Former head of the Sumy tax office Olena Khotenko overturned the NACP’s conclusion through the court

Former head of the Sumy tax office Olena Khotenko overturned the NACP’s conclusion through the court

Former head of the Sumy region tax office and Rivne City Council deputy from the "Servant of the People" party, Olena Khotenko, who was dismissed following a media investigation regarding her assets,  got the NACP’s conclusion about declaring false information annulled through court.

This became known from the court case materials and a full audit of the official’s 2020 declaration, compiled by the NACP.

In 2021, the Strategic Investigations Department of the National Police in Rivne region registered materials in the journal of unified record of statements and reports of committed criminal offenses and other events, concerning the subject’s violation of the declaration requirements under Article 46 of the law. On April 5, Khotenko was sent a summons to provide explanations, but she did not appear. Later, on April 15, the deputy submitted an amended declaration to the NACP.

In total, violations amounting to 3.38 million UAH were found in Khotenko’s declaration.

During the inspection, the agency found that she did not disclose data about an office in LLC "Kyiv-Plaza" at the Maidan Plaza business center. The deputy inaccurately reported information about the value of a Toyota C-HR (2019), which is her property, selecting the mark "Not applicable" in the field "Cost at the date of acquisition, ownership, or use or according to the latest monetary evaluation." The actual value of the car at that time was 700,000 UAH.

Khotenko also did not report land in the village of Veresy in the Zhytomyr region, measuring 20,000 sq. m, and a house in the village of Boyanivka in the Rivne region valued at 1.6 million UAH, as well as property in Kyiv registered to her son.

This all fell under the signs of part 1 of Article 366-2 of the Criminal Code, for which the NACP drafted a protocol to the police. However, Khotenko resolved the issue in her favor through the courts.

The court, considering that the disputed certificate was formed in December 2021, which is after the expiration of the audit period for the plaintiff’s declaration, the panel of judges deemed the conclusion of the court of first instance that the respondent violated the audit period for the plaintiff’s declaration stipulated in point 14 of order No. 56 to be lawful and well-founded.