The HACC continues to determine the preventive measure for Serhii Kutsyi. It was the defense's turn to speak.

The defense opened by drawing attention to Kutsyi's job. The lawyer noted that Kutsyi was a driver with none of the duties the prosecution ascribes to him. The defense insists Kutsyi had no part in providing cover for call centers or in legalizing criminally obtained property.

The lawyer also observed that Kutsyi is not an accomplice in legalizing criminally obtained funds. The investigation's account — that Kutsyi unlawfully facilitated the re-registration of real estate from Kropyva's father to his own wife — is mistaken. The defense stressed that Kutsyi could not have known of Kropyva's criminal intent. Kutsyi could not, in the lawyer's words, “help legalize what was long since legalized.” The way the suspicion is laid out, the defense argues, is one continuous assumption.

On the other episode charged to Kutsyi — helping Kropyva obstruct, disguise, and use two cars — counsel noted there is no mention anywhere that the cars were of illicit origin.

On the risks, the defense remarked that most of the motion concerns a different suspect. The lawyer also pointed to Kutsyi's strong and settled social ties in Ukraine, noted that his family's means are modest, and said he had traveled abroad outside work assignments only once. The cited discussions of investment projects, the lawyer said, have nothing to do with Kutsyi at all.

The bail the prosecutor proposed, the defense argues, amounts in practice to detention with no alternative.

The defense therefore asks the court to deny the prosecutor's motion.

Kutsyi himself had nothing to add to his lawyers' presentation.

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