A new suspect has emerged in the Knyazev case: what is wrong with the investigation’s version of events
On Monday, 25 May, the High Anti-Corruption Court determined the preventive measures to be imposed on two Supreme Court judges – Zhanna Yelenina and Oleksandr Prokopenko.
The NABU and the SAPO suspect them of receiving unlawful benefits from the then-President of the Supreme Court, Vsevolod Knyazev, in exchange for rulings in favour of businessman Kostyantyn Zhevago.
This relates to Part 4 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The penalty under this article provides for imprisonment of between 8 and 12 years.
A preventive measure was quickly chosen for Yelenina – bail of 3 million hryvnias. They did not manage to conclude the hearing regarding Prokopenko in a single session.
Why Prokopenko’s appearance came as a surprise
In the Supreme Court, Zhanna Yelenina was described as a person from Knyazev’s circle. During a search in 2023, $50,000 in marked banknotes was found in her possession.
The situation is different with Oleksandr Prokopenko.
He had been a Supreme Court judge since 2017, and in September 2024 he submitted his resignation. The High Council of Justice dismissed him without comment; there were no complaints against him.
Prokopenko did not belong to Knyazev’s inner circle; he was his opponent and openly disagreed with his positions. In October 2021, during the election for the President of the Supreme Court, in which Knyazev was elected, Prokopenko was the only one who refused to take a ballot paper due to his disagreement with the procedure.
The Zhevago case and the vote in the Grand Chamber
Zhevago argued that his company, Ferrexpo, had lawfully acquired a stake in the Poltava Mining and Processing Plant in 2002. His opponents insisted that the deal was unlawful and that the shares should belong to them.
The court of first instance ruled in Zhevago’s favour. The Northern Court of Appeal overturned this decision. The final ruling was to be made by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
The Grand Chamber overturned the appeal ruling and closed the case, effectively recognising Zhevago as the owner of the shares. This decision was supported by 12 judges, including Zhanna Yelenina, Ihor Zhelezny and Iryna Hryhorieva, who have already been placed under investigation.
Four judges, including Oleksandr Prokopenko, voted against and wrote a joint dissenting opinion. They considered that the appeal court’s decision should be overturned, but the case should be remanded for a new hearing, rather than closed.
In other words, Prokopenko did not support the position that was directly advantageous to Zhevago.
The prosecution’s position
The prosecutor is requesting that Prokopenko be granted bail of 10.65 million hryvnias.
The sum is justified by the fact that Prokopenko, like the other judges, allegedly received $50,000 from Knyazev. At the same time, it emerged in court that during a search in 2023, only $2,300 in marked banknotes were found at Prokopenko’s home.
New evidence in the case was the transcript of Knyazev’s interrogation on 14 May 2026, in which he admitted to the offence.
Knyazev stated that he had agreed to accept a bribe in exchange for the Grand Chamber’s ruling in the Zhevago case and had decided to make a deal with the judges to support that ruling and subsequently receive an unlawful benefit.
What Knyazev said about Prokopenko
After that, between 15 March and 19 April, Knyazev allegedly invited Prokopenko to his office and suggested he consider a different position – simply to overturn the appeal ruling and leave the property with Zhevago.
According to Knyazev, he did not speak directly of a bribe, but from the context Prokopenko “should have understood” that an unlawful benefit was being discussed. Prokopenko allegedly replied that he would think about it.
Knyazev also stated that he handed over $50,000 to Prokopenko between 4 and 12 May. According to him, the money was in a black plastic folder held together with rubber bands.
Prokopenko, as Knyazev claims, reminded him that he had supported a position unfavourable to Zhevago. To this, Knyazev allegedly replied: “Well, anyway, people are grateful to all the judges of the High Court.” After that, according to Knyazev, Prokopenko silently took the folder.
What Prokopenko’s defence says
The defence insists that the only key evidence against Prokopenko is, in fact, Knyazev’s May interrogation.
The lawyers note that Knyazev is an accomplice in the case and, by testifying against others, may be attempting to improve his own legal position. Therefore, in the defence’s view, his words are insufficient.
Separately, the defence explains the origin of the $2,300 in marked banknotes.
In 2023, the NABU found $250,000 in marked banknotes and $8,000 in unmarked banknotes at Knyazev’s home. During questioning in May 2026, Knyazev stated that he might have exchanged some of the marked dollars for newer banknotes.
Back in 2023, during questioning, Prokopenko stated that he had exchanged part of his salary for dollars at exchange offices near the Supreme Court – on Lypka Street, Pylyp Orlyk Street, Instytutska Street or on the Left Bank.
The defence suggests that this is how the marked banknotes might have come into his possession. The lawyers also stated that they have statements showing Prokopenko withdrawing 260,000 UAH, which at the time amounted to over $7,000.
According to the defence, the investigation did not carry out searches at the exchange offices or question their staff.
The flat gifted to his son, a NABU detective
Another episode concerns Prokopenko’s flat.
On 21 May, lawyer Tetiana Kozachenko wrote that three days before the suspicion was issued, Oleksandr Prokopenko gifted the flat to his son Bohdan, who works as a NABU detective.
She suggested that someone at NABU might have leaked information about the impending charges, and that Prokopenko may have been attempting to save the property from seizure in this way. Kozachenko also noted that the property in question was a service flat which the judge had privatised over 10 years ago.
Prokopenko told Babel that his family had privatised the flat on standard terms during the period when the relevant legislation was in force between 2009 and 2013.
According to him, he explained the origin of the flat at least twice – during the competition for the Supreme Court in 2017 and during the competition for the Constitutional Court in 2023–2024.
Prokopenko claims that his son had been living in this flat since 2012, and from 2021 onwards had been living there separately with his own family and maintaining the property himself. According to the retired judge, he had been raising the issue of transferring ownership of the flat within the family for several years, and in April 2026 decided to gift it to his son for his birthday on 16 May.
Prokopenko denies any attempt to remove the property from seizure and states that if he had intended to do so, he would have done it back in 2023.
What the Yelenina case reveals
The prosecution also suspects Zhanna Yelenina of receiving a $50,000 bribe.
The entire sum, in marked banknotes, was found at her home back in 2023. At the hearing, the defence did not explain the origin of the money, referring to the minutes of her interrogation, where such explanations are allegedly contained.
Yelenina’s lawyer also stated that in 2026, Knyazev ‘accidentally’ met her on the street twice and tried to discuss the case. Subsequently, a report on covert investigative activities was produced.
According to the lawyer, Knyazev wanted to obtain information about the possible involvement in bribery of Oleksandr Prokopenko and Supreme Court judge Oleg Tkachuk. Yelenina, the defence claims, did not assist him in any way, and blocked Knyazev after the call.
What questions remain
In the Prokopenko case, a number of questions remain for the investigation.
The key one is why new suspicions have emerged at this particular time and whether this is linked to Knyazev striking a deal with the investigators.
It is also unclear whether there is any evidence against Prokopenko apart from Knyazev’s statements, and where the remaining $47,700 is, if the investigation believes he received exactly $50,000.
A separate question is why the investigation considers Prokopenko to be involved in the scheme, given that he voted against the position sought by Knyazev and Zhevago and wrote a dissenting opinion.
The materials also mention that the decision of the Grand Chamber was considered by 18 judges, and according to correspondence between Knyazev and the intermediary lawyer Gorburov, there were supposed to be 13 packages of money totalling $1.3 million.
Four judges, including Prokopenko, voted against the desired decision. Judge Oleg Tkachuk also wrote a dissenting opinion. The question therefore remains as to whether Prokopenko was even among those for whom this money was intended.
Follow us on Telegram
