Vyacheslav Valeriyovych was set on fire

Position:

Judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv

Date and place of birth: 

The information is being clarified

Information about relatives:

The information is being clarified

Education:

Higher, Kyiv National University named after Taras Shevchenko

Information about work (when, where he worked, in what positions):

After finishing the university, he worked as a legal consultant in a night club, then, according to data PROSUD - assistant to Nina Karpachova (former Ombudsman and deputy).

1999-2006 – assistant judge of the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

Since 2006, he has been a judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv.

Involvement in one of the cases (which case, position at the time of involvement):

Involved in the so-called Sheremet case, the Sternenko self-defense case, and the Kolomoisky v. Ukraine case.

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case(s):

Obliged Privatbank to pay 350 billion UAH to Surkis' offshore firms.

According to Serhiy Sternenko, "The arsonist at the request of Portnov's lawyer and with the assistance of Avakov canceled the suspicion against Ivan Kuznetsov." Kuznetsov is one of the attackers of Serhiy, who died.

According to the lawyer Leonid Maslov (SENS Consulting), "starting from 10.08.2020 (automatic determination of the investigating judge) before the investigating judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv, Vyacheslav Valeriyovych Pidpaloy, there was case No. 757/34017/20-k, based on the complaint of Antonenko Andrii Serhiyovych (representative Galenchenko Vitaly Mykhailovych) on the inactivity of the investigator (prosecutor) and setting a deadline for reviewing the materials of the criminal proceedings. For 8 months, Mr. Pidpalyi DID NOT MAKE ANY DECISION in the case. This is evidenced by the data of the register of court decisions. After a complaint to the Prosecutor General's Office in April 2021, lawyer Galenchenko received a REFUSAL (dated 13.08.2020) to limit the prosecutor's time to review the defense materials with the motivation: the lawyer's notification about the opening of the materials to the prosecutor did not specify the time for the prosecutor's possible arrival for review. The formula "during working hours, having previously agreed on the time of familiarization with the lawyer Vitaly Galenchenko (phone)" was deliberately copied by us 1:1 from the same notification about the opening of materials by the prosecution. That is, "working hours, having previously agreed..." from investigator Byrk is a normal way of invitation, but not from the defense attorney.

Involvement in other cases that had public resonance (in which case was noticed, status within this case, year, month):

In 2014, he removed the arrest from the accounts of the ex-head of the NBU Serhii Arbuzov. There were 200 million hryvnias in the accounts, as writes UP edition. The reason for removing the arrest from the accounts in the court decision is that Arbuzov was not notified of the suspicions.

He refused to satisfy the complaints of Prosecutor Serhiy Horbatyuk, who was investigating crimes against the participants of the Revolution of Dignity, against the actions of Deputy Prosecutor General Yuriy Stolyarchuk. At the same time, in violation of the law, he artificially delayed the consideration of the complaint.

As reported DeJure Foundation, the arsonist returned to ex-minister of agrarian policy Mykola Prysiazhnyuk almost 2 million dollars, which were seized during the search of his sister's house.

This judge is also known for ordering Privatbank to pay Hryhori and Ihor Surkis about UAH 10 billion, which they allegedly lost as a result of the bank's nationalization. By the way, the Surkis brothers are longtime partners of Viktor Medvedchuk.