From the seizure of state-owned enterprise property to the disappearance of equipment and police inaction — a chronicle of one legal anomalies in the author's investigation Elitexpert.ua
A few facts
In the spring of 2025, the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine put an end to one high-profile case: the former deputy head of the Izmail local prosecutor's office Ivan Marakhovsky and former deputy of the Odessa Regional Council Ivan Boychenko received real terms for accepting a bribe of $40. The SBU operation in 2017 ended with the following sentences: Marakhovsky — 8 years imprisonment, Boychenko — 10 years. Both are deprived of property and the right to hold office for three years after their release, and Marakhovsky — also the title of Justice Advisor.
But, as our investigation shows, the story with Marakhovsky is only part of a much larger scheme of abuse that began long before 2017 in the south of the Odessa region. A scheme in which representatives of the prosecutor's office, the police, and private structures participated, and whose traces are still not erased in the archives of the Izmail district. Over the years, what happened here has become an example of systemic resistance to the law within law enforcement structures.
2017. The arrest of a combine harvester and an attempt to gain control over a state-owned enterprise
In the fall of 2017, harvesting was stopped on the territory of the state enterprise of the Kiliya district. According to the statement of the then head of the Kiliya district council Pavel Boychenko, Prosecutors and police officers seized a state-owned combine harvester right during the harvest.
Among the participants in the episode are mentioned: Deputy District Attorney Alexander Sara, his subordinate Ivan Marakhovsky, district police chief Yuriy Melovanov, as well as operatives Serhiy Tataru, Oleg Golovchenko and investigation Svetlana Karasenko.
According to the investigation materials, the purpose of the arrest was to put pressure on the management of the state-owned enterprise: they demanded concessions and control over the harvest. The court found the actions unlawful and ruled to return the equipment to the enterprise.
However, it was this episode, according to sources, that became the starting point for future conflicts between the prosecutor's office, the police, and the district's farmers.
That same year, in December 2017, Marakhovsky and a regional council member Ivan Boychenko were detained while receiving a bribe of 40 thousand dollars from a farmer from the Reniysky district.
The scheme, according to the investigation, repeated the model of pressure used against the director of a state-owned enterprise.
2018. The scheme becomes more complicated. The “Tractor Case” and the intervention of the company “Ris-Group”
In the fall of 2018, the events continued. Under the leadership of the prosecutor Alexandra Sara and his deputy Andriy Vityuk Officers of the Kiliya District Police Department conducted another “investigative action” in the village of Utkonosivka, where a state-owned enterprise was located. "TSENSM"The operation was attended by investigators Karasenko, as well as representatives of private structures "Ris-Group" LLC, in particular Mykhailo Romanenko.
According to the case materials, investigative actions were carried out in the absence of the director of the state-owned enterprise. Igor LymanskyThe locks on the warehouses were broken, some of the equipment was seized and taken to the territory. "Rice Group".
A tractor was among the seized items. T-150, which belonged to the farmer Oleg Kroitor, who had no relation to the subject of the investigation and worked with a state-owned enterprise under a contract.
Subsequently, three independent examinations confirmed that the seized T-150 tractor indeed belongs to Kreitor, the part numbers are factory ones, and the documents are genuine.
Two court rulings in 2018 obliged the Kiliya police to return the equipment to its rightful owner. Neither of them was implemented.
Scrapbook and Attempt to Fabricate Evidence
At the same time, during another search on the territory of the Kiliya Rice Mill, police officers found a grain accounting notebook for 2017 in the workshops of the enterprise, in a pile of scrap metal, among old parts.
This "document" became the basis for accusations of an alleged shortage of 300 tons of grain at the enterprise.
According to eyewitnesses, the notebook was planted by a police officer. Oleg Golovchenko, who "found" him.
However, as it turned out later, if this "accounting journal" were genuine, the responsibility for the shortage would lie with To Mykhailo Romanenko, to a representative of "Rice-Group" who worked at the rice-seeding station in 2017.
It came as no surprise to anyone that the criminal proceedings No. 120118160150002385, opened after the fact of the notebook, was soon closed.
2019–2021. Court decisions as a formality
Despite court decisions, technology Kreitora During these years, it continued to be used in the fields by representatives of the "Ris-Group". According to the investigation, the police were aware of the actual exploitation of the property, which was supposed to be stored on the site of the regional department.
Lawyers call this case a striking illustration of "circular impunity": the court makes decisions, but their implementation depends on the very agencies whose actions are being challenged.
2021–2024. The sole accused and the silence of witnesses
Fourteen trials took place over the seven years of investigation.
The only defendant in the case remains the former investigator — Svetlana Karasenko, who is accused under Article 382 Part 3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - of failure to comply with two court decisions.
Other defendants are prosecutors and police officers Sara, Vityuk, Tataru, Istomina and Melovanov — appear as witnesses.
The court spent years trying to obtain the testimony of some of them, setting new hearings and postponing hearings. For example, the head of one of the police units in the Odessa region Yuriy Melovanov repeatedly ignored summonses and was brought to court only after the second decree on compulsory attendance.
2024–2025. The court ruled again: return the equipment
In 2024, the court again ordered the return of the T-150 tractor to its rightful owner, the farmer. To Oleg Kroitor.
Head of the Kiliya District Police Department Oleksandr Payuk officially replied that the issue of returning the equipment "should be decided with Romanenko" — a private person who has no procedural connection to the case.
This letter was key evidence that the seized property was not in the custody of the police, as required by law, but was transferred to private entities. This is a direct violation of the procedure for executing a court decision by the local police.
In February 2025, the State Bureau of Investigation opened criminal proceedings № 62025150020000661 due to non-enforcement of court decisions.
At the time of publication, to no avail.
Chronicle of violations
From 2017 to 2025, the case went through several key stages.
First, in 2017, a state-owned combine harvester was seized — the court ruled to return the equipment, but the harvest was still disrupted, and the state-owned enterprise suffered losses of more than 3 million hryvnias.
In 2018, a T-150 tractor belonging to farmer Kreitor was seized. As a result, planned agricultural work at the state-owned enterprise was suspended. Two court decisions ordered the return of the equipment - to no avail.
In the same year, a grain accounting notebook was "discovered" - as a result, the case was closed, the accusations were not confirmed.
In 2019–2020, the police recorded the operation of the seized equipment by a private entity, despite all previous court decisions.
In 2024, the court twice ordered the police to return the equipment to the injured farmer, but these orders were not implemented either.
And in 2025, the State Bureau of Investigation began an investigation into the facts of non-compliance with these court decisions - the process remains open to this day.
Sad conclusions for the system
Seven years, fourteen trials, dozens of protocols, six unenforced court decisions, and one unreturned piece of equipment.
The story, which began with a seemingly insignificant arrest of a state-owned combine in 2017, grew into a multi-level scheme in which law enforcement officials, according to investigative materials, acted in the interests of private individuals.
Some of those involved in these events continue to hold positions in the system. The only accused remains the investigator, who was following the instructions of the leadership.
The case, popularly known as the "tractor case," became not only an illustration of the system's corruption-resistant resilience, but also a marker of its imitation work: when court decisions are turned into a formality, and private property into a tool of bargaining and pressure.
At first glance, the story of a combine harvester, a tractor, and several pieces of agricultural machinery seems local. But behind it lies a chronic failure in the functioning of the Ukrainian law enforcement system.
Elitexpert emphasizes that over the eight years of the "tractor case" in the Odessa region, prosecutors, heads of departments, and heads of agencies have changed. Only the practice has not changed - impunity for non-compliance with court decisions.
Author — Alexander Green
