A HACC investigating judge has retired to the deliberation room to decide on the preventive measure for former deputy head of the Office of the President Iryna Mudra.
At the hearing, the defense stressed that the bulk of the evidence — the covert-investigation records — rests on conversations of Maksym Mykytas, who, aware of the covert surveillance five months before the searches, deliberately hid it from Iryna Mudra so that she “wouldn't clam up” and would keep talking. The defense contends that the prosecution takes remarks out of context, ignoring passages where Mudra directly objects to unlawful acts.
The case file, the defense argued, contains no transaction signed by her, no payment document, and no evidence that she used her official powers to further criminal ends. Counsel note that being in a close personal relationship with someone of dubious reputation, or knowing that person's plans, is not a criminal offense. As for the laundering of UAH 150 million, the defense says investigators have not proven the funds' criminal origin.
The defense considers UAH 150 million bail utterly unrealistic and beyond her means. It submitted up-to-date bank statements showing far smaller account balances than those listed in a declaration from six months ago. Counsel also emphasized their client's impeccable procedural conduct and the fact that she has a young child and an ailing mother, making the risk of flight or hiding minimal. In the defense's account, all the sources of the funds are legal, the money having accumulated over the course of Mudra's business activity.
Mudra herself, speaking of her career, noted that she had not spent her whole life in public service and had never faced suspicions before. She recounted leaving abroad with her child after the full-scale war began, then returning when she was invited to take up the post. Mudra wanted to fight to hold Russia accountable for its crimes, she said, and aspired to play a key role in that effort.
Mudra said the public had already handed her a “media verdict,” whereas for years she had, on the contrary, been “returning property to the state.” She added that her procedural conduct is impeccable and that she is ready to fulfill all her obligations.
The defense therefore asked the court to refuse detention, citing the unproven risks and the excessive bail, and instead to impose release on personal surety. It also stated that Mudra “never received $4 million from Mykytas,” and that she does not understand why his words are treated as indisputable truth.
In Mykytas she had sought support and a wish to trust people: “I sought to trust people, sought to help those around me,” and “understanding the law and understanding people are two different skills — the first I managed; the second, sadly, I did not.”
