Today, the HACC Appeals Chamber considered appeals against the interim measure imposed on former Minister of Justice and Energy Herman Halushchenko, who was previously placed in custody with an alternative bail of UAH 200 million. 

Because bail has not been posted, Halushchenko joined today’s hearing by video link from a pre-trial detention facility.

Position of the defense

Halushchenko’s attorney asked the court to overturn the first-instance ruling and impose round-the-clock house arrest. In the defense’s view, HACC’s decision was unlawful and unreasoned, and the court failed to take ECHR case law into account.

In support of this position, the lawyer stressed what he described as a mistaken identification of the suspect. According to the defense, Halushchenko and the person referred to in the case materials under the aliases Sigismund and Professor are different people, and linking them is merely a procedural convenience for the prosecution. The defense also pointed to an alleged conflict of interest: the notice of suspicion was drafted and served by an NABU detective who is a colleague of Mahamedrasulov. During the initial interim-measure hearing, an SAPO prosecutor read out correspondence with a Deputy Minister of Justice in which the latter was asked to ensure “special” detention conditions for Detective Mahamedrasulov.

Challenging the risks cited by prosecutors, the defense again argued that Halushchenko’s border crossings during martial law indicate not a risk of flight but, on the contrary, proper procedural conduct, as he returned to Ukraine each time. As for the risks of destroying evidence or influencing witnesses, the defense said the investigating judge did not list any specific items allegedly in the suspect’s possession and provided no factual confirmation of attempts to contact witnesses unlawfully or obstruct the investigation. The lawyers also called the argument about the risk of committing a new offense unfounded. 

The defense described bail of UAH 200 million as excessive, disproportionate, and unjustified, effectively equivalent to detention without an alternative. They argued it exceeds the maximum “standard” bail amount set by law by more than 200 times. Summing up, the defense said the only real risk in the case is that Ukraine would “be covered in shame” because of the practice of imposing unjustifiably large bail amounts.

Another defense lawyer partly supported these arguments but asked the court to cancel detention altogether.

During the hearing, the judges also asked about the funding sources for the suspect’s children’s education in Switzerland. Halushchenko confirmed they study abroad but said he did not know the exact cost of tuition. He stated that payment was made by the children’s godfather and that older children also helped.

Position of the prosecution

An SAPO prosecutor asked the court to overturn the first-instance ruling, grant the motion in full, and set bail at UAH 425 million.

The prosecutor opposed the defense appeals and emphasized that the aliases were not chosen at random: linking them to Halushchenko is supported, he said, by covert investigative records and by a spreadsheet called Manhattan, which allegedly tracked the receipt and accumulation of unlawfully laundered funds. For more on these covert-investigation reports, see our material on the interim measure hearing in Halushchenko’s case. The prosecutor described this not as mere “black accounting,” but as a structured distribution of roles within the criminal organization and a systematic allocation of unlawfully obtained assets.

The prosecutor acknowledged that there were no recorded direct contacts or joint actions between Halushchenko and other participants in the scheme. At the same time, he emphasized facts of indirect links between the suspect and other figures in the case, which, in the prosecution’s view, indicate Halushchenko’s role as an accomplice in arranging the provision of an undue benefit.

The prosecution asked the court not only to keep Halushchenko in custody, but also to grant its own appeal and raise bail to UAH 425 million. To justify that amount, the prosecutor stated that companies allegedly involved in the scheme—whose beneficial owners are the suspect’s wife and children—hold at least UAH 536 million in their accounts. In SAPO’s view, this demonstrates the suspect’s real financial ability to post significantly higher bail.

As to risks, the prosecutor said the investigation had established that Halushchenko used concealment measures, indicating attempts to obstruct the investigation.

In response to a judge’s question as to whether the investigation was certain that the alias Professor belongs to Halushchenko and whether other versions were possible, the prosecutor said this conclusion is based on covertly recorded conversations, but acknowledged that there is one conversation that does not allow the person to be identified conclusively. 

In closing arguments, both sides maintained their appeals. 

The court then retired to the deliberation room to issue its decision.