On January 21, 2026, an HACC investigating judge continued hearing a motion to seize the assets of Yuliia Tymoshenko, suspected of bribing MPs, and her husband, Oleksandr Tymoshenko. The judge has now retired to the deliberation room.

At the hearing, the detective asked the court to seize: 

• UAH 1.9 million in Yuliia Tymoshenko’s personal bank account; 
• vehicles and real estate owned by the Tymoshenko spouses as joint marital property;
• USD 40 thousand and USD 6 thousand found and seized during a search, which the prosecution believes may have been intended to bribe MPs and which the investigation considers proceeds of criminal activity; 
• other temporarily seized property: six mobile phones, a computer system unit, and a number of documents. 

The prosecution justified the requested seizure by the need to preserve physical evidence and by the possibility of special confiscation of the funds, or confiscation of property as punishment if the suspect is convicted on the merits. The detective emphasized that the request to seize account funds concerns only the amount that was in the bank account on the day the suspicion notice was served, while the suspect still has other cash and remains able to receive other income.

In addition, Oleksandr Tymoshenko owns a number of vehicles and real estate assets. This property was acquired during the marriage and is held as joint marital property, so the prosecutor asked the court to prohibit its sale and disposition.

The defense argued that there was no crime at all. The defense described the actions of the prosecution and of MP Kopytin, whose voice appears on NABU’s published recordings, as provocative. The defense also said the property listed by the detective is unrelated to the case, pointed to the alleged unlawfulness of the searches, and argued there were no legal grounds to seize the assets. 

Tymoshenko again insisted that the case against her is fabricated and that she has already been labeled “enemy number one.” She called it a politically motivated case and asked the court not to impose any seizure.

Earlier the investigating judge decided to consider the motion to seize the Tymoshenkos’ assets behind closed doors; however, in the consolidated case involving several asset-seizure motions, the hearing took place in open session with a broadcast.