The HACC Appeals Chamber has upheld the first-instance decision setting bail of UAH 6 million as the preventive measure for Olha Stefanishyna.

The Appeals Chamber began hearing the appeal on August 19. Two of Stefanishyna's defense counsel filed appeals against the first-instance decision.

The defense's position

The lawyers insist the suspicion is entirely unfounded and the first-instance ruling unlawful, arguing that the court failed to properly weigh the defense's arguments and formally accepted only the prosecution's version.

The defense disputes as erroneous the investigation's calculations covering over UAH 500,000 of Stefanishyna's alleged illicit enrichment. The lawyers stress that the expenditures were established not from official documents but from the explanations of a NABU specialist. The claim that a friend's purchase of two apartments was somehow irregular is far-fetched, they argue, since she had made similar purchases before. As for two renovated apartments in the Faina Town residential complex, investigators did not even establish who actually received the rental income — and the defense states that Stefanishyna did not.

On the inaccurate-declaration allegation, the lawyers note that the right to use her parents' apartment did not have to be declared, since Stefanishyna lived there fewer than 180 days; they add that the value of the right to use a Mercedes has been substantially overstated.

Beyond that, none of the risks the prosecutor cited at first instance actually exist. The defense pointed out that after receiving the notice of suspicion via a messaging app, Stefanishyna voluntarily returned to Ukraine from the United States the next day.

The lawyers submitted evidence on the funds in Stefanishyna's bank accounts, stressing the investigation's lack of objectivity in analyzing them. On the defense's account, Stefanishyna does not have enough money to post the UAH 6 million bail on her own.

Stefanishyna's defense asked the court to overturn the ruling imposing the preventive measure. Should the court find the suspicion well-founded, it asked for a preventive measure in the form of a personal recognizance or a smaller amount of bail.

Stefanishyna's position

The suspect emphasized that the prosecution's version rests on assumptions alone, unsupported by any proper and admissible evidence, and on that basis asked for the preventive measure imposed on her to be overturned.

The prosecutor's position

The prosecution fully opposed granting the appeal, calling it perfunctory and groundless, and noted that the defense's arguments fall outside the scope of judicial review at this stage of the proceedings; the first-instance ruling should therefore stand. The prosecutor further remarked that all the risks he had outlined are real, not merely formal as the defense contends: the prosecution maintains that Stefanishyna could indeed abscond abroad, influence witnesses, and so on.

The prosecutor stressed that the first-instance decision is lawful and well-founded, and that the bail set is already far smaller than the value of the unjustified assets Stefanishyna is suspected of acquiring.