Member of Parliament Andrii Odarchenko was accused of attempting to bribe Mustafa Nayyem, Head of the State Agency for Restoration and Infrastructure Development, to secure funding from the Fund for the Elimination of the Consequences of Armed Aggression for repairing the buildings of the university he headed. The bribe was to be made in cryptocurrency — the first such case documented in Ukraine — which immediately made the proceedings highly publicized.

The HACC found Odarchenko guilty and sentenced him to eight years of imprisonment. The HACC Appeals Chamber upheld the verdict. The case passed through two judicial instances relatively quickly, largely due to the single-judge trial at the HACC, made possible after amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in April 2024. This was not only the first recorded bribe in cryptocurrency in the country, but also the first single-judge trial (outside of plea agreements) to undergo appellate review with a final, binding verdict.

We have previously covered the background of this case in detail. Now, we will examine the course of its consideration in both court instances and the facts that HACC ultimately recognized as proven.

How did Odarchenko offer a bribe in cryptocurrency?

Andrii Odarchenko is a Member of Parliament of the ninth convocation from Kharkiv, representing the Servant of the People party and a former member of the Anti-Corruption Policy Committee. At the same time, he held the position of Rector of the State Biotechnological University, though his contract was suspended after he assumed parliamentary duties.

In mid-2023, an interdepartmental working group was reviewing the university’s request for funding from the Fund for the Elimination of the Consequences of Armed Aggression to repair damaged facilities. 

Mustafa Nayyem, Head of the Agency for Restoration and Infrastructure Development, was also a member of this group. Odarchenko called him and suggested meeting in the Agency’s courtyard. During the conversation, he offered a bribe — either in cash or cryptocurrency — in exchange for facilitating a favorable decision on funding, and openly stated his intent to misappropriate part of the allocated funds.

A few days later, the MP repeated the offer, again promising a bribe of $50,000 in cryptocurrency after the decision was approved. He later increased the offer, proposing between $50,000 and $100,000 in crypto, plus 8% of the total amount the university would receive from the Fund once the desired decision was made. Odarchenko wanted Nayyem to select his university’s projects for financing while rejecting others. 

He also suggested involving an acquaintance who could help install software for using a hardware crypto wallet. During another meeting at a hotel restaurant, Odarchenko’s acquaintance indeed helped Nayyem set up the wallet to receive the bribe. The first portion — 0.39 BTC, equivalent to $10,036.88 at the time — was transferred to Nayyem’s cryptocurrency account. The remainder was to be paid after the Fund’s decision. However, immediately after receiving the first transfer, Nayyem reported the incident to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and officially became a whistleblower.

Progress of the сase in сourt

After Odarchenko was notified of suspicion in November 2023, the case moved forward quite swiftly. On April 16, 2024, less than six months later, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office sent the indictment to the High Anti-Corruption Court. In June 2024, the court scheduled the case for trial. No motions were filed by the defense requesting a collegial panel of three judges, so the case was heard by a single judge, which significantly expedited the proceedings. This case clearly illustrates the trend noted in our latest monitoring report: after Law No. 3655-IX, which allows single-judge trials in certain HACC cases, came into effect, this mechanism began to be applied successfully — though, as practice shows, sometimes procedural complications still arise.

By September 2024, the court had already completed the examination of written evidence and proceeded to witness questioning. However, when it was Odarchenko’s turn to testify, he disappeared and failed to appear in court. The HACC declared him wanted at both the national and international levels, and a few days later, on September 23, forfeited the bail of UAH 15 million paid on his behalf and imposed a detention measure in absentia.

In October 2024, the court decided to proceed under special judicial proceedings, meaning the trial continued in the absence of the defendant. Interestingly, at the next hearing, Odarchenko joined remotely via video link for questioning, claiming he had left Ukraine due to “threats to his life and health,” but he refused to disclose his whereabouts.

On November 14, 2024, the judge delivered the verdict. The entire trial lasted just seven months.

Court’s findings

The HACC found Odarchenko guilty under Article 369(4) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — offering an undue benefit to a public official who holds a paricularly responsible position, in the interests of himself and third parties.

According to the court, the content of conversations recorded by detectives showed that Odarchenko repeatedly expressed his intent to offer a bribe, discussed methods of transferring it, avoided cash payments, and proposed a share of the funds expected from the Fund for the Elimination of the Consequences of Armed Aggression. In particular, this was evident in the recorded conversation held in the Agency’s courtyard:

Odarchenko: “Will the money actually go through?”

Nayyem: “You mean in crypto?”

Odarchenko: “I’m telling you right away — I won’t hand over anything in cash… Better crypto — that’s what I deal with.”

The court also noted that in later discussions, the defendant clarified the percentage he expected to receive:

Odarchenko: “Well, honestly… I don’t know… maybe 15–20, depending on who we work with, just to avoid any noise…”

During subsequent meetings, he proposed various payment options and discussed the details: 

Odarchenko: “I’ll give you the first wallet, just to send a little there so you can calm down. It’ll go through and that’s it…”

Odarchenko: “Let’s agree now — how do you usually do it? We’ll make some profit, say 15–20 at most, around 17 on average… Later I’ll feel bad if I gave too little or too much… If the money comes in, you pass it to me — I’ll return it to you, even if you’re not involved anymore.”

The court further established that Odarchenko used concealment methods during these meetings. For example, mentioning that he possessed special devices: 

Odarchenko: “…I don’t talk at all, you know what kind of gadget I have?” “Order one for yourself — I can send you a link… a ‘gentleman’s set,’ three items, one of them, for example, you use to scan all the cameras when you enter…” 

Moreover, records showed that Odarchenko spoke in whispers almost constantly, and on the day he met with Nayyem, he even asked him to do the same, saying that whispers could not be identified. He also asked Nayyem to remove his phone or place it under his foot, as he himself usually did. According to the court, these details demonstrated that Odarchenko fully understood what he was doing and was aware of the illegality of his actions.

A key piece of evidence was the transfer of 0.39 BTC to Nayyem’s hardware wallet, confirmed in the Ledger Live application. This transaction was preceded by an agreement between the parties and a coded message — “Hi” — sent via the Threema messenger as confirmation of payment.

As a result, Odarchenko was sentenced to eight years in prison with confiscation of all his assets. He was also barred for three years from holding state or municipal positions, as well as from working in enterprises with a significant share of state ownership.

The court applied special confiscation, ordering the seizure of 0.39 BTC from the Ledger Nano S Plus hardware wallet, along with two other cryptocurrency storage devices and two mobile phones, in favor of the state.

Did the court establish provocation?

The defense argued that Odarchenko had allegedly been provoked into offering an unlawful benefit, claiming that law enforcement officers, together with Nayyem, had created a situation intended to push him into committing the crime.

According to the defense, the meetings between Odarchenko and Nayyem recorded on August 1, 2023 were not their first. They had reportedly met at the end of May 2023, and from their second encounter, Nayyem had allegedly hinted that a bribe would be needed to secure funding from the Fund. The defense insisted that Nayyem had tried to gain Odarchenko’s trust, portraying himself as a key decision-maker: he allegedly instructed how to file an application to the Agency (even though it was later redirected to the Ministry of Education and Science), mentioned that approvals from the Budget Committee were required, and created the impression that without his intervention, the university would not receive funding. 

The defense also referred to Nayyem’s alleged attempts to “increase pressure” during meetings and to create a sense of “phased payment,” for example, by using the “rubbing fingers” gesture — a supposed hint at a monetary exchange.

However, the court found that these arguments were not supported by evidence. The information about the bribe offer had been obtained during operational measures concerning Nayyem, which were unrelated to Odarchenko, whose actions were recorded incidentally.

The court also established that the initiative for the meetings and the discussion of the bribe came entirely from Odarchenko himself. The gestures and remarks of Nayyem, including his suggestion to meet outside the office, were, in the court’s view, not indicative of any criminal intent and could not be regarded as entrapment.

How did the appeal proceed?

The appeal proceedings were opened on December 24, 2024, and the first hearing took place in February 2025. Odarchenko joined via video conference, and the presiding judge emphasized that this participation format would be allowed only as an exception for the first hearing. At later sessions, the judicial panel denied his motion to appear remotely, and Odarchenko did not participate further in the hearings.

By July 2025, the parties moved to closing arguments, and on October 10, the HACC Appeals Chamber delivered its final ruling — upholding the verdict without changes.

During the appeal, the prosecutor argued that the eight-year prison sentence was too lenient and did not serve the purposes of correction or deterrence. She stressed that the defendant evaded parental responsibilities, left Ukraine illegally through unofficial border crossings, was declared internationally wanted, violated his parliamentary oath, and committed corruption offenses during wartime. 

The prosecutor also pointed to an error in applying special confiscation to the Ledger Nano S Plus hardware wallet, which, she argued, did not constitute an instrument of crime and belonged to another person. She therefore requested the court to cancel the relevant parts of the verdict and impose a new sentence — ten years of imprisonment with full confiscation of Odarchenko’s property, including land plots, houses, apartments, a car, cooperative shares, and cryptocurrency, while ordering the return of the hardware wallet to its rightful owner after the funds were withdrawn.

The defense, in turn, maintained that the elements of the offense had not been proven, claiming that the first-instance court had misclassified the offense under Article 369(4) instead of Article 369-2(1) of the Criminal Code, failed to consider Nayyem’s alleged provocative conduct, and overlooked circumstances that might have affected the legality of the decision. The defense also insisted that the evidence was inadmissible, requesting that the verdict be overturned and the proceedings closed.

However, the appeals court rejected all arguments of the defense and upheld the conclusions of the first instance. It ruled that the procedural actions were lawful, that there were no grounds to recognize any provocation or inadmissibility of evidence, and that the legal qualification under Article 369(4) was well-founded.

The judicial panel further noted that the eight-year sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offense. The court considered mitigating factors — Odarchenko’s lack of prior convictions, positive character references, his minor child, and professional achievements.

Regarding confiscation, the court fully applied the statutory sanction, confirming that Odarchenko must forfeit all his property, including the Ledger Nano S Plus hardware wallet, which had been used to store and transfer the cryptocurrency constituting the bribe. The appeals chamber held that the special confiscation of this device was lawful and justified.

The significance of the Odarchenko case

As noted at the beginning of this article, the Odarchenko case is the first documented and adjudicated instance of a cryptocurrency bribe in Ukraine — a precedent of both legal and institutional importance. 

The case was handled remarkably swiftly: only seven months passed from the indictment’s submission to the first-instance verdict, and just a year and a half for both judicial instances to reach final judgment. This demonstrates the efficiency of the single-judge trial mechanism. At the same time, the case underscores ongoing procedural challenges: the defendant avoided court appearances, illegally left the country, and was placed on an international wanted list. This once again highlights the systemic problem of corruption suspects evading justice by fleeing abroad. 

We will continue to monitor the case’s further developments and hope that Ukrainian authorities will be able to ensure the enforcement of Odarchenko’s sentence, including through international cooperation mechanisms.

This material is prepared by the Transparency International Ukraine team