The HACC Appeals Chamber has held its first hearing on the appeals against the HACC verdict that found Yurii Donets guilty of trading in influence. He was sentenced to 4.3 years' imprisonment plus an additional penalty, but was released from actually serving them owing to the expiry of the statute of limitations.

Appeals were filed by the prosecutor and by the defendant's counsel.

The prosecutor's core demand was to overturn the HACC verdict and issue a new one — to find Donets guilty under Article 190(4) and Article 369(3) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentence him to 7 years' imprisonment with confiscation of property.

The prosecutor disagrees with the court's reasoning and findings solely on the classification of the act. The verdict is not challenged as to the finding that Donets did receive $100,000 from Kovalenko, the absence of provocation of the crime, or the admissibility of the evidence gathered, since on these points the court's conclusions are correct.

It is precisely the division of the bribe — $20,000 to Donets and $80,000 hidden in the apartment of the other defendant, Yurii Zontov, and never handed to the judge — that makes up the elements of fraud, which the HACC judges failed to see.

The testimony of Tetiana Balas, a DACK judge, further shows that she received no offers and held no negotiations with anyone; the prosecution therefore argues that there was never an intention to hand the money over, only to appropriate it.

The prosecutor regards the court's finding that there was no active incitement as unfounded, since Donets's active role is borne out by his conduct: his repeated demands that the victim settle on the bribe amount; his insistence that providing the benefit was the only option; his pressing for the money to be handed over even as the victim (the person asked to pay) pointed to an expert opinion supporting his claim; and his extortion of the money in several installments.

The prosecutor argues that the court misread Donets's line, “Doesn't matter who we close the deal with.” Immediately before that remark, Donets had explained that Judge Balas — the supposed intended recipient of the bribe — was in the process of transferring her cases. The point, then, was a degree of uncertainty over which judge he would have to deal with if the case were reassigned.

The first-instance court read the line as indifference to whether any judge received the benefit. The prosecutor contends it shows the opposite: that the money was, in any event, meant for whichever judge would end up handling the case.

In its appeal, the defense asks the court to overturn the verdict and close the criminal proceedings for lack of sufficient evidence to prove guilt. The defense argues the court did not examine the circumstances of possible provocation of the crime, which it had raised back during the HACC trial.

The defense will continue presenting its arguments on the appeal at the next hearing.