The HACC continues to determine the preventive measure for Oleksandr Dydych. It was the turn of Dydych's defense to speak.

Dydych's defense maintains that the court should deny the motion. Among their key arguments:

• No signs of a criminal organization: the lawyers contend there are not enough suspects for the crime to be classified as committed by a criminal organization.
• Dydych is a lawyer and an individual entrepreneur: he was never connected to Prosecutor General's Office staff. The defense argues that casting Dydych specifically as a relative of Kropyva who works at the PGO is a formality and does not prove any link to the case.
• Dydych did not know about the funds or their origin: the suspect cannot be charged with legalizing criminally obtained funds, the defense argues, because he did not and could not have known the origin of Kropyva's money. Moreover, in the defense's account, Dydych took no part whatsoever in legalizing funds.
• Dydych provided legal services: the suspect is being prosecuted for entirely lawful acts. As an individual entrepreneur, Dydych could advise the suspects on legal matters, but this, the defense holds, does not indicate involvement in criminal acts.
• The suspicion against Dydych is unfounded: the investigation has provided no clear facts confirming his participation in the crime charged.

Dydych himself noted that he has practiced law for many years. He confirmed that he may have provided Kropyva with legal services, but only as his client. Dydych maintains that his legal services show no signs of unlawful transactions.

The court has now retired to the deliberation room to reach its decision.