Oleksii Stupak's defense presented its counterarguments to the NABU–SAPO motion for a preventive measure against their client. One of Stupak's lawyers addressed the court, calling the suspicion unfounded and the evidence insufficient and based on a loose interpretation of third parties' conversations.

At the outset, the lawyer moved to question Stupak's doctor as a witness, stating that the suspect has chronic health problems requiring constant medical supervision and treatment. The judge ruled to question the doctor after the defense had finished its presentation.

In his statement, the lawyer criticized the prosecution's key evidence. He stressed that of the five covert-investigation records submitted by the prosecutor, not one captures Stupak's own voice. Stupak was indeed recorded during visual surveillance, but that does not confirm the content of any criminal arrangements.

The lawyer also rejected the claim that Mudra had “connected” Mykytas with Stupak. He argued that the prosecutor had misread the words of the former deputy head of the Office of the President — in the conversations she in fact stressed that she “could not simply hand out the management board chair's contact.”

The defense offered its own interpretation of the events the prosecutor considers criminal:

• The June 10 meeting with Iryna Mudra. This was a purely professional and lawful meeting devoted to the privatization of the state-owned Sense Bank. Given Mudra's experience in the banking sector — which the prosecution itself notes — such consultations with the management board chair are routine, and there is no evidence that laundering was discussed.
• The June 16 meeting in Khodosivka. Stupak was indeed in the area, but to receive treatment at the Manufactura clinic. The lawyer called the meeting with Yelizarov an ordinary professional consultation, stressing that Stupak is a professional banker; advising an acquaintance on the procedure for posting bail through a bank is his everyday work and carries no elements of a crime.

The lawyer pointed to the bank's hierarchy: as management board chair, Stupak reported to the Supervisory Board, headed by Mykola Hladyshenko. Under the charter, the Supervisory Board is the higher body, so Stupak supposedly had no unilateral authority to instruct the financial-monitoring department in circumvention of procedures.

The lawyer also drew attention to the timeline. From June 23, Stupak was reportedly on an official business trip abroad. It was precisely in that period — June 23 to 26 — that the bulk of the payments came through, and it is for that same period that Stupak is accused of influencing the bank's financial-monitoring department and steering the flow of funds, even though he was not physically in Ukraine.

The preventive-measure hearing is being held behind closed doors owing to the disclosure of medically confidential information.