On January 16, 2026, the HACC ordered Yuliia Tymoshenko, suspected of offering bribes to MPs, to be released on bail of UAH 33.3 million.

She was also assigned a number of obligations:

• Appear when summoned by NABU detectives and the court,

• Not leave the city of Kyiv or the Kyiv region

• Report any change of residence

• Refrain from communicating with witnesses 

• Surrender her international passport.

At the start of the hearing, Tymoshenko’s defense counsel stated that the day before, he had asked a detective who would be the investigating judge, and the detective replied, “Dubas,” even though, at that moment, the motion had not yet been submitted to the court. The judge noted that the motion was filed at 02:05 P.M. In other words, the suspect’s counsel implied that the judge who would consider the interim measure had been determined in advance.

In her own statement, Tymoshenko also stressed that the detectives knew in advance who would consider her interim measure—before interrogations were conducted and documents obtained—thereby implying the case against her was fabricated. At the same time, Tymoshenko said she would trust the judge and carry out a kind of “experiment” to see whether her past support for establishing NABU had been in vain.

The prosecutor requested that Tymoshenko be released on bail of UAH 50 million and that additional obligations be imposed, including surrendering her international passport and wearing an electronic monitoring bracelet. He attached various documents to the motion—authorizations, records, letters—and stated that on January 12, 2026, at the party office of Batkivshchyna, Tymoshenko offered a Member of Parliament—who is a witness in the case and whose name the investigation is not disclosing—USD 10,000 in exchange for agreed voting in parliament. According to the prosecutor, this bribe was not intended as a one-off: it was planned as a monthly payment, paid in advance for two plenary sessions. The prosecutor then read out conversations recorded through covert investigative measures:

Tymoshenko: “For us, one month counts as two sessions.”

MP: “Uh-huh.”

Tymoshenko: “So we pay ten for two sessions… Tomorrow evening, here at my place, and I’ll hand it over… I have to pass along what you’re supposed to vote for.”

The prosecutor went on to read other excerpts indicating conspiratorial precautions, the involvement of additional persons, and Tymoshenko’s instructions regarding voting:

Tymoshenko: “We vote for the dismissal and we don’t vote for the appointment… Because right now, basically, we’re behaving like an opposition the right way… I mean, we ‘don’t like’ them all—so we’re for the dismissals.”

Tymoshenko stated that the voice on the recordings belonged to MP Ihor Kopytin. She said he had initiated the meeting, insisted on the contact, and claimed he did not want to be with the majority, proposing cooperation instead. Tymoshenko alleged that Kopytin was interested in having his own NABU criminal proceeding closed, and therefore cooperated with detectives and agreed to act as a provocateur. At the same time, she maintained that she perceived the meeting solely as a search for like-minded allies, but it turned out to be a NABU provocation. As for NABU’s recordings, Tymoshenko insisted they were “completely edited together.”

The prosecutor added a number of handwritten draft notes with voting tables, positions of parliamentary factions, and lists of MPs, found on Tymoshenko’s desk. He reported that during searches, an iPhone 13 was seized that had only the Signal messenger installed. It contained correspondence with just one account. Five other phones were also seized. As the prosecutor set out these circumstances, Tymoshenko repeatedly interrupted him, insisting it was merely voting analytics. 

In addition, a file was found on a computer in the suspect’s reception area which the prosecutor described as a “cashbox”—an Excel spreadsheet showing payments for 2022–2026. Tymoshenko claimed the file concerned everyday expenses for coffee, tea, sweets, and biscuits.

The prosecutor then introduced a record of communication with the previously mentioned account concerning voting instructions. Interrupting him, Tymoshenko said it was simply coordination of voting and routine parliamentary work. She stated she would not leave Ukraine even by force as long as there is a “fascist regime” in Ukraine.

Regarding the interim measure, the prosecutor asserted that all five statutory risks for the criminal proceedings were present: risk of absconding; distortion or destruction of evidence; influencing witnesses; committing another criminal offense; and otherwise obstructing the proceedings.

He stated that Tymoshenko’s personal savings amount to UAH 15 million, her husband’s savings to UAH 28 million, and that she recently lent USD 4 million to her daughter. Accordingly, in his assessment, bail of UAH 50 million would be entirely moderate for the suspect.

In her statement, Tymoshenko emphasized the importance of her parliamentary work and criticized the actions of the authorities. In her view, the country’s sovereignty is currently being destroyed, and she and her faction are “standing up against” this. She stressed that the investigation has no evidence, and called NABU a gang. She asked the court to refuse to prohibit her from communicating with MPs, arguing it would interfere with her parliamentary work, and also asked the court not to apply any interim measure to her at all.

Tymoshenko’s defense counsels stated that her actions did not constitute a crime and described the urgent searches as unlawful. The defense also asked the court to deny the prosecutor’s motion. In addition, a defense lawyer filed motions: to issue a separate ruling because the NABU had violated Tymoshenko’s presumption of innocence; to request materials; and to examine a witness. The court denied these motions.