At the preventive measure hearing for former Presidential Office Head Andrii Yermak, the SAPO prosecutor responded to the defense's claims that the suspicion is unfounded and that no risks exist. Below are her key points.

On the absence of a criminal offense. Yermak is not charged with acquiring a house — he is charged with construction using criminally obtained funds: their use, conversion into future real estate objects and unfinished construction, and concealment of their origin. 

On the criminal origin of the funds. One source accounting for 97% of the identified funds was the “laundry” controlled by Mindich and Tsukerman. There are specific sums allocated and specific transaction dates for residence R2. The prosecutor also drew the investigating judge's attention, at both yesterday's and today's hearings, to evidence confirming that R2 is Andrii Yermak. The prosecution will further establish why Tsukerman and Mindich provided him with funds for the residence's construction, and why his father, in conversations with individuals involved in the construction, referred to them as the suspect Yermak's funds. 

On pre-trial detention. This case involves exceptional risks — never before has a preventive measure been applied to a person who had influence over virtually every senior state official, and who retains that influence even after leaving office. 

On the claim that the suspect was party to no relevant communications. The court examined phone examination records containing chats with Andrii Yermak, including his phone number — the same number listed in his State Migration Service record, which has since been removed from the relevant registry. The same number appeared on his entry in the Unified Registry of Lawyers of Ukraine and was saved under the name “Yermak Andrii Borysovych” in the contacts of the Chernyshov couple and his personal driver. 

On the submitted references regarding the Army+ project. The prosecutor noted they were printed in a uniform format or on letterhead, and in any event have no bearing on either the risks or the validity of the suspicion.