It has been proven in court that in December 2021, the director of a vocational college in the Shepetivka district of the Khmelnytskyi region entered into three contracts with a local entrepreneur for the supply of equipment, machinery, and accessories for a training and practical center. At the same time, none of the transactions were fully executed and within the specified timeframes.

Acting in collusion with the contractor, she drafted and issued a storage contract with false information, despite the fact that part of the equipment was not actually supplied. As a result, there was embezzlement and misappropriation of budget funds amounting to over half a million hryvnias.

Additionally, earlier, in November 2021, the head of the educational institution entered into a contract with another entrepreneur for the supply of a passenger car. The delivery note indicated the supposed acceptance of a "Renault Lodgy" by the college, which was actually nonexistent, resulting in the misappropriation of nearly another half a million budget funds.

At the time of the pre-trial investigation and court proceedings, the director was suspended from her position.

The actions of the official were qualified as misappropriation of someone else's property and official forgery (Part 3, 4 of Article 191, Part 1, 2 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). By the verdict of the first instance court, she was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to hold positions related to the performance of organizational, administrative, or economic functions for a period of 3 years.

The entrepreneur was found guilty of misappropriation of someone else's property and forgery of official documents (Part 3, 4 of Article 191, Part 2, 3 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). She was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to engage in entrepreneurial activities for a period of 3 years, with release from serving the sentence under probation.

The appellate court rejected all arguments from the defense regarding the mitigation of the sentence and upheld the verdict.