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud committed repeatedly, or by prior conspiracy by a group of persons). The verdict may be appealed within thirty days from the date of its pronouncement by filing an appeal through the High Anti-Corruption Court to the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court.
Judge exposed for bribery in Dnipropetrovsk region05.08.25, 11:48 • [views_2050]
Addition
On February 14, 2024, the SAP prosecutor, based on the materials of the NABU pre-trial investigation, sent an indictment to the court against the former head of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, who was exposed for inciting the provision of undue benefits to Supreme Court judges for making a decision in favor of a commercial enterprise and for seizing other people's property by deception.
Within the framework of the pre-trial investigation, it was established that in March 2023, the head of the SJA of Ukraine received 7.5 thousand US dollars from a person. He was supposed to keep part of these funds for himself, and allegedly transfer 5 thousand US dollars to the judges for making a decision in the interests of a commercial enterprise.
Subsequently, the head of the SJA informed the person that the issue was being resolved, and that he had discussed the circumstances of the case with the head of the Supreme Court.
At the same time, he explained the delay in making a decision by objective reasons.