Bail was repeatedly posted for former Odesa recruitment officer Borysov, who presented fictitious diagnoses – SBI

Former head of the Odesa regional territorial recruitment and social support center (TRC) Yevhen Borysov has attempted to evade criminal prosecution during both the pretrial investigation and court proceedings by presenting fictitious medical documents regarding his health, while courts repeatedly reduced his bail amounts, which were then posted by his defense, the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) has said.

"The SBI conducted pretrial investigations in four criminal proceedings against the former recruitment officer of the Odesa region, Yevhen Borysov. During the pretrial investigation, the suspect was detained three times due to the existing risk of flight to evade criminal responsibility," the SBI stated in response to an inquiry from Interfax-Ukraine.

According to the Bureau, all four criminal cases have now been sent with indictments to the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv, the Prymorsky District Court of Odesa, and the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC); judicial proceedings are ongoing.

"It should be emphasized that both during the pretrial investigation and the trial, the accused repeatedly tried to avoid criminal prosecution, including by obtaining fictitious medical diagnoses," the department’s response noted.

The SBI specifies that Borysov is accused of illicit enrichment amounting to 142.9 million UAH (Art. 368-5 of the CC). Bail for this episode as an alternative to custody was reduced by courts from 150 million UAH to 12 million UAH and was posted by his defenders in May 2024. This episode was considered by the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv.

"It should be noted that from May 28, 2024, until February 16, 2026, the court did not consider the case, and sessions were effectively not held. On February 16, 2026, due to the impossibility of forming a new panel of judges, the jurisdiction of the case was transferred to the Podilsky District Court of Kyiv," the department stated.

The second episode regarding Borysov, as noted by the SBI, involves the legalization of 142.9 million UAH obtained by criminal means (Part 3 Art. 27, Part 3 Art. 209 of the CC of Ukraine). In May 2024, he was detained on this suspicion and the court chose a preventive measure—custody with the possibility of bail at 140 million UAH. The bail amount was reduced by court decisions to 39.3 million UAH and was posted by Borysov’s defenders in December 2025. In March 2025, the indictment in this proceeding was sent to the Pechersky Court of Kyiv.

At the same time, the Bureau emphasizes that the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court determined the jurisdiction of this case to be with the HACC, which is currently considering this episode.

Additionally, there are SBI proceedings regarding Borysov’s commission of military crimes—failure to report for service on time without valid reasons and evasion of military service duties through other deception (Part 5 Art. 407, Part 4 Art. 409, Part 4 Art. 358 of the CC of Ukraine). The indictment has been sent to the Prymorsky District Court of Odesa, and the case has been joined with proceedings already under consideration. For this episode, the court set bail at 20 million UAH, while the prosecution requested 300 million UAH. This bail was also posted by Borysov’s defenders in November 2025.

Finally, there is another case against Borysov for organizing the obstruction of the lawful activities of the AFU and the forgery and use of official documents (Part 3 Art. 27 Art. 114-1, Part 3 Art. 27 Part 1 Art. 366, Part 4 Art. 358 of the CC of Ukraine). In December 2024, the court set bail at 402 million UAH, but this was reduced to 44 million UAH and posted in September 2025.

"It should be noted that during the pretrial investigation in all four proceedings and at the time the indictments were sent to court, the former Odesa recruitment officer was in custody at the Kyiv Pretrial Detention Center; the change of said preventive measure occurred only at the stage of judicial review, where SBI investigators do not participate according to legislation," the SBI concluded, explaining why the former official is not currently in custody.