The Shevchenko District Court of Dnipro on Monday’s plenary session made a decision to change the preventive measure for Member of Parliament Mykola Tishchenko and former law enforcement officer Bogdan Pysarenko — from bail and even around-the-clock house arrest to a night-time house arrest with the mandatory wearing of an electronic bracelet
This ruling caused significant public resonance and continues to attract the attention of society and law enforcement agencies. According to data obtained from sources, including local journalists and official reports, both suspects — Tishchenko and Pysarenko — will remain under night-time house arrest until July 12, 2023. This means they cannot leave their homes every evening from sunset until morning, serving as a preventive measure against possible pressure or obstruction of the investigation. The case was initially considered on Monday at the Shevchenko District Court of Dnipro, where a new stage in the investigation of both individuals took place. According to investigators, they are involved in the illegal deprivation of Liberty of a former fighter of the Kraken special unit of the Security Service of Ukraine, which is currently one of the most high-profile cases in relevant circles. Unofficial sources indicate that investigators and prosecutors assert these individuals committed illegal acts crossing legal boundaries, violating human rights, and undermining trust in the law enforcement system. It is worth noting that the story surrounding Mykola Tishchenko’s legal proceedings began back in June this year. On June 25, the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv decided to place him under house arrest with electronic monitoring and the obligation to surrender foreign passports due to suspicions of committing corruption offenses and other crimes, causing significant social resonance. At that time, Tishchenko was under 24/7 house arrest, and his place of residence was considered to be a Kyiv hotel — a five-star establishment, which raised numerous questions regarding the appropriateness of preventive measures considering the actual criminal danger. However, after several months of court procedures and changing circumstances, including difficulties in evidence gathering, on November 12, the Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld his preventative measure in the form of continuous house arrest, making it milder and more aligned with modern realities of the judicial system. On December 23, due to health issues, including reports of heart problems, Tishchenko did not appear in court — and the court did not take additional measures, temporarily lifting the obligation for him to attend hearings. Subsequently, on January 8, the deputy appeared in the Verkhovna Rada, participating in plenary sessions and demonstrating his presence and political activity, which again fueled public discourse regarding his status and the investigation. Two weeks later, on January 27, the court revisited the case and re-imposed a preventive measure for Tishchenko for two months — this time, opting for continuous house arrest with electronic monitoring. According to law enforcement officials, this decision is intended to ensure more effective protection against any attempts at pressure or escape, as well as guarantee the deputy’s presence at necessary investigative procedures. In summary, the case of Mykola Tishchenko and Bogdan Pysarenko remains on Ukraine’s judicial agenda. It raises many questions about the legality and objectivity of applying different preventive measures in the context of political activity and public resonance. Society and political opponents have repeatedly suggested the potential influence of political pressure and indicated that court decisions might be playing into political intrigues. Problems with the legality and the legal status of many ongoing processes related to Tishchenko and Pysarenko underscore the urgent need to address procedural adherence and the independence of the judiciary in Ukraine. We await further developments, as this case is not yet closed and continues to serve as an arena for political debate and legal discussions, which resonate strongly in society.