The day before the allegations: a former Supreme Court judge involved in the “Knyazev case” gifted an apartment to his son, a detective with the NABU
21 May 11:36
Tetyana Kozachenko, a former member of the NABU Public Oversight Council and a lawyer , has raised concerns about potential corruption risks related to the transfer of an apartment and a parking space from former Supreme Court Justice Oleksandr Prokopenko to his son, Bohdan Prokopenko, who works as a detective in NABU’s Main Detective Unit. This is stated in her Facebook post, according to "Komersant Ukrainian".
In her post, Kozachenko drew attention to the timing between the formalization of the real estate gift and the service of a notice of suspicion to the former judge himself in a case related to the so-called “Knyazev case.”
According to her, on May 16, 2026, Oleksandr Prokopenko transferred an apartment and a parking space to his son, a NABU detective, and on May 19, NABU notified the former judge of his status as a suspect in a particularly serious corruption crime.
“The detective had been living in this apartment with his wife rent-free for years and had declared this accordingly. And just one working day (!) before NABU served the notice of suspicion to his father, the son—who is a NABU detective—received this apartment as a gift. Of course, the NABU apartment will not be confiscated from the detective; moreover, the father and son MANAGED to do this before the notice of suspicion was served, meaning they removed the apartment from the risk of seizure and confiscation,” added Kozachenko.
According to Kozachenko, the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the property require a separate investigation by the anti-corruption agency.
“At the very least, this detective must undergo an internal investigation and a polygraph test regarding the following: 1. whether he was aware of the possibility that a notice of suspicion would be served on his father; 2. whether he had any conversations with his father on this matter; 3. whether he had any conversations with his wife Olena Prokopenko, who is also (surprise, surprise!) a NABU detective and resides in this apartment, as indicated in their declarations. Therefore, an internal investigation and polygraph test for Bohdan and Olena Prokopenko are a MUST,” she stated.
In particular, the author of the post believes that the circumstances described may indicate that Detective Prokopenko used his official position and restricted-access information for his own benefit.
The apartment is official housing
Separately, she recalled the history of the apartment itself. According to Kozachenko, the Supreme Court had previously reported that the apartment was provided to Judge Prokopenko as official housing, after which it was removed from official housing status and privatized in the judge’s mother’s name.
Former Supreme Court Judge Oleksandr Prokopenko
She also cited the position of the Public Council of Integrity, which had previously criticized such privatization.
“The Public Integrity Council believes that the privatization of this housing, which was received as official housing, constitutes unethical conduct and indicates that the judge used his status to satisfy personal needs,” Kozachenko quoted the relevant assessment.
The post also notes that Oleksandr Prokopenko’s income as a judge exceeded 500,000 UAH per month, while the combined income of Bohdan and Olena Prokopenko was over 250,000 UAH per month.
“All of this may be legally sound. But is it ethical?” Kozachenko asked.
In conclusion, she called on NABU to conduct an internal investigation into a potential conflict of interest, as well as to determine whether detectives Bohdan and Olena Prokopenko were properly recused from any procedural actions and information related to the criminal proceedings against their relative.
As of the time of publication, no official comments have been released by NABU, Bohdan Prokopenko, Olena Prokopenko, or Oleksandr Prokopenko’s defense team regarding the allegations made in the post.
Related
On May 19, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau announced new allegations in the case of corruption in the Supreme Court: three sitting Supreme Court judges and one retired judge are suspected of receiving improper benefits for issuing a ruling in the interests of the owner of the “Finance and Credit” group.
