Former deputy mayor of Lutsk Oleksandr Rachkov was released from punishment for corruption

Former deputy mayor of Lutsk Oleksandr Rachkov was released from punishment for corruption

In Lutsk, Volyn, the court exempted former deputy mayor Oleksandr Rachkov from punishment for corruption due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

In November 2017, the official promised an acquaintance lawyer to help with the commissioning of a new building for 12,000 dollars. This concerned influencing the head of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of the Lutsk City Council. In April 2018, the official received 7,000 dollars from the same lawyer through an architect for approving urban planning conditions and restrictions for the design of a residential building reconstruction.

During the court session, the man did not admit his guilt and explained that at that time, there was a directive from the city mayor to legalize all possible unauthorized constructions in Lutsk to increase budget revenues. In other words, the city council, within the framework of the law, was reaching out to developers and builders regarding the legalization of unauthorized construction. Therefore, many developers and individuals approached him, as the deputy mayor, requesting legalization of unauthorized construction. The amount received by the architect, as the official stated, was payment for work, so he requested to be acquitted.

Initially, the prosecution presented charges under part 4 of article 27, part 3 of article 369 of the Criminal Code — incitement to provide undue benefits to an official holding a responsible position for actions in the interest of a third party using power and official position.

During the consideration of the case, the prosecutor, according to the court, did not provide evidence that the accused controlled the registration of declarations of the object’s readiness for operation and approved urban planning conditions and restrictions for the design of the residential building reconstruction. As the head of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control testified in court, the deputy mayor was not expected to be provided with documents and decisions for consideration or approval, including declarations of the object’s readiness for operation. Evidence of joint participation of several individuals in the crime, as required by article 27 of the Criminal Code, was not provided. The indictment did not specify the methods of incitement (persuasion, advice, instructions, orders, coercion, threats, bribery, etc.). The court reclassified the actions to abuse of influence. Subsequently, the court concluded that the defendant’s guilt in such a crime was confirmed by the evidence.

No identified banknotes were found at the residence of the head of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control, which excludes the possibility of money transfer by the accused.

For abuse of influence, the former official faced either a fine or imprisonment for a term of two to five years. The court found him guilty but exempted him from punishment without its determination and size due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.