The former head of the Kyiv Traffic Police, Zubytskyi, was fined for late submission of empty declarations

The former head of the Kyiv Traffic Police, Zubytskyi, was fined for late submission of empty declarations

The Kyiv Court of Appeal rejected the complaint of the former head of the Kyiv Traffic Police and former lieutenant colonel of the patrol police, Svyatoslav Zubytskyi, against the court decision that found him guilty of late submission of declarations.

This became known from the court ruling in accordance with Part 1 of Article 172-6 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.

According to the case materials, Svyatoslav Zubytskyi, who until February 28, 2023, held the position of inspector of Platoon No. 4, Company No. 1, Escort Support Battalion of the Patrol Police Department, submitted three declarations late: annual declarations for 2021 and 2022, as well as a declaration upon dismissal for the period not covered by previous declarations. The declarations were submitted on February 15, 2025, although the legal deadline expired on January 31, 2024.

The Podilskyi District Court found Zubytskyi guilty and imposed a fine of 850 hryvnias. In his appeal, Zubytskyi requested the annulment of the ruling, citing the insignificance of the offense and the absence of intent. He stated that he missed the deadline for submitting declarations due to ignorance of the resumption of declaration requirements during martial law and due to a difficult emotional situation in his family related to his father’s illness. Zubytskyi admitted his guilt and expressed sincere remorse, emphasizing that the offense did not cause public harm.

However, the appellate court rejected these arguments, noting that Zubytskyi did not provide evidence of valid reasons for the late submission of declarations in his written explanations before the protocols were drawn up.

The court also stated that the offense is corruption-related and cannot be considered insignificant due to its public danger, particularly because it undermines trust in public officials.

The court emphasized that Zubytskyi, as a person authorized to perform state functions, underwent a special vetting process and was familiar with the requirements of the Law “On Prevention of Corruption.” Accordingly, he should have been aware of the need to submit declarations on time.

An interesting fact is that all of Zubytskyi’s declarations are empty.