Law enforcement agencies are investigating at least six criminal proceedings based on statements from relatives of deceased patients and individuals who consider themselves victims of treatment at the private Odesa clinic Odrex. These criminal proceedings concern alleged fraud, as well as possible improper performance of professional duties by clinic medical staff, which led to a patient's death. Lawyers interviewed by UNN note that the criminal proceedings against the clinic could be merged into one large-scale case.
From a Resonant Death to an Avalanche of Claims
Following the death of Odesa businessman Adnan Kivan, who was treated at Odrex from May to October 2024 and died at the clinic on October 27, it became known about the opening of criminal proceedings. Two doctors, namely the head of the surgical department Vitaliy Rusakov and oncologist Maryna Bielotserkovska, were notified of suspicion under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (improper performance of professional duties by clinic medical staff, which led to a patient's death). The investigation believes that the medics made critical errors that led to the patient's death.
In particular, according to UNN, the patient was not prescribed antibiotic therapy after surgery, and symptoms of sepsis were ignored.
After this, public stories of other relatives of "Odrex" victims and affected patients began to emerge. In addition to publicly sharing their experiences of treatment at the private clinic, the victims also turned to law enforcement agencies. According to UNN, at least 5 criminal proceedings have already been opened under various parts of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud). Some of these cases concern a new legal entity, to which the clinic was re-registered after the death of the well-known businessman there.
The victims' statements primarily refer to being misled by clinic staff regarding their chances of recovery, the imposition of expensive contraindicated procedures and operations, and the appropriation of significant sums of money.
Who and When Decides to Merge Cases
Former First Deputy Director of the State Bureau of Investigation Oleksandr Babikov explained in a comment to UNN that the decision to merge criminal proceedings is made exclusively by the prosecutor.
The decision to merge criminal proceedings is made by the prosecutor... And secondly, the issue is complex, and it depends on how these different episodes concerning one enterprise, one circle of persons, are related to each other. Why? Because, on the one hand, a criminal proceeding in which all episodes can be combined will more objectively reflect the picture of the events that occurred, the role of each accomplice in the criminal offense. But, on the other hand, a large number of participants in the criminal proceeding, actually victims, can lead to the case being cumbersome, and due to the large number of people, the court will not be able to consider it effectively.
According to him, cases opened under other articles of the Criminal Code can also be merged if they are essentially connected, for example, the same group committed different criminal offenses, qualified under different articles, but they are related to each other. In such a case, according to Babikov, it is advisable to investigate and consider them in one proceeding.
At the same time, the lawyer noted that cases with a large number of victims are more difficult to investigate, but there are cases when it is justified. "If there are more victims, the case becomes, so to speak, procedurally more complex, because separate procedural actions must also be performed with the victims," he noted.
Key Criterion – Not the Clinic, but Specific Individuals
Former Deputy Prosecutor General, lawyer Oleksiy Bahanets, explained in a comment to UNN that a large number of statements or the fact of one medical institution being involved is not a sufficient reason to merge cases.
"The law clearly states that if several criminal proceedings are being investigated against the same persons, then, of course, they should be merged," Bahanets noted.
According to him, merging proceedings with the same defendants makes the investigation more focused and effective, and also significantly facilitates it. This, in particular, reduces the duplication of investigative actions, allows for building a unified logic of proof, and adhering to reasonable terms of pre-trial investigation.
It should be noted that against the backdrop of at least six open proceedings concerning Odrex, the question of their possible merger goes beyond a purely procedural discussion. This determines whether the investigation, and subsequently the court, will see the systemic nature of the clinic's representatives' actions. Otherwise, each episode will remain an isolated story.