Recalculation of bribes in court: procedural aspects based on the case of MP Serhiy Kuzminykh

The High Anti-Corruption Court held another hearing in the case of MP Serhiy Kuzminykh, who is accused of receiving illegal benefits in the amount of 558,000 hryvnias. This time, the hearing was marked by a curious scene: during the examination of material evidence, the parliamentarian insisted that he personally count the seized banknotes. The judges had to intervene and explain that such an “initiative” was beyond the scope of the proceedings.

Why money is counted in court

The examination of material evidence is one of the key procedural actions in criminal proceedings. This involves not only demonstrating the items themselves, but also checking their quantity, conformity with the description, and authenticity. In cases where cash is used as evidence, the court is actually obliged to allow the parties to verify that the amount seized matches the amount stated in the case file.

“The procedure of inspecting money in the courtroom has not only symbolic but also fundamental significance,” notes lawyer Vladislav Pavlenko, representative of the Strategic Advocacy law firm. “In this way, the court ensures transparency, eliminates doubts about manipulation, and creates an adequate evidence base for making a fair decision. Any inaccuracies in recording the amount could subsequently become grounds for doubting the reliability of the evidence or even for appealing the verdict.”

That is why, when examining the funds that were the subject of the bribe, the court allows the parties to express their comments, but does not allow the defendant to act on their own initiative.

Background

As a reminder, Serhiy Kuzminykh was detained back in January 2022. According to investigators, he received a package containing 558,000 hryvnias in cash from a representative of a private company. According to NABU detectives, the money was intended as a bribe for facilitating the signing of contracts for the supply of medical equipment to a hospital in the Zhytomyr region.

Despite the publicity, the trial dragged on: over two years, the High Anti-Corruption Court scheduled more than 80 hearings, most of which were canceled due to the deputy’s failure to appear.

Political and legal dimensions

In the public sphere, Kuzminykh has earned a reputation as a “ghost MP” — almost no one in his constituency in Zhytomyr Oblast knows him, but he has become a regular visitor to the courtrooms. The scene of him “impulsively” counting banknotes in the courtroom only reinforced this image: when it comes to money, the defendant tries to remain at the center of events.

For lawyers, however, the main focus is different — regardless of the suspect’s behavior, the procedure of examining and recounting funds in court is an integral part of the evidence. It is this procedure that provides answers to questions about the amount, origin, and authenticity of the money, preventing abuse and ensuring compliance with the principle of the rule of law.