Estate agent accused of receiving UAH 1.4 million for services never provided: why the court acquitted her

More than UAH 1.4 million for services that were allegedly never provided, forged documents and six years of criminal proceedings. Attempts were made to hold an estate agent criminally liable, but the courts found insufficient evidence of her guilt, and the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

According to the prosecution, the woman, who provided estate agency services, may have drawn up documents for work that was never actually carried out and received money on that basis. The total amount at issue in the proceedings exceeded UAH 1.4 million.

However, the prosecution failed to prove this version of events in court.

Why was the estate agent acquitted?

The key problem was the evidence. For a conviction, it is not enough to establish that a person received money or was involved in preparing certain documents. Specific unlawful acts and the person’s guilt in committing them must be proven.

The court of first instance concluded that the charges were not supported by sufficient evidence and acquitted the estate agent. The court of appeal later agreed.

The prosecution continued to appeal, but the case illustrated a fundamental rule of criminal procedure: the prosecution’s version of events is not, in itself, evidence.

Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine establishes the presumption of innocence. A person is not required to prove that they did not commit a criminal offence. On the contrary, it is the prosecution that must prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

This duty is also enshrined in Articles 91 and 92 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

The documents exist — but what exactly do they prove?

In cases involving allegedly fictitious services, it is particularly important to establish more than just the fact that money was transferred. It must be proven that the services were genuinely not provided, that the relevant documents contained false information, and that the accused was aware of this and acted with the corresponding intent.

Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine provides that the court assesses each piece of evidence in terms of its relevance, admissibility and reliability, and all the evidence taken together in terms of its sufficiency for reaching a decision.

That is why a large volume of material in criminal proceedings does not in itself guarantee a conviction.

The estate agent’s case is telling: even after six years of criminal prosecution, a court cannot replace missing evidence with assumptions.

For the defence in similar proceedings, it is important to examine the entire chain of the prosecution’s case step by step: who actually provided the services, who drew up and signed the documents, on what basis the money was transferred and, above all, what evidence confirms the intent of the specific person.

After all, receiving money does not in itself prove fraud or forgery of documents. Criminal liability is possible only when the guilt of a specific person has been proven by relevant and admissible evidence.