Material prepared by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives for LB.ua
In 2024, Ukraine was shaken by news of a wave of prosecutors with disability status among prosecutors in Khmelnytskyi region. It emerged that almost 500 prosecutors in the country were receiving disability pensions, and nearly half of them worked in Khmelnytskyi and Cherkasy regions. Because of this scandal, Prosecutor General Andrii Kostin resigned. Later, the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine (NSDC) abolished Medical and Social Expert Commissions (MSECs), and attention to this story subsided.
Already in the summer of 2025, the new Prosecutor General, Ruslan Kravchenko, promised to deal with the problem. Yet prosecutors have still not faced criminal liability and have barely faced disciplinary liability; some lost managerial positions and moved to rank-and-file positions.
The Agency for Legislative Initiatives has already written about why the hasty decisions of the new Prosecutor General, who is filing disciplinary complaints against prosecutors en masse, will do more harm than resolve the problem comprehensively. This is confirmed, among other things, by an article by NGL.media on how prosecutors are restoring their disability status through court after the notorious scandal. I suggest looking at this story in a broader context.
The Prosecutors Whose Dismissals Were Loudly Announced
Prosecutors whose disability status was cancelled or changed underwent re-examination at the Research Institute of Medical and Social Problems of Disability (RI) in Dnipro. Some decisions are being cancelled because of inconsistencies in the procedure at the secondary legislation level and the lack of lawyers at the RI. Prosecutors are restoring their previous status through administrative courts and are also recovering monthly payments. At the same time, they continue to work, because they lost only the payments, not their positions. In other words, these prosecutors have not faced any accountability and have even restored the disability status that was cancelled or changed as a result of re-examination. How did this happen?
In July 2025, Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko reported that 484 prosecutors with disability status worked in prosecution authorities, 41 of whom had applied for voluntary dismissal. At the same time, the Prosecutor General referred the issue of holding 348 prosecutors with disability status accountable to the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors (QDCP). After all, the head of a prosecution authority cannot simply dismiss a subordinate. Only an independent body — the QDCP — has the right to dismiss a prosecutor.
The status of prosecutors who have had disabilities since childhood, people who have sustained irreversible health losses, acquired disability as a result of the war or have cancer was not in doubt and did not require confirmation. There are 136 such people in prosecution authorities, so they were not subject to re-examination.
All other prosecutors were required to confirm their disability status before the designated Medical and Social Expert Commissions.
Two months after the scandal, in September 2025, Ruslan Kravchenko reported the first results:
- 57 prosecutors with disability status were dismissed from prosecution authorities;
- 56 prosecutors were dismissed from administrative positions;
- 228 disciplinary complaints were opened and are awaiting consideration by the QDCP.
After that, the leadership of the Prosecutor General’s Office did not report any progress in this case, and these figures in fact raise doubts.
Previous Statements vs Actual Accountability
As of 13 May 2026, the register of QDCP decisions contains only 29 decisions on dismissal from prosecution authorities. The reason was the unjustified acquisition of disability status and an increased pension amount. This is a disciplinary offence — actions that discredit the title of prosecutor, may cast doubt on their objectivity, impartiality and independence and violate the rules of prosecutorial ethics.
This is half the number of dismissed prosecutors announced by the Prosecutor General. Fourteen prosecutors were banned from holding higher positions and being transferred to a higher-level prosecution office for one year. Three more prosecutors received reprimands. There are no other legal grounds to dismiss a prosecutor, unless they choose to leave voluntarily or through dubious reorganisation schemes.
However, 246 of the 292 prosecutors whose cases the QDCP has already decided have not been punished for their actions. In other words, the QDCP did not see elements of a disciplinary offence in their actions and closed the proceedings. This is more than 80% of the total number of disciplinary proceedings concerning prosecutors with disability status.
Why were disciplinary proceedings closed? Most often, the internal investigation found insufficient information to confirm that there was a disciplinary offence in the prosecutor’s actions when they obtained the status of a person with a disability and applied for and received a pension. In addition, it was impossible to confirm that the prosecutor used official powers or official status and the related opportunities to obtain disability status.
In this case, it concerned a change in the disability group or the duration of its validity, as determined by the Research Institute of Medical and Social Problems of Disability (because the QDCP cannot assess the accuracy of a diagnosis — it is responsible only for the legal component). In other words, the prosecutor has confirmation from the healthcare system: ‘Everything is fine, the doctors simply made a mistake with the disability group and/or its duration’.
The limitation period in disciplinary cases is only one year. In other words, the QDCP had to put ordinary complaints about prosecutorial violations (situations where citizens complained about prosecutorial arbitrariness) aside in favour of these cases to meet such a short deadline. Most QDCP decisions since the beginning of 2026 concern prosecutors with disability status, while other cases have been pushed into the background. I am certain that this has negatively affected the quality of decisions adopted in haste, which may become a weak point if they are challenged before the High Council of Justice or in court.
Where Is the Criminal Accountability?
Unjustified disability status and benefiting from it are not only a violation of ethical rules but also the result of a criminal offence. All these cases must be investigated by the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), and the court must hold the guilty prosecutors accountable.
SBI press releases show that five criminal proceedings concerning prosecutors with disability status are being investigated. Indictments in some of them have already been sent to court. There are no separate statistics on this, and judgments, at least publicly, have not yet been published.
Yes, not all prosecutors who have been held disciplinarily liable should be convicted. However, the unjustified acquisition of disability status and pension payments is either corruption, that is, a bribe paid to an MSEC for a decision, forged documents to establish a false diagnosis, or simply buying disability status or receiving it as a gift (we know of such examples too — as a birthday present). Ultimately, it may involve direct participation in a criminal organisation or group scheme. The proceedings investigated by the SBI concern precisely such cases.
More Questions Than Answers
Thus, in response to the scandal over unjustified disability status among prosecutors, the prosecution service sent everyone for re-examination to the Research Institute of Medical and Social Problems of Disability. Some prosecutors underwent re-examination, while others avoided it, since it is not required by law. More than 300 disciplinary complaints against all prosecutors were then referred to the QDCP.
Depending on the prosecutor’s conduct, the consequences are as follows:
29 prosecutors were dismissed from prosecution authorities on the grounds of committing a disciplinary offence, that is, violating the rules of ethics. These are those who refused re-examination at the RI or whom the SBI notified of suspicion of committing a crime.
56 prosecutors who, according to Kravchenko, were dismissed from managerial positions. In other words, they moved to ordinary posts. There are no obstacles to their further appointment to a managerial position, and they have not faced legal liability.
Several prosecutors are suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings. The SBI is investigating the unjustified acquisition of disability status and pension payments.
Most prosecutors who went for re-examination are, in the view of the healthcare system, persons with disabilities because they confirmed their status. This concerns at least 246 prosecutors. Or their diagnosis was reduced — from disability group II to group III, or from indefinite status to time-limited disability status. Legally, therefore, this is only a matter of a medical system error in establishing the diagnosis. There are no elements of an offence in the prosecutor’s actions. Some prosecutors are recovering pension payments through court on the basis of procedural violations. Whether they found a way to ‘resolve’ the issue with the relevant institution of the Ministry of Health or whether the system really made a mistake remains an open question.
The key issue remains the state of the criminal proceedings being investigated by the SBI. Procedural guidance in them is provided by prosecutors of the relevant units supervising SBI investigators. But the entire chain of their work is organised vertically by the Prosecutor General, especially since his supervisory powers were expanded in July 2025. If he is serious about solving the problem of prosecutors with fictitious disability status, there is a reasonable question for him and the SBI. What is the status of criminal investigations? Why, after a year and a half, do we have only a few indictments? These are precisely the matters on which the Prosecutor General should report, because public interest has not disappeared.
Finally, a separate component of the problem is the response of the Ministry of Health and the haste in implementing the NSDC decision without real verification mechanisms. If doctors write that the diagnosis is correct, no evidence against it will stand.
However, this is already a question for the state leadership: what is the status of implementation of this decision? After all, unjustified disability status harms not only the budget, from which money goes into the pockets of prosecutors or other unscrupulous people, but also our country’s defence capability. It is no secret that this is a huge problem in the authorities responsible for mobilisation. The issue of criminal liability should be raised not only for prosecutors but also for all organisers, perpetrators and beneficiaries of these criminal schemes. This should be a priority for the Prosecutor General.
Author of the material:
