The Court Has Once Again Refused Advocate Dmytro Zlati’s Request to Overturn the Arrest of the So-Called ‘Kyslytskyi Ferry’

The investigating judge of the Ovidiopol District Court of Odesa Oblast, Spichak V.O., dismissed the motion of advocate Dmytro Zlati Dmytro seeking to lift the seizure imposed on the so-called “ferry ‘Kyslytskyi'” (in fact — ferry VYL-0224-K) in criminal proceedings No. 12017160150003076.

Advocate Zlati D.S., acting in the interests of Larysa Cheban (heir of Cheban P.H.), sought to lift two seizures at once — those imposed by rulings of the investigating judge dated 07.02.2023 (case No. 509/407/23) and 24.01.2025 (case No. 509/59/25). The court dismissed the motion in full.

WHAT THE COURT ESTABLISHED

The ruling effectively reaffirmed, once again, the key findings of the pre-trial investigation regarding the systematic forgery of documents on the basis of which the ferry was unlawfully re-registered in the name of Cheban P.H. under the new name “Kyslytskyi”:

• The “Vessel Technical Survey Act” dated 15.11.2015 is forged: its purported signatory — engineer-inspector of the Shipping Register of Ukraine Farvarshchuk V.D. — had died back on 10 July 2007 (death certificate series I-ZhD No. 108102 dated 11.07.2007). This fact was separately confirmed by the ruling of the Bolhrad District Court dated 28.05.2024 in case No. 946/298/24.
• The “Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement” dated 14.02.2003 bears signs of forgery: Zavorotniuk F.F., on whose behalf the agreement was concluded, never held the position of acting head of the Agricultural Production Cooperative “Kyslytskyi”.
• The State Enterprise “Shipping Register of Ukraine” never issued any technical survey acts for this ferry and does not have it in its databases.
• Ferry VYL-0224-K belongs to Slobodeniuk S.A. (lessee — LLC “Zlahoda”, director Stoikova L.K.) and was seized on the basis of forged documents.

WHY THE LIFTING OF THE SEIZURE WAS REFUSED

The court relied on Articles 170 and 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, under which the seizure of property is lifted only on two conditions: if the need for its application has ceased, or if the seizure was imposed without justification. The investigating judge noted that advocate Zlati D.S. had proven neither of these grounds and had not provided corresponding evidence.

The court emphasised that:

• the property has not lost the characteristics of material evidence, and the seizure is necessary for its preservation;
• the criminal proceedings are at the stage of pre-trial investigation, in which investigative actions are ongoing;
• the interference with the right of property is lawful, pursues a public interest, and is proportionate — in accordance with the established case-law of the ECtHR under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Separately, the court referred to the ruling of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated 20.05.2024 in case No. 712/191/23: rulings refusing to lift the seizure of property are not subject to appeal.

The ruling entered into legal force from the moment of its pronouncement.