On April 23, 2026, the HACC upheld the seizure of a house in Bratislava belonging to Yaroslav Dubnevych's daughter Roksolana Pyrtko and her husband Mykhailo Pyrtko.
Mykhailo Pyrtko joined the hearing via video link. According to NGL.media, he is currently in Argentina. He stated that neither he nor his wife accept the seizure of their property, arguing that the prosecutor merely recites the general outline of the criminal proceedings without providing any evidence of the funds used to purchase the house being of unlawful origin.
Pyrtko maintained that all the prosecution's assertions rest solely on assumptions, as the investigation has established neither a specific source of funds nor their movement. He presented the court with documents he claims show that 80% of the house purchase was financed through a bank mortgage, and that the lending bank conducted a thorough check of the money's origin before approving the loan. The remaining amount — a down payment of EUR 117,000 — he described as the family's official income, fully sufficient for such a transaction. Pyrtko argued that the prosecution fails to account for his total declared income of EUR 2 million, as well as his wife Roksolana's income: UAH 61 million from business activities in Ukraine between 2008 and 2020, and approximately EUR 100,000 earned in Slovakia in 2022–2023.
Pyrtko emphasized that the case materials contain no evidence that the funds for the house purchase came from his father-in-law Yaroslav Dubnevych, and that the entire investigation rests on family ties alone — which, he argued, cannot by itself indicate unlawful acquisition of property. In his view, the house was not obtained through criminal means and its purchase is fully supported by the family's legitimate income. He therefore considers the seizure entirely unfounded.
Pyrtko also noted that the house is currently uninhabitable and requires a major overhaul, which the seizure makes impossible. He considers it unjust that his family continues to pay the mortgage on a house they cannot use due to what he regards as unlawful restrictions.
The panel asked whether Roksolana Pyrtko had indeed received dividends from Cypriot companies of which she is a co-founder in 2016–2017. Pyrtko confirmed that she had, but stressed those companies are unrelated to the criminal acts imputed to her father.
The panel also questioned why Pyrtko believes he cannot carry out renovations, given that the seizure order only prohibits selling or gifting the property. He replied that Slovak experts had apparently told him that a special permit is required to renovate a seized property.
The prosecutor submitted written objections to the motion to lift the seizure. At the hearing, he added only that the investigation possesses evidence of the criminal origin of Roksolana Pyrtko's funds and asked the court to deny the motion.
