In his appeal to the High Anti-Corruption Court, Yermak denied any involvement in the Midas case
This was discussed during the live broadcast of the court hearing at the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court.
Appeal against the preventive measure
The panel of judges of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court considered the appeal against the imposition of a preventive measure in the form of detention on Andriy Yermak.
The court of first instance had set an alternative in the form of bail of 140 million hryvnias.
The panel of judges, chaired by Judge Serhiy Bodnar, considered the appeal.
Yermak’s defence
During the appeal hearing, Yermak’s lawyer stated that his client had not made any deposits into the accounts of the ‘Sunny Coast’ Housing Cooperative.
The defence also insisted that the charge of money laundering must be based on a predicate offence.
“In the Midas case, there is not a single suspect who provided an unlawful benefit. In other words, the principal predicate offence is absent from the prosecution’s legal framework,” the lawyer stated.
According to the defence, the charges and the ruling of the court of first instance are unfounded.
What Yermak said
Andriy Yermak stated in court that he was not involved in the commission of the offence.
“The investigation has not obtained any evidence of my involvement in financing the construction or any other participation. There is no evidence of my acquisition or possession of this property. This was not proven by the prosecutor during the proceedings,” he said.
Yermak also denied any involvement in discussions regarding the construction project.
He emphasised that he had never absconded from the pre-trial investigation authorities, was participating in the proceedings and had not left the country.
According to him, he has surrendered his foreign passports, and one of the largest bail deposits – over 150 million hryvnias – has already been paid on his behalf.
At the same time, Yermak clarified that he had not personally paid the bail, although he was prepared to pay up to 10 million hryvnias, but did not physically have the means to do so.
During the hearing, the judge also raised the issue of Oleksiy Shevchuk’s statement regarding his willingness to vouch for Yermak. Yermak replied that he was not acquainted with him.
The prosecutor’s arguments
The prosecutor objected to the change in the preventive measure.
According to the prosecution, “Residence 2” in the cottage community belonged to Yermak.
To support this position, the prosecutor read out information from the mobile phones of other suspects in the case, including correspondence between Yermak’s father and contractors.
Furthermore, the prosecutor stated that NABU had seized documentation from the office of the so-called “laundromat”. According to the investigation, these documents concerned the allocation of funds for the construction of “Residence 2”, which the investigation links to Yermak.
The prosecutor also reported that the source of the funds was other individuals involved in the case, whilst Yermak, according to the investigation, managed them.
According to the prosecution, NABU also seized documents containing a plan to legalise the property.
“Yermak must have known the origin of these funds. They were not allocated from his income, but from an illegal office where funds from illicit schemes were channelled,” the prosecutor stated.
Risks cited by the prosecution
One of the prosecutor’s main arguments was correspondence from Yermak’s father, in which, according to the prosecution, he wrote that Andriy Yermak was spending millions of dollars of his own money on this construction project.
The prosecutor also highlighted the risks of Yermak exerting influence over experts and other participants in the criminal proceedings.
According to her, pressure had already been exerted on one expert after she took part in an inspection of the holiday village. This involved, at the very least, a search for information regarding this expert.
The prosecutor also reported on seized documents which, in the prosecution’s view, may indicate Yermak’s ability to influence the appointment of officials within the SBU, and through them – the course of the proceedings.
Position on bail
The prosecutor considers the bail amount of 140 million hryvnias set by the court of first instance to be insufficient.
In the prosecution’s view, the bail should be set at 180 million hryvnias.
Appeal ruling
As of the date of this report, the transcript of the decision by the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court following the consideration of the appeal has not been provided.
As reported by ThePublic, the full amount of bail — 140 million hryvnias — has been paid for former Head of the President’s Office Andriy Yermak. This allows him to be released from pre-trial detention.
Follow us on Telegram
