Poltava court dismisses tool-kit prosecution over uncertainty about permission for private repair

The local criminal trial court in Poltava dismissed the prosecution against Taras Melnyk, denying its request for a conviction and penalty over his use of a workshop tool kit for a private repair. The court found that he took and returned the kit, but that the prosecution had not proved he lacked permission.

The dispute turned on the scope of an overnight loan: did permission to take the tools extend to a private repair, or only to work for a workshop customer? No conviction was entered, so Melnyk’s alternative request for a lighter sentence did not arise. Neither party was ordered to pay anything.

A signed statement from the workshop manager supported the finding that Melnyk carried the kit away at closing and returned it the following morning without apparent damage. Although submitted three times, it remained one account, not evidence from three independent witnesses.

The statement described a belief that the tools were for a workshop customer and a demand for their return after the private purpose became known. But that belief did not establish what had been communicated to Melnyk or what he understood.

The Telegram exchange was central but incompletely documented. The judgment recorded that the claimed customer-work restriction did not appear in the visible messages, while their exact wording and context were not reproduced in the record. Neither side’s interpretation could therefore be treated as conclusively established.

Applying the requirement for reliable evidence of every criminal element, the court placed the burden on the prosecution—not on Melnyk to prove permission. It also distinguished the kit’s estimated UAH 18,000 value from an actual loss: the tools had been returned without apparent damage, and no separate financial harm was established.

The prosecution argued that permission for an overnight loan did not necessarily authorize private work. It relied on the manager’s statement and the contention that Melnyk had not clearly disclosed the private purpose, while acknowledging that the messages did not express the claimed customer-work limit.

The defence relied on the Telegram exchange as supporting Melnyk’s understanding that borrowing was permitted. It sought dismissal, arguing that the prosecution had to prove each required element. The court stressed that submissions from either side were arguments, not independent proof of every asserted fact.

The case concerned tools taken from a workshop at closing time for an evening repair. The workshop sought no replacement payment because the kit had been returned.

The dismissal rested on the limits of the evidence presented. It did not establish that private use had been approved or independently validate Melnyk’s account of the messages; it established that the prosecution had not proved the contrary.