The defense of Olha Stefanishyna, Ukraine's ex-ambassador to the US, considers the notice of suspicion entirely without merit. According to her lawyers, the prosecution artificially inflated the amount at issue by lumping quite different expenses into a single episode — costly medical treatment, ticket purchases, and the acquisition of two apartments. Examined separately, none of these expenses constitutes the elements of a crime or falls under the classification of illicit enrichment.

The illicit enrichment article applies when expenditures exceed income. The lawyers are therefore convinced the prosecution is manipulating the figure of UAH 13 million by which Stefanishyna allegedly enriched herself illicitly.

One defense lawyer asserts that the case file contains no bank statements, even though the prosecutor claimed in his address that investigators had analyzed statements from Stefanishyna's accounts. In his view, the prosecution relied only on an inspection report. He argues that, procedurally, there should be a disc with the statements, which the prosecution did not submit for examination — so the reliability of this information cannot be verified.

On the purchase of the two apartments. According to the lawyer, the prosecution provided no real evidence of any such instructions from Stefanishyna. He said the prosecutor merely read out selected messages, “adding his own assumptions and inventions.” The apartments, the defense insists, were bought with the own funds of Tetiana — the friend who, the prosecution believes, bought them on Stefanishyna's instructions — and although investigators think she lacked the funds, this is not so. Per Stefanishyna's lawyer, Tetiana had UAH 5 million in legal income over three years; she has held senior business positions since 2004 and earns well.

Stefanishyna allegedly has no involvement in the Faina Town purchases, and their communication proves nothing — they simply have a close, long-standing friendship, talking almost daily and sharing their lives.

On the search for a house in the Kyiv Region. The defense argues that the prosecutor's claim that Stefanishyna had the money to buy a house is mistaken. The lawyer maintains she had only the INTENTION to buy, which the law does not prohibit. An installment plan, loans, or a mortgage could all be used in future for such a purchase, or the funds could come from selling other real estate or borrowing. He said the prosecution focused only on his client's dealings with realtors and the fact that she viewed houses — but this is not evidence of a purchase.

According to the defense, the prosecution provided no records of the financial status of Stefanishyna's parents. In reality, they had saved over UAH 4 million on their own to buy property and needed no financial support from their daughter — they only consulted her.

On the rental of the apartment on Yaroslaviv Val Street. Per the defense, Stefanishyna signed no lease agreement — it was all done by Dmytro, her assistant — so there is no basis for charging her with it.

On the inaccurate declaration. The defense says the right to use the apartment in the Lvivska Ploshcha residential complex has belonged to her parents since 2024, and investigators provided no proof that Stefanishyna herself used it. She did declare the apartment from mid-December 2024 — exactly when she began living there — and broke no rules.

On the Mercedes. Although the prosecution showed correspondence with the car's owner about traffic fines, the defense argues Stefanishyna was not required to declare the vehicle: to be declarable, a car must be used for more than six months, whereas the fines and surveillance-camera data add up to only 15 days — not enough for what investigators allege.

Overall, the defense says the investigation's evidence is very weak and the prosecution is trying to paper over the gaps with Stefanishyna's correspondence with colleagues and subordinates, spinning it into speculation. It deems the suspicion of illicit enrichment and inaccurate declaration unfounded and asks the court to reject the motion for a preventive measure.

The defense is also convinced that all the risks cited by investigators are abstract, since the suspect had and has no intention of absconding or fleeing Ukraine and never influenced witnesses.

Stefanishyna herself stated that she fully supports her lawyers and is certain the suspicion is unfounded. She voluntarily resigned as ambassador to the US and returned to Ukraine to cooperate fully with the investigation, and maintains she has no funds to post bail.

The prosecutor insists the bail cannot be reduced and that the amount he seeks — UAH 13,312,000 — fully matches the criminal acts committed by the suspect.

Having heard all parties, the HACC investigating judge retired to the deliberation room to decide on a preventive measure for the suspect.