In the case of Tetyana Krupa, the defense requests for the second time the removal of the presiding judge of the Supreme Court of Cassation

The High Anti-Corruption Court has begun considering the second application for the disqualification of the presiding judge, Denys Kovalenko, in the case of the former head of the Khmelnytskyi MSEC, Tetyana Krupa, her husband Volodymyr, and son Oleksandr. The defense is stating circumstances that, in its opinion, may indicate the judge’s bias.

This is the second attempt by the defense to have Denys Kovalenko disqualified.

The lawyers filed the first application during the preparatory court session on September 21. However, on September 25, another judge of the High Court of Justice refused to grant it, after which Kovalenko continued the consideration of the criminal proceedings.

The defense filed a second application for disqualification

A new application for disqualification was filed on September 29 by the defense attorney of Volodymyr Krupa.

The lawyer refers to the procedural behavior of the presiding judge and points to circumstances that, in the opinion of the defense, may cast doubt on his impartiality.

Now the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court must decide whether the arguments presented are sufficient to disqualify the judge from further consideration of the case.

The case was tried to be transferred to another court

Previously, the Krup family’s lawyers also tried to change the jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings and transfer them from the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court to the Khmelnytskyi City District Court.

The defense argued that the family members do not belong to the category of subjects whose criminal proceedings should be considered by the High Anti-Corruption Court. Among the arguments was also noted that Tetyana Krupa filed declarations as a doctor.

However, on September 28, the Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court rejected the corresponding motion.

The prosecutor, for his part, emphasized that at the time of the acts with which she was incriminated, Krupa was a deputy of the Khmelnytskyi Regional Council, and therefore, according to the prosecution, the case is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court.

What are Tetyana Krupa and her family accused of

According to the NABU and SAPO, during 2020–2024, Tetyana Krupa illegally acquired assets worth approximately UAH 160 million, involving her husband and son in this.

The former heads of the Khmelnytskyi MSEK are charged with illegal enrichment, declaring false information, and legalizing property, which, according to the investigation, was obtained by criminal means.

During searches of the family, law enforcement officers found significant amounts of cash in various currencies. In particular, according to the case materials, about $2.5 million was found in one of the bedrooms, and almost $100 thousand in the former police officer’s office.

In total, during the searches, according to law enforcement officers, cash in various currencies equivalent to almost $6 million was found.

According to the investigation, medical documentation and lists of people with fictitious diagnoses were also found in Krupa’s office.

Real estate, cars and assets abroad

As part of the investigation, law enforcement officers also established that the family had a significant amount of property.

According to the materials of the proceedings, this includes dozens of real estate objects in Ukraine, cars, corporate rights and assets abroad.

During the verification of Tetyana Krupa’s declarations, the NACP also reported the detection of signs of illicit enrichment and false information amounting to millions of hryvnias.

According to law enforcement officers, the family could have taken some of the funds outside of Ukraine. In 2025, Polish law enforcement officers opened proceedings regarding possible money laundering related to this case.

The pre-trial investigation by NABU and SAPO was completed in the fall of 2025, after which the indictment was sent to the High Anti-Corruption Court.

The trial is currently ongoing. The guilt of the accused can only be established by a final court verdict of conviction.