The private Odesa clinic Odrex officially denies involvement in fraud, document forgery, and improper medical care, calling all accusations "legally null and void." At the same time, the Prosecutor General's Office confirmed that law enforcement agencies are investigating 10 criminal proceedings involving the medical facility. Read more about why Odrex clinic's response to a journalistic inquiry raised even more questions and doubts in the UNN material.
The editorial board of UNN appealed to the Odrex administration with a request to explain the clinic's position regarding criminal proceedings initiated based on statements from patients and their relatives. Journalists asked Odrex three questions about the proceedings: Does the clinic indeed consider the appeals of former patients and their families to law enforcement agencies as "persecution"? Does Odrex cooperate with the investigation in 10 criminal cases against the clinic and/or its medical staff, and what exactly does this cooperation entail? Another question concerned proceedings under articles on fraud, as well as patients' claims of possible forgery of medical documentation, extortion of funds, and cases where, after the death of patients, relatives, according to them, were given documents without a complete list of procedures performed or, conversely, with information about manipulations that were not actually performed?
Instead of substantive answers, the administration of the Odrex clinic seems to have chosen a tactic of total denial and legal casuistry. It limited itself to a general statement that any such claims cannot be considered substantiated without a court verdict.
"We cooperate with law enforcement within the law. Any claims of 'fraud,' 'improper assistance,' or 'document forgery' are legally null and void until the opposite is established by a court conviction. As of today, no such conviction exists," the Odrex clinic administration stated in an official response to the UNN journalistic inquiry.
Formally, the reference to the presumption of innocence is correct. However, in this case, it is not about journalists trying to "assign blame," but about trying to get answers from Odrex to socially significant questions that arose due to patient deaths, relatives' statements, and complaints from people who consider themselves victims of treatment at the clinic, and numerous criminal proceedings. That is why such a response rather looks like a way to avoid an uncomfortable substantive conversation.
As UNN previously reported, according to the Prosecutor General's Office, law enforcement agencies are investigating 10 criminal proceedings involving the scandalous Odrex clinic. These cases were initiated, in particular, under articles on fraud, improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker, and premeditated murder.
"In total, according to the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, territorial bodies of the National Police in Odesa region are investigating 9 criminal proceedings related to the activities of the 'ODREX' medical institution, namely No. 12022162510001375 under Part 2 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, No. 12021163520000706 under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, No. 12024163520000045 under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, No. 12024163520000433 under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, No. 12025163470000444 under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, No. 12025163520000536 under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, No. 42025163030000187 under Parts 3, 4, 5 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, No. 12016162500002351 under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, No. 12019162500002122 under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine," the Prosecutor General's Office's response to UNN's inquiry states.
In addition, according to the agency, the Main Investigative Department of the National Police of Ukraine is conducting a pre-trial investigation in another criminal proceeding No. 42024110000000387 dated 14.11.2024 under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the death of a patient at Odrex. Thus, law enforcement agencies are investigating 10 criminal cases involving this medical facility.
It should be noted that the mere fact of criminal proceedings, of course, is not a verdict. But it is also not a trifle that can be dismissed with a general phrase about the absence of a court conviction. This refers to a large number of cases opened in different years, under different articles of the Criminal Code.
This looks particularly telling against the backdrop of the public position of Odrex representatives and their lawyers. As UNN previously reported, during a press conference, lawyers and clinic representatives also tried to convince the public that claims about the scale of the problem were exaggerated, and that the medical facility itself was allegedly a victim of pressure. At the same time, statements were made that openly contradict official law enforcement data on the existence of criminal proceedings involving Odrex.
It is also worth noting that the UNN editorial board asked the clinic not only about criminal cases but also about its attitude towards the StopOdrex platform, created by the families of deceased patients and people who consider themselves victims of treatment at the clinic. The editorial board directly inquired why, during the press conference, clinic representatives claimed that they allegedly knew nothing about the StopOdrex website, if a company associated with the clinic had filed complaints about this resource at least three times, and lawyers had requested the disclosure of the domain owners' data. The Odrex clinic administration did not answer this question at all.
Recall
The StopOdrex website has ceased operations three times due to complaints from a company associated with the Odrex clinic. The platform has now fully resumed operations on a new domain. This was reported by co-founder of the movement Khrystyna Totkailo. According to her, after three blockages, activists managed to get the site back to work, and now the movement has two platforms for communication: a website and a Telegram channel. On these resources, activists of the movement collect and publish anonymous stories of people about negative experiences of treatment at Odrex, and also inform about the progress of criminal proceedings and the "Odrex Case."
That is why ignoring this question is also indicative. If the clinic's administration truly does not know about the existence of the resource, then it is difficult to explain why companies and lawyers associated with Odrex showed such active interest in it and contributed to its blocking. If they do know about the StopOdrex movement, then it is unclear why they are trying to deceive journalists by publicly stating the opposite.
In conclusion, Odrex's official response to UNN's inquiry did not refute any of the facts presented and did not provide a clear answer to any of the editorial board's key questions. The clinic once again limited itself to general formulations, avoiding specifics regarding circumstances that arouse the greatest public interest. A similar communication tactic is observed in other Odrex responses: earlier, the medical facility similarly distanced itself from the situation with criminal proceedings regarding the possible illegal use of land under the clinic's main building, and also did not provide exhaustive explanations regarding the revocation of one of its three medical licenses after refusing to provide documents to the Ministry of Health commission.