The HACC Appeals Chamber is reviewing the pretrial restriction imposed on Iryna Mudra, former Deputy Head of the Office of the President. On August 25, 2026, the HACC ordered her detention with the alternative of UAH 20 million bail in the Forrest Gump and Themis cases. The bail for her has not been paid so far, so she remains in the pretrial detention center.

Mudra is suspected of participation in a criminal organization, the unlawful acquisition of property of Budmontazhservice LLC and Phylosophy Development LLC, and money laundering.

The appeals were lodged by the prosecutor and Mudra's defense lawyers. However, at the start of the hearing on September 1, it also emerged that another attorney — Andrii Yosypov of Barristers, with whom Mudra has a legal services agreement but who does not represent her in this case — had filed an appeal in Mudra's interests. The defense lawyers present and the suspect herself stated that they had not known about this appeal and had not coordinated a legal position with Yosypov.

The court then summoned Yosypov to the hearing on September 2, but he failed to appear. At the hearing, Mudra asked that the appeal be left without consideration and waived him as counsel in this criminal proceeding. However, the criminal procedure law requires the court to arrange a meeting between the defense lawyer and the suspect. Mudra's defense lawyers present at the hearing, declared this to be procedural terrorism and asked the court to issue a separate ruling on Yosypov's abuse of procedural rights and to refer the matter to the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar.

When the attorney did not arrive after the recess, the court decided to hear the case without him.

The court then read out the demands set out in the appeals. The defense sought to have the pretrial restriction canceled, arguing that the suspicion was unsubstantiated, that no risks had been proven, and that the bail amount was disproportionate. Defense lawyer Artem Krykun-Trush also asked that a personal recognizance obligation be applied should the court nonetheless conclude that the suspicion was substantiated. The prosecutor, in turn, asked in his appeal that the bail amount be increased to UAH 150 million, citing the gravity of the offenses, the suspect's substantial wealth, and her foreign connections.

The defense's position

At the hearing, the defense lawyers stood by their appeals. They first focused on analyzing the suspect's financial standing, arguing that her actual assets in her ownership amount to only about UAH 5 million — as confirmed by current bank statements.

The defense lawyer also refuted the claim that Mudra owns a 2023 Range Rover, noting that, according to the documents, it belongs to the suspect's daughter. The attorney emphasized that bail must be realistically payable, and that amounts of UAH 20 million or UAH 150 million turn it into detention with no alternative, which runs counter to ECHR case law.

The defense also asked the court to disregard the words of Maksym Mykytas recorded on audio, in which he says he left $4 million with Iryna Mudra, since, in their view, Mykytas “talks so much nonsense.”

Speaking about the risks, the defense concentrated on the risk of absconding. The attorney noted that holding three international passports, which had been official service passports, does not in itself indicate that a person will necessarily abscond from the investigation. Moreover, having relatives abroad (Mudra's mother lives in Israel and her daughter in the United States) does not equate to having a place to abscond to.

As to whether the suspicion was substantiated, the defense relies on Mykytas's words: “There's nothing on her (Mudra — ed.) at all” and “She wasn't involved in this philosophy thing at all.” These words supposedly confirm that Mudra had no involvement in the episodes imputed to her and that there is no evidence of her guilt.

In addition, the defense lawyer noted that Mudra's stay in the pretrial detention center creates difficulties in communicating with her, particularly given the absence of a shelter and the impossibility of communicating during air raid alerts.

The suspect's position

Mudra backed her defense lawyers at the hearing. She said she does not admit to any of the five offenses of which she is suspected. Among the acts imputed to her there is no receipt of unlawful benefit, yet the prosecutor sets the bail amount as though she had received millions in bribes. Mudra asked the court to assess not individual phrases but their context, as well as statements that the prosecutor does not present as evidence. She noted that her 8-year-old son is currently staying with acquaintances of hers, including friends and a former assistant, and so asked the court to release her from custody so that she could be with her son and raise him.

During the hearing, one of the judges on the panel read out fragments of conversations involving Mykytas and Mudra concerning possible influence over the judicial branch. The judge was interested in whether Iryna Mudra had planned to interfere in the work of the Supreme Court and the HACC, in particular in the process of electing the head of the Anti-Corruption Court in 2026. The quoted recordings featured ambiguous phrases about dividing judges into those who “can” and “cannot be touched.” When the judge asked directly about the nature of her communication with specific HACC judges (Yevhen Kruk, Tetiana Lytvynko, Olena Chernova) and Appeals Chamber judge Oleksandr Semennykov, as well as about possible influence over them, the suspect replied that they had discussed the general procedure for selecting the HACC head. Judge Semennykov, according to Mudra, she had seen once or twice. These phrases were spoken in a private conversation, and she had merely been trying to provoke an emotional reaction in Mykytas.

Also, according to the conversation materials presented, in 2025 the individuals in the case discussed the possibility of “reaching an arrangement” with HACC head Vira Mykhailenko. They were supposedly to win her favor by assisting in the search for and allocation of new premises for the HACC's needs.

The prosecutor's position

In his address, the prosecutor rejected the defense's arguments, insisting that Iryna Mudra's financial standing fully confirms both her ability to pay a substantial bail amount and the existence of risks within the criminal proceeding.

He paid particular attention to the 2023 Range Rover that supposedly belongs to the suspect's daughter. The prosecutor noted that, despite the vehicle being registered to the daughter, it is in fact used by Mudra herself, who also sees to its maintenance. The prosecution observed that the car was registered and began to be actively used in 2023. At that time, Mudra's daughter was outside Ukraine. Over the whole of 2023, the “owner” of the car was in the country for only 14 days, whereas the car's mileage came to 11,000 kilometers. This, in the prosecutor's view, refutes the defense's version that the vehicle was used by the suspect's daughter.

The prosecutor also asked the court to take into account Mudra's officially declared savings in dollars and shekels, as well as the situation with the jewelry confiscated from Mudra. He mentioned materials from covert investigative actions in which the suspect and Mykytas discussed a defense strategy in case questions arose about the expensive jewelry: namely, that if anyone noticed the jewelry on her, one could always say it was a fake.

As to the defense's appeals concerning Mudra's reputation and professional achievements, the prosecutor stated that positions held and past merits should not affect the assessment of risks in a criminal proceeding.