ТЕРМІНОВО! СУД НАД ЄРМАКОМ!

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-18

[00:00:00]Andriy Yermak is being criminalized.

[00:00:02]Andriy Yermak. What is she telling us about? For these actions to be successful, the purchase must be made with money obtained through criminal means. It clearly follows from the report of suspicion that Andriy Yermak is not even suspected by the prosecutor's office of committing any predicate crimes, namely, receiving illegal benefits, misappropriation of war or money, either personally or in any group. We see that in fact this group, yes, sorry, I'll say it now, I think it's artificially made up of people who were engaged in completely different things.

[00:00:57]It was made, uh, in an incomprehensible way and for an incomprehensible reason. They all gathered them in this pile. We even saw interviews with representatives of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, which were publicly available, who said that Mr. Chernyshov does not exist, and is not a member of this group, which is allegedly led by Mindich, yes, this is also a person involved in this case.

[00:01:29]Moreover, we see that no one directly accuses Andriy Yermak of committing any illegal actions, except for allegedly laundering money. To put it bluntly, I'm quoting you directly from the report of suspicion, which we believe and we are certain is unfounded.

[00:01:58]What does the prosecution state, what is it appealing to the court?

[00:02:06]First of all, let me first say what we have to prove and what the prosecution has to prove to the court. Well, firstly, that Yermak somehow invested any money in the construction.

[00:02:27]And the second thing is that he knew, well, we say that he is not being incriminated, that he himself received some kind of illegal benefit or took possession of the money, or in any way illegally received this money.

[00:02:41]This is not in this report of suspicion. There is only laundering of this money, right? Accordingly, the second thing he knew or should have known, right? The first is that you have no idea what he invested, and the second is that he knew or should have known that this money was derived from some criminal activity. Well, this must be proven to the investigating judge. As a result, yes, he must make a decision on whether this Article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine really existed, or even exists. As the prosecution writes in the report of suspicion, Yarbak Andriy Brysich, as one of the perpetrators of the crime, provided financing for the construction of some of the facilities that he planned to become the owner of. I have your attention, okay? If at the beginning of the report of suspicion the prosecution states and claims that he has the right, that he does not have the right, and that he owns, disposes of and uses the specified property, accordingly, has the right of ownership, then here it contradicts itself and writes that he only planned to become. Accordingly, he does not own, use, or dispose of it.

[00:04:14]And from their perspective, this party or in this part, it's just making its own assumption for the future that he plans to become the owner of this property.

[00:04:31]Well, maybe from this, based on the understanding of the criminal proceedings, what plans Andriy VRA has regarding any property, perhaps we should ask him. What follows is very interesting and something to pay attention to.

[00:04:53]They don't write that he financed, or invested, any money in the report of suspicion. They write that he provided funding.

[00:05:06]Well, excuse me, well, how did you provide the support? That is, he didn't give it himself, he provided it. Well, if they believe that he somehow secured this funding, well, let them say how he did it.

[00:05:20]Provide. I know that he took out a loan, acted as a guarantor, acted as a guarantor for some financial agreements. How exactly did Andriy only raise his children? All villages are located in the same section. Choose confidently from among customer favorites. Free delivery with a smart subscription. A socket is always nearby.

[00:05:48]Even I provided. This construction, well, is not clear to me at all and I don't know how the investigating judge will react to it. However, well, ensuring certain obligations, well, for example, these are specific actions that were not brought to court by the prosecution at all and were not mentioned to the court.

[00:06:13]Next, what do they write? It is not just about including funds obtained from criminal activities, headed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the criminal organization.

[00:06:28]My understanding is that this is a hint that there is some other secret part of the funding that has been secured. And the prosecutor in his speech drew attention to the fact that some of it was financed by some criminal organization, and some of it was not known how. Well, how can there be such algorithms in criminal proceedings?

[00:06:53]Someone once did something, or maybe they didn't.

[00:07:01]How can this accusation be constructed at all? We know that we have the Constitution of Ukraine, there is a presumption of innocence of a person.

[00:07:14]This is Article 62. Well, I don't think anyone doesn't know where it is clearly written that any person against whom there is no court verdict is innocent. And any evidence that is obtained improperly, let alone conjecture, cannot be included in any indictment. What do we hear, what do we see? It is impossible to speculate whether some money was there or not, whether it came or not. How can you claim that it was done at the expense of funds received from a criminal organization? I would like to draw your attention to what exactly Timur Mindich himself is suspected of? What kind of organization does he have? Well, you understand that Timur Mindich is a businessman. He is neither an official nor a civil servant.

[00:08:05]Yes, he does business, uh, in the way he understands it. There are a lot of families involved.

[00:08:13]What do we see? What the esteemed state prosecution accuses him of is that he, his criminal organization, together with another person, allegedly created a so- called laundry for laundering dirty money.

[00:08:31]And then a very important question arises for me. If the head of this criminal organization, Mindich, created such an organization in order to launder this dirty money, then, excuse me, what role did the head of the office of the President of Ukraine play in this criminal organization?

[00:08:57]Was he an accomplice of Nindic? What?

[00:09:00]How? That's right.

[00:09:04]From the prosecution's point of view, he already took some dirty money, he somehow laundered it.

[00:09:09]What did we give Andriy Borisovich so that he could continue washing them or what? Well, how? What money did he have left, dirty or partially dirty? What is this about? Why create a criminal organization for money laundering if you're letting someone else launder them? And based on the accusation that we now, well, excuse me, the suspicion that we have now received, this is being done by, excuse me for the time being, the head of the office of the President of Ukraine, Andriy Irmak. Well, we have a conscience. Well, what is it?

[00:09:47]Next, what do they write? Including, but not exclusively, at the expense of funds received as an unlawful benefit for actions committed by other members of a significant organization using their official position in the interests of counterparties of JSC Energoatom.

[00:10:12]Excuse me, did you hear anything from the prosecutor's speech? He referred to many different things there. At least they heard something about some crime that preceded the laundering of dirty money, besides the rumors that Mendich was laundering dirty money there. We have, well, let's say right away, yes, we say that they are writing an illegal benefit for the commission of an act by other members of the criminal organization in the interests of counterparties of Nayak Energeatom. So who are these people?

[00:10:48]We heard that there are some individuals who have received this legal benefit. Let's do it like this. Who provided this undue advantage? Where did he give it? When, in what amount, for what exactly, to whom?

[00:11:04]Sorry, all these are constructions, such constructions, this is not and cannot be any accusation, including at this procedural stage, because the validity of suspicion is the presence of evidence, not assumptions. Because we see, I just quoted you Article 62 of the Constitution, which clearly states that assumptions cannot form the basis of any accusation, including at this procedural stage. We don't have a single person, not a single penny, that would even be public. We say in this matter. There are 16 of those volumes here.

[00:11:56]We don't have any person who has been publicly. He would have been an accomplice of that group in some way, yes, in some way, who received these gifts, but we don't have that. in some form, which these haris received, but we don't have that. This is out of the question.

[00:12:23]What facts exist and have been proven to prosecutors and the investigating judge that Yermak knew that someone somewhere was taking bribes at Energoatom for something?

[00:12:37]Well, what did he have to do with the energy atom?

[00:12:42]Where do we get the information that he knew that someone there was giving or taking bribes?

[00:12:51]And is there any evidence in the documents that the prosecution provided to the investigating judge that such facts took place? I'm not talking about Andriy Remak's attitude. We didn't even see the crime itself. It does not exist at all in our criminal proceedings.

[00:13:17]What's next? Someone handed this money over to Minyachu for laundering. Who are these people? When was it transferred, in what amounts, and where did this money go? Did Mindish really launder them?

[00:13:29]How did he launder them?

[00:13:33]This is also unclear to us. And again I ask: "And what is Andriy Yarmak doing here?

[00:13:42]Next, what do they write? What did Yarmak do?

[00:13:45]He facilitated the activities of the criminal organization headed by Mindich in order to ensure uninterrupted financing of the construction.

[00:13:56]Well, excuse me, well, that's it, well, well, well, I'm writing what I want.

[00:14:03]Well, where, well, how did he facilitate? How exactly did he facilitate, where did it happen, when, in what way did he facilitate? Well, we can't at all, we're not spreading gossip, this is an accusation of committing a serious crime. If we're already saying that he facilitated, then say so, the guy facilitated, I don't know, maybe he took that money and took it to that office.

[00:14:29]I don't know how he facilitated, whether he provided security, or what, what. Well, let them say it and let them convey this position of theirs to the investigating judge and to society, since we have been seeing for a very long time how, excuse me, time and again in We have a situation where a person who is not even a suspect and was not a suspect is found guilty of committing particularly serious corruption crimes.

[00:15:07]involved other persons in committing a crime who were not informed of his criminal intentions.

[00:15:16]Who are these persons? We can at least see who he involved, what crimes were laundered. What money was laundered together?

[00:15:26]They did not know that they were laundering money.

[00:15:28]And he knew how, what evidence was provided. Now we have heard one conversation, another conversation, a third conversation. So this person is talking to this person, that person is talking to that person, so have we heard anything about it?

[00:15:43]About money, about dirty money, about bribes. We cannot communicate with you that some third parties are talking about Yarmak. Well, what is Yarmak himself doing here?

[00:15:57]Sorry, there are many people who can tell something about someone, but we must base any of our proposals on evidence from criminal proceedings. That is what justice is for.

[00:16:10]You have seen, this is such a scales, yes, evidence for the prosecution, evidence for the defense.

[00:16:18]She doesn't even have eyes, she doesn't see, she only feels.

[00:16:25]And the cherry on the cake was taking other measures aimed at achieving the common goal of the participants in the criminal scheme.

[00:16:36]What is this?

[00:16:38]Well, what is this? I can't even comment on it. Well, it's such a phrase. That's what I say I can say about anyone.

[00:16:46]He's taking something there, some other measures in order to achieve the common goal of the participants in the criminal scheme. What kind of measure is this?

[00:16:55]Well, we're in a criminal trial. We accuse a person of a serious crime.

[00:17:00]We say that he should be taken into custody.

[00:17:05]On what basis is this?

[00:17:09]Then I look at the report of suspicion. There are five sheets, sheets of printed text, where even Andriy Yarmak's last name is not mentioned at all. Here they laid out what he supposedly, oh, what I just quoted to you. And then there are five more sheets printed test.

[00:17:27]Nothing about him at all. There is something about Chernyshov, about Mindich, there they write, write, write about some people. But what is Andriy Yermak here for? We have to talk about his actions, because it is impossible to commit such a crime through inaction. He had to act somehow. Not gossip, but actions.

[00:17:49]Not conversations, but actions.

[00:17:54]I don’t want to, yes, I told you that regarding Alexei Chernyshov, he has his own defense. I think that they will successfully defend him in this whole story. As for Timur Mindich, he also has his own defense attorneys. And, as far as I know, from open sources, a request for his extradition has been sent by our prosecutor’s office to the state of Israel, where he is interfering.

[00:18:16]Accordingly, I hope that there will also be an open trial there, which will evaluate both the validity and the evidence of the prosecution regarding Timur Mindich himself. And we see that there, well, I am sure that there will not be any political, its component and there will be no bias. And we will see what the results will be. There will be a trial, a full-fledged trial, which will be based on the evidence that our specialized anti-corruption prosecutor's office sent regarding Mr. Mindich and the major crimes committed by him as the head of a criminal organization. I think that in this part after a certain time we will receive, excuse me, we will receive appropriate decisions and we will look at these parts.

[00:19:22]Well, again the question, what is Andriy Rma here for?

[00:19:26]Then they refer, yes, they refer on the eighth page another report on suspicion that Irmak agreed on the design documentation of the building, the beginning of its implementation. He instructed his father to transfer Khvylenkova the authority to exercise control over the construction on his behalf for Yes.

[00:19:49]Well, let's go back again.

[00:19:52]What is this about?

[00:19:54]We are talking about laundering dirty money by Andriy Yermak.

[00:20:01]Well, what is this situation about at all?

[00:20:08]And that's all on this eighth page.

[00:20:13]And that's it. Nothing more.

[00:20:17]Then the whole report of suspicion. Again, there is no mention of Andriy Yarmak at all.

[00:20:33]Everything that he allegedly did, I have now read to you in accordance with the position of the prosecution.

[00:20:46]In any criminal proceedings, in any case, in any process, there are only four sources of evidence, and they are provided for by Article 84 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

[00:21:02]These sources of evidence are material evidence, these are documents, they are for some reason allocated to us as a separate piece of evidence. For me, this is a source of information like any other evidence, because what is important is not the document itself, not the paper, but the information that is on it.

[00:21:23]Then we have witnesses and then we have expert opinions. What is an expert opinion, we understand, this is evidence that is not evidence, which is provided by a direct participant in an event, yes, a witness to an event. And this is evidence that is provided by a specialist, a professional specialist, who assesses certain circumstances. And this is called an expert opinion, yes, he is an expert. There is a certain list of experts that we have provided The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which provides, as specialists in a certain field, these studies of theirs.

[00:22:01]I want to draw your attention to the fact that in these 16 volumes, which were provided two days ago by the defense, the other party, there is not a single witness.

[00:22:22]Only there is not a single witness who would testify that Andriy Yermak carried out any actions related to laundering any dirty money. Yes, there is no protocol at all, no witness. Zero.

[00:22:42]Further, material evidence. Well, we also see that the prosecution did not provide any material evidence.

[00:22:52]Documents.

[00:22:55]All that we see, all these 16 volumes, are papers that consist of a protocol for examining the means. Eh, well, let's say, when you look for urban inspiration, you start to see it everywhere, again and again and again. Download the application and open all this on answare.ua. Answer premium fashion brands.

[00:24:17]lawyer. Mr. Yuri, I congratulate you.

[00:24:22]Good morning. Glory to Ukraine.

[00:24:24]Glory to the hero. We are talking now exclusively about this legal component. We remember that the searches at Yermak's house took place back in November of last year, and later there was a lot of information in the media. Today we see information about the alleged handing over of suspicion.

[00:24:43]This time that has passed is quite long. What does this indicate? And there was not a sufficient evidence base. There is a certain complexity of the examinations. Yes, because such a traditional question, perhaps, but why so long? However, there is definitely some kind of legal explanation here.

[00:25:03]Well, it is difficult to assess whether it is long.

[00:25:07]Investigative actions take a certain amount of time. For this, and in the case of the highest state leadership or former leaders, in this case we are talking about Andriy Yermak.

[00:25:22]This is not a simple process that requires, uh, in particular, documentation, collection of evidence, which requires both keeping secrets and involving many technical means, human resources, uh, stages.

[00:25:45]Therefore, at the moment we do not know how long it was carried out documentation, how sufficient or insufficient the evidence was during this period.

[00:26:00]This is also primarily to be assessed by the SAPO.

[00:26:04]Well, but obviously, since the presentation of the suspicion took place, uh, it can be argued that one of the stages of the primary, uh, investigative actions, uh, is completed and the NABU has provided, uh, conclusions on it. Uh, well, and in particular the SAPO as well.

[00:26:24]Well, it is interesting here how the publication of these fragments about the so-called dynasty can affect the process itself. Will, for example, the defense appeal to the secrecy of the investigation, to certain violations, because all this appeared in the media, we discussed it all, and later we saw, yes, certain such procedural actions.

[00:26:43]Well, it is obvious that the defense will appeal to this, but it must be understood that the publication of these tapes in the media, obviously, came from other interested parties.

[00:27:04]In particular, one cannot exclude a common interest both from within the country and from outside the country. which situationally turned out to be common. Perhaps this is only a guess. And regarding NABO ISAP, uh, on the publication of these tapes, well, in general there can be no questions, because they act within the framework of procedural norms, maintaining secrecy and declaring official only that information that is determined by law. Uh, well, and for the defense side this will always be, uh, an argument for an appeal. After all, this process, uh, proving guilt, innocence, it has already actively begun.

[00:27:57]Well, it is important regarding the possible risks of such a belated suspicion. Will there not be this time gap between the moment when Andriy Irmak left his post, the head of the president's office, and the moment of serving the suspicion, will they not appeal to the fact that this time is already, well, let's say, he is not a subject, he cannot influence certain actions of witnesses, cannot destroy evidence.

[00:28:20]Here, what other arguments can there be in defense?

[00:28:27]Their there may be quite a lot, but, firstly, well, this in no way affects the terms regarding the commission of the crime for which suspicion was raised. Secondly, it is possible that Andriy Yermak's departure, uh, became 250. I even looked in the chat, sorry, GPT, just to read that it takes three days. I say analyze, provide an assessment, compare it. Well, is this an opportunity for the defense to properly perform its work, in which I also draw your attention to the fact that we were performing other investigative actions on the same day of receiving the notification of suspicion. Yes, there were a number of searches conducted in which we participated. I will tell you that I actually finished the search.

[00:29:37]This was the third search in the apartment.

[00:29:39]Andriy Yermak. I finished this search, executing the ruling of the investigating judge, being there at almost 2 am.

[00:29:49]But they started the third search. They conducted the first search. I will refer there to this. And they started the second search at 12:30. They just started.

[00:30:03]I draw your attention again that this vagueness of any reports of suspicion, yes, any assumptions that the prosecution operates with, it does not even give the defense the opportunity to refute this information, because anyone can be trained in anything, but the verdict or the ruling or the ruling of the investigating judge, it must be based on evidence that has been verified, provided and verified in the court session.

[00:30:39]Now I want to turn to the issues of risks.

[00:30:44]And I also want to draw attention to, uh, we are saying that these events took place during the war.

[00:30:54]During the war. Andriy Yermak, he explained that he was under constant constant surveillance, under special surveillance, as a person who, well, had a very large amount of information, which, among other things, contains state secrets.

[00:31:20]Well, he says that 24x7.

[00:31:24]Well, we understand, yes, firstly, that the higher officials of the state, they act according to protocol. Moreover, you know, well, this is not some information that in fact all this time they lived in a bunker in order to avoid risks to their lives.

[00:31:44]Let's call them by their names, Andriy Yermak was the head of the office, the head of the office of the person who is currently the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of our state, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which is probably the number one target for any terrorist or other acts directed against our state. I would like to draw your attention to the absence of risks that the prosecution refers to.

[00:32:31]And I also want to draw your attention to, yes, regarding the assumptions, yes, I looked, I was just recording when the esteemed representative of the state prosecution AB, L2 spoke, these are all conversations of third parties and this is all a yoke.

[00:32:47]Well, well, somehow we would stop at something. And this is him, and this is him, and this is him. Someone is somehow taking advantage of someone. For example, I would understand that having questioned a group of witnesses, for example, this one, that one, who would testify to the prosecution that for a considerable time I was the one calling the panarmak LL or A, or P2, and then this would be a normal source of evidence in criminal proceedings. And everything that the prosecution draws its own conclusions based on the content is not a source of evidence in criminal proceedings. This is only its point of view. Do they have the right to their own point of view? They do. Do they even have the right to their own convictions? They do. But does the investigating judge have the right, including the one making his ruling, to be guided by their assumptions? No. This is answered by Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Nothing in criminal proceedings can be built on assumptions.

[00:34:01]The risks of hiding.

[00:34:04]Well, we have heard the position of the prosecution. I will read it now. I will simply take the law itself here and directly hide from the pre-trial investigation bodies and or the court. That's what it's about language.

[00:34:29]How does the prosecution argue that Andriy Yarmak will be transferred from the prosecution. Well, we know that this is so. This is a challenge from the investigator or the court.

[00:34:45]How do they argue this? They argue that he a-a 80 had 80 business trips abroad, which took place during the performance of his duties as the head of the president's office. Well, again, it's not difficult to look at this and it's not difficult to understand. Any business trip of the head of the president's office can be looked at, but you have to name him specifically in this same, for example, acting on this business trip or it wasn't a business trip at all, he went and bought himself a dacha in the Canary Islands, for example, or did something like that, but simply that he had 80 business trips during this time. What does this prove? Is it that the performance of the function of the secretary of the office, the head of the secretary of the office, excuse me, the head of the president's office is an attempt to hide from the nabuchis. Well, what is this about?

[00:35:57]The main thing is, on that we should pay attention to how many times he did not go on a business trip, he did not stay there and never stayed. no one can spare a single minute to reproach him that he was somewhere there, excuse me, was somewhere, I do not know, in some personal, even in a small person on a personal vacation.

[00:36:24]In all these years, I think, there is no information of such content, a reason to say that he was even somewhere on the beach, I do not know, somewhere abroad, in some hotel, spam, I do not know, zero. Zero. A person, as they say, she became she worked symbolic 24x7 all this time for the benefit of the state of Ukraine. How did she work? Worse, better. Perhaps this will be clear later and, perhaps, everyone has the right to their own opinion, but this fact itself is indisputable and is not refuted by anyone.

[00:37:04]Further. What is this about?

[00:37:06]After resignation. 5 months have passed since the resignation.

[00:37:11]Andriy Yermak at this time had no procedural restrictions at all. I was interviewed when I made a deal with him and asked what Irmak was, Iermak. I said: "But he's not there at all, he's not even a witness.

[00:37:27]He was never summoned anywhere."

[00:37:31]That is, he had no restrictions on leaving the territory of Ukraine during all these five months.

[00:37:39]But he was in Ukraine. Excuse me, I'll tell you now, his business trips, even after these years of, well, let's say, such hard work, they weren't like he went to Monaco or to the Azure, the Azure beaches in Nice.

[00:38:00]Where did he go? He went to the front.

[00:38:02]Every week he went to the front.

[00:38:05]He came, renewed his lawyer's license as a lawyer, started doing what he wanted to do. Maybe he did n't have the opportunity to do this before, because he had other functions, but now he does what, well, apparently, he likes to do with people.

[00:38:28]What else do they write? destroy, hide or distort any of the things or documents that are essential for establishing the circumstances of the criminal proceedings.

[00:38:48]And I also want to point out, I think this is important. Even during all these five months we Everyone saw a lot of stories that were related to Andriy Yermak.

[00:39:05]Well, we saw all these stories almost every day. Yarmak, Yarmak, Yarmak. In addition to journalists, investigations, investigations, journalists, Yarmak is a criminal, Yarmak is a criminal, Yarmak is a criminal. But even we have such a new category, for me, as it were.

[00:39:23]People's deputies, bloggers.

[00:39:26]They, excuse me, maintain their blogs on the Internet and, being people's deputies, being political figures, speak out and say again and again: "And they are officials." When a report is made, as it says, a report is made on suspicion of Yermak.

[00:39:50]One of them is the head of this temporary investigative commission, he is generally an official with a certain amount of authority. When there is, when there is a suspicion, when there is suspicion, when there is suspicion, you understand that all this pressure, it took place throughout the entire five months. Here Based on what we are listening to now, based on this reasoning that we have just heard, I am sure that the prosecution, under this pressure, was forced to make this report, to draw up this report of suspicion, because, well, it would probably have been better to question many people as witnesses, to collect some facts, some evidence that would either prove or disprove the guilt of Andriy Yarmak, or, excuse me, to build an accusation on the basis of photographs as printouts of telephone conversations in relation to, well, such a high-profile case.

[00:40:49]And despite all these five months of such a drive, he did not leave Ukraine, although there were many invitations. There were a lot of invitations, but he was here.

[00:41:03]destroy, seize or distort any of the things or documents that are of real importance for establishing the services of a criminal offense.

[00:41:16]Do you know, well, even, first of all, what can be destroyed in such a criminal offense? Well, I don't know, will they demolish this building or What? What? How can it be destroyed?

[00:41:34]Or the money somewhere, I don't know, is it already laundered, is it dirty, or what kind of money is it that he is accused of, he will hide it somewhere. And if he hides it, it is already in those walls, based on the position of the prosecution, then the money is already walled up there and he will not hide it either. In what documents can he somehow influence the registration of this whole situation? Well, no.

[00:42:03]I draw your attention to the fact that during this time dozens of searches were conducted. Dozens of searches. I have already drawn your attention to the fact that his apartment alone was searched three times by the same NABU detectives. Now tell me, well, you conducted the search the first time even in his absence and found nothing. Well, in order to come to him for him a second time, you must have some new information that you provide to the investigating judge. The investigating judge sees that they put, I don't know, money there some night or I don't know, they brought something in.

[00:42:47]And therefore they have the right and need to conduct a second search of the same premises.

[00:42:56]We see some kind of abbreviated decision, completely unsubstantiated, without any grounds for conducting a search. Why are you conducting it? It is unclear.

[00:43:11]We are conducting a second search. All this, sorry, happens at night. First, a search of the car. What are they looking for there? They took the driver's phones. Well, they took the driver's phones.

[00:43:25]Well, they returned the driver's phone, because there is nothing there. He turned to me, can I open it? I say: "Well, open it, if you don't want to take it back for years, because they will hide something there." It is clearly written in black and white in the decision that the search is being conducted in order to obtain evidence of the construction of this, like, dynasty, right? Well, what evidence of construction is in his car? They took his phone, they have already confiscated it. This is not the first time that the phone has been confiscated. I draw the attention of those detectives. We opened their phone.

[00:44:01]We opened their phone. Well, look, there's nothing here. He says: "And here are the deleted files". Well, many people have automatic file deletion. And based on the fact that such a function is in the phone, the phone is removed from it.

[00:44:15]And what's next? Then again there is none. You have to buy new ones.

[00:44:20]Then software scans and all of which you can manage from one place.

[00:44:56]Andrik I know what's in that apartment. He noticed that the number of candles on his table has increased by three.

[00:45:04]You understand, a professional person, but, well, does any of us want to live like this, excuse me, in such a state when outsiders know better than you what you have where and how. And that's all that a search is. A search is a procedural action in order to obtain some evidence. Well, they wanted to obtain some evidence there. Then it became clear, there was a third search in the first night. They took this toothbrush. Tell me me, why do you have to take the toothbrush from Andriy Yermak's apartment at exactly 1 a.m., right there? That it was missing in the morning, or did he hide it somewhere there? That they also took two bottles of water there?

[00:45:52]These are such searches. And all this until 3 a.m.

[00:45:55]And tomorrow, the next day, we will get acquainted with this case with deep respect and get acquainted with our investigating judge and with you all.

[00:46:07]I repeat, well, so many procedural actions that took place regarding Andriy Yermak, his office was repeatedly searched, his car, his apartment, well, his father's house was also searched. Excuse me, his psychologist, we were listening there now, his psychologist was searched, they took his phone away, they are already looking for, I don't know, at least something throughout the country, so that he can further destroy or hide, uh, or distort some things and documents.

[00:46:52]Well, what, well let them call it at least theoretically theoretically he can destroy and distort such a document. Excuse me, well I'm getting out of the way.

[00:47:03]Next. It is illegal to influence a victim witness, another suspect, accused, expert, specialist in the same criminal proceedings. Well, I'll start with us simpler ones. We do n't have any victims at all, right? That is, there is no one to influence.

[00:47:19]Next, on, well, witnesses, well, this case is probably the loudest not only in Ukraine, it is, well, already in our country we have gained world fame for this case due to this big advertising campaign that took place on our television.

[00:47:44]We, well, I don't know, in any country know about this story. Now if Andriy Borisovich had a desire to influence any witness during this time, didn't he have such an opportunity in any or himself personally, and any third parties, did the prosecution provide the investigative court with at least some facts of his actions in relation to at least one witness, regarding at least one suspect.

[00:48:22]Then we have an expert here separately. Well, this is a wonderful story, isn't it?

[00:48:31]You know, we listened to a statement that some actions were taken at night by individuals regarding an expert, whose expertise is not available, which intimidated this expert.

[00:48:46]Well, first, I always ask, I ask one question. Maybe you've already got it, but what's Yermak doing here, right? Well, if he's somehow involved in this, then the prosecution should probably have said so. But there was another reference there. There was a reference to lawyer Rostislav Kravets. This is my colleague, a fairly well-known Kyiv lawyer, very well-known. He's a very bright person. And he's watching our court session with great pleasure, as we saw, thanks to you. And as a result of what our esteemed representative of the state prosecution said yesterday, brought to the investigating judge, he already wrote a statement about a crime against.

[00:49:38]He doesn't know this expert at all, he's never met him.

[00:49:43]And what's his family in this process, he doesn't understand at all.

[00:49:52]Next, what is this about? What kind of expert is this?

[00:49:57]What kind of expertise is there? Well, thank God, we live in a time when we can receive information instantly, including thanks to our mass media, which, thank God, react very quickly, vividly to everything. So I go on the Internet and think about what kind of expert this is, because you understand how we can influence some experts if we don't even know what expertise the prosecution is ordering. That's what they are ordering there, where they are sending these expertise, well, how do we know that? We don't have, besides, well, well, how And third, what kind of expertise can be conducted in this case at all? Well, how, well, well, here's this expert, I understood what she was talking about. She was making an assessment of this unfinished building, this unfinished building, these millions that they have. This is what this expert did.

[00:51:01]Well, It is probably not difficult to take another expert on the defense side, come to the same unfinished building, order an examination.

[00:51:09]The law allows us to do this and get some other assessment. Nastya, what about us influencing any inspector-expert of the prosecution, this is an adversarial process. They provided their examination, you provided your examination, the court appointed or did not appoint some, I don't know, other examination, there, I don't know, a collegial examination and will determine the cost of this construction.

[00:51:36]Why, what is the point of influencing at all? Well, here it is interesting. I am reading the focus.

[00:51:43]Why did this even appear in our case? The husband of the expert, from whom NABU ordered examinations in the Midas case, previously worked together with the head of the Moskalenko detective group in Zhytomyr.

[00:52:00]And now we understand why, yes, why we received this expert with his statement about the crime. The publication draws attention to the professional experience of the expert and the structure of her state orders, the husband of the expert, who is the National Anti-Corruption Bureau commissioned the conduct of forensic examinations in the criminal proceedings of MIDAS. Previously worked in the police units of the Zhytomyr region together with the current senior detective in this case Oleg Moskalenko. that in the investigation of the order without competition, which is not the case with the expert hired in the Minus case, is regarded as a possible conflict of interest, Ukrainian news reports. According to open registers, Radkivska Tetyana Mykhailivna has experience in forensic examinations, which is reduced to participation in three civil cases on the division of property in the Korostyshivskyi district court of the Zhytomyr region. And on May 25, 2010, Tetyana Ryadkivska, being Borysenko, being still Borysenko, received an expert certificate, which she was deprived of after six months of work upon her dismissal from the Zhytomyr branch of the Kyiv Institute of the Zhytomyr Kyiv VAT.

[00:53:25]The legislation at that time provided for the possibility of canceling the current forensic expert certificate only as a result of committing It is a gross violation, which led to the loss of trust in this expert. And it is worth noting that in particular, these experts received a new certificate in 2021, when they received 11 state contracts, seven of which were related to the expertise for the NABU regarding the cottage town in Kozenivsk. The total cost of the state orders won by them is UAH 887.8 million.

[00:54:08]Moreover, 77% of the contracts were provided by the money, provided by the anti-corruption bureau.

[00:54:17]This is pressure on the expert and why did it appear at all, well, how can these issues be commented on in any way? We hear a lot here, including in the public sphere, that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau needs one more thing that it needs. It needs an independent, own expertise at the NABU. Well, if it is independent, then it is probably no longer its own and not at the NABU.

[00:54:50]Here we see that specialists, yes, here the law also provides for illegal influence on specialists. But already during For several years, all the specialists involved in working with the materials of NABU criminal proceedings, in my cases I can 100% guarantee that they are all NABU detectives. In every criminal proceeding, I file a charge that the NABU detective in the criminal process is defined as the prosecution. He cannot be a specialist, because a specialist is a witness who has a certain amount of special knowledge.

[00:55:30]Igor Yuriyvych, what are our questions.

[00:55:34]Well, I think you are slightly deviating a little.

[00:55:36]I am very Yes.

[00:55:38]No, I am not cutting you short, you just deviated a little to the side. Let's get to the essence of the questions.

[00:55:43]And what do we have next? To hinder the criminal proceedings in another way.

[00:55:48]Well, we also need to pay attention to this.

[00:55:51]What does the prosecution tell us? It says that Andriy Yermak has a lot of influential friends there. Well, excuse me, he has been a people's deputy for many years, well, where can you put him, he was initially a people's deputy.

[00:56:07]And were n't they? No. Oh, excuse me, excuse me. This, well, not a people's deputy, but a deputy of our parliament, sorry.

[00:56:17]Yes. Then he was a deputy.

[00:56:21]Yes, a consultant to the council.

[00:56:24]Yes. And I think, sorry, then I apologize. Well, anyway, he was the head of the president's office for a hundred years. Well, what acquaintances does he have, probably with those that each of us has, with whom he encountered at work, with whom he worked together, with whom he, that after he resigned, he was deprived of the right to communicate with people.

[00:56:49]Let's ask a very simple question. Did he communicate?

[00:56:55]Does he have influence over representatives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau? Do we have at least one example of him communicating with anyone? I mean unofficially, because officially we already communicate with representatives of the specialized anti-corruption prosecutor's office and the National Corruption Bureau. So he unofficially or someone on his behalf unofficially communicated with employees of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau or the Specialized anti-corruption prosecutor's office. There are such facts, such facts have been reported. So he communicates with some officials there? Well, he communicates, but he does not communicate regarding criminal proceedings. He communicates regarding money laundering, which he is accused of.

[00:57:48]He communicates on completely different issues. And now he is a practicing lawyer.

[00:57:53]Excuse me, a lawyer generally communicates with everyone. Well, that's his job. Who turns to him, to him, for advice, for legal assistance.

[00:58:03]Well, well, this is part of our life. Well, how is that possible?

[00:58:21]I told you about the expert. Specialists said Oh, yes, more.

[00:58:34]Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I also want to contact uh regarding the property status of the bail amount of 18 million. Yes, well, we know, yes, I do not want to refer to the decisions of European judges on our legislation regarding the fact that any bail must be determined by the court taking into account the ability of the person who posted this bail.

[00:59:01]And again I come back, for Why does bail exist at all? We are in a critical situation in our country right now, because bail is a punishment, not a guarantee that Andriy Irmak or any other person is obliged to appear when summoned by the investigative court.

[00:59:25]180 million. The representative of the state prosecution himself says that according to his declarations, he has an income of, I don't remember, about 10 million UAH, maybe a little more.

[00:59:41]And he asks for 180, and excuse me, a 19th-century Mercedes and a one-room apartment in the city center. Well, they also have some value. Well, I don't think they are very expensive there. A 19th- century Mercedes. Well, you need to contact the appraiser. He Well, well, well, it's some money, maybe, I don't know, maybe 50,000 dollars, but 180 million is millions, you know, it's, uh, well, probably a jeep with money. Well, it just needs to be a jeep with 180 million UAH of money. He won't fit in the car.

[01:00:24]The only argument of the prosecution, which he justifies his demand for 180 million UAH of bail, is Yermak's lifestyle, which shows that he has a lot of money.

[01:00:40]Well, what did the esteemed prosecutor mean?

[01:00:44]Well, I generally, I believe that generally, well, excuse me, I've already disappeared so much that we have to operate with evidence, and not with my own views, thoughts, assumptions.

[01:00:57]He leads some kind of lifestyle. What did the prosecutor mean by these six years that Andriy Yermak spent in the bunker? Is this the lifestyle that he had. And when he was released, he resigned, did he go to Monakha or to the front? That is, the lifestyle that the prosecutor is talking about, what is it about? The fact that the investigators see in his apartment, how many unnecessary witnesses he has.

[01:01:32]We have, uh, I will ask the court. I just received something. We have a document National Agency for, this is a certificate, right? regarding the inspection.

[01:01:46]Well, this is the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption. A corresponding inspection of her declaration and compliance with the requirements of the declaration by Andriy Yermak regarding his property status was carried out. We have a conclusion indicated, yes, and well, I will quote, your honor, that according to the results of the inspection of the declaration, the unique fikator so-and-so, so-and-so, there are no signs of violations.

[01:02:12]The accuracy of the assessment of the declared assets does not correspond to the data does not correspond to the data of the available sources according to the available information sign of violations No lift, no running no more exhausting gym days.

[01:02:37]There's a fun easy way to tone your body.

[01:02:45]Just press play and start dancing.

[01:02:50]One week. And your energy comes back two weeks and the weight start coming off three weeks and everyone changes.

[01:03:04]Dance and lose weight and become the best version of yourself.

[01:03:22]The way of life is reflected in the characteristics and letters that I and the National Bar Association received during these two days.

[01:03:33]Lawyers, military commanders of units They send letters of thanks. They come and go. I received the last ones. This is already during this anxiety.

[01:03:45]Excuse me, I will take some time to talk to you, because there are quite a lot of them.

[01:03:58]Yes, we had, you know, yes, we had two days, two days to collect at least some data regarding the personality of Andriy Yermak, we still had to get acquainted with the position of the prosecution.

[01:04:18]I will say that I did not contact those people who sent these documents characterizing Andriy Yermak to both the National Bar Association and to me directly. I did not contact them with inquiries. I simply did not have time, as I do, of course.

[01:04:39]But look at how many of them came.

[01:04:41]This is at the beginning, when we started this case, when it began, so many of them came. And I have to, your honor, spend your time and read everything. I will not read it, because it will be too much, but let me go through it, because people took their time and turned to you, your honor, to the investigating judge so that you, when making your decision, hear their opinion. Therefore, I have to convey it to you.

[01:05:07]Try not to reveal any military hearsay.

[01:05:09]Try not to reveal sensitive military information.

[01:05:13]I will try, honestly. Well, yes, and I also forgot about the fact that it was closed. I cannot say about the information that was disclosed by the defense in the closed part of the court session. And I also want to draw the court's attention to the fact that this issue, which from my point of view makes it impossible, and I drew attention, your honor, to the fact that these circumstances that we disclosed to you in the closed part of the court session, make it impossible, including the indication of risks, including leaving Ukraine, hiding, destroying documents. there will also be all those risks that are directly provided for by Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. I will start with the characterization that the National Association of Bar Associations of Ukraine.

[01:06:12]Yarmak Andriy Borisovich. Well, I will not read his personal data. The right to practice law certificate number 883 dated December 12, 1995, issued by the Kyiv City Bar Association, except for the Carrying out direct advocacy activities, actively participates in the work of the bodies of advocate self -government on the basis of the order of the Chairman of the National Association of Advocates of Ukraine, the Council of Advocates of Ukraine, this is a collegial body of advocate self-government No.

[01:06:46]52 dated March 3, 26, headed by the Committee of the National Association of Ukraine on the Protection of Victims of Armed Aggression against Ukraine, Compensation Mechanisms and European Integration Legal Support for Restoration.

[01:07:04]The Committee was created precisely on his initiative, as a professional platform for the legal profession, to develop legal solutions aimed at protecting persons who suffered as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine, developing compensation mechanisms, and providing legal support for the processes of state restoration. The committee's activities cover five key areas: rule-making work, protection of the rights of victims, international legal cooperation, practical and methodological support for lawyers, as well as a monitor of legislative initiatives and the formation of the professional position of the legal profession on the issues of the restoration of Ukraine.

[01:07:47]In his professional public activities, attorney Yermak has established himself as a highly qualified, principled, and responsible specialist with an impeccable business reputation.

[01:07:59]His professional activities are distinguished by a high level of legal culture, balance, consistency in the protection of human rights, and strict adherence to the standards of legal practice. Irmak Andriy Borisovich takes an active part in the activities of the bar self- government bodies. is the author and co-author of a number of draft laws and regulatory initiatives aimed at protecting the rights of war veterans, military personnel, members of their families, and persons who suffered from armed aggression against Ukraine.

[01:08:33]Of particular importance is his role as the initiator and coordinator of the Advocate Plus committee's flagship project. As part of this pilot project, lawyers provide independent professional legal assistance to military personnel directly in military units. Such assistance covers practical issues that military personnel face on a daily basis. implementation of social guarantees, receipt of cash benefits, passing a military medical examination, preparation of necessary documents, transfer between units, discharge from military service and further legal support. Under the leadership of Mirma Makadia, the committee acquired a clear practical direction and produced concrete results.

[01:09:20]As part of the Lawyer Plus project, lawyers have organized visits directly to military units of the Ukrainian Defense Forces. including units that perform tasks in areas of combat operations in front-line territories. You know, your honor, we asked you to help the bar to purchase a certain number of bulletproof vests with the lawyer's name on them, because, well, we started working with people who are deprived of the opportunity to receive legal aid. Well, because they are in these places.

[01:09:57]when they cannot obtain the assistance of a lawyer themselves.

[01:10:02]During the first month of the pilot project, more than 50 appeals from military personnel were processed, a significant portion of which received a practical solution. At the same time, the formation of a network of lawyers has begun to further scale the project to other units of the Ukrainian Defense Forces and prepare for the launch of a digital platform for legal support for military personnel.

[01:10:26]Meetings of the committee and its regional branches were held in various regions of Ukraine, including front-line regions. Well, I can say, there are Mykolaiv, Zaporizhia.

[01:10:36]People traveled, worked, and communicated with colleagues working in these territories, so that they would be closer to them, so that they could provide direct assistance to the military personnel who were near them. But singing is still more difficult for us.

[01:10:53]With the indirect and direct participation of the RMC, the committee prepared and published informational and methodological materials. Useful, they are called useful generalizations for military personnel, useful generalizations for families of missing persons, prisoners of war, and fallen military personnel. These publications are of practical importance for lawyers, military personnel, and their family members, as they contain practical guidelines for resolving complex legal issues that arise under martial law. A separate area of ​​work of the committee is participation in the implementation of memorandums of cooperation concluded by the National Bar Association of Ukraine with the military of Ukraine, the National Guard of Ukraine, the Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and the Ministry of Veterans Affairs of Ukraine. In accordance with the above- mentioned memorandums, the committee provides legal support for appeals from military personnel, war veterans, persons who were in captivity and their family members, and also supports systematic interaction with state bodies, military formations, civil society institutions, and international partners. With Yermak's personal participation, the committee systematically develops proposals for improving regulatory and legal regulation in the areas of social, legal and material protection of military personnel, military veterans, persons released from captivity, internally displaced persons, family members, military personnel, and other persons who suffered as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine.

[01:12:34]I apologize.

[01:12:42]In particular, such proposals concern issues of passing military medical examinations. There are a lot of questions about passing a military medical examination. You know, uh, the situation is such that in order for a person to receive documents, yes, well, for example, a wounded person there who has already been discharged from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, they simply don't even have a queue, the opportunity to register. They have to go to one place, second place, third place.

[01:13:16]So, in fact, we need to somehow, we are also in this committee, we are working to create at least some kind of system in which they would have the opportunity, well, at least to get some kind of coupon, a specific time, when they would come to at least that doctor, then they would not have to stand in some kind of queue for hours or days.

[01:13:38]RMTINAV deployment of the All-Ukrainian Human Rights Platform aimed at comprehensive legal protection and restoration of the rights of individuals and legal entities affected by armed aggression against Ukraine, as well as facilitating accountability for international crimes.

[01:13:53]Such activities organically complement the committee's efforts regarding European integration legal support, the restoration of Ukraine, and the functioning of international compensation mechanisms. A characteristic of the Jurmak's professional approach is systematic visits to frontline areas for the purpose of direct communication with servicemen and the command of the unit to analyze urgent legal problems. This approach allows the committee to formulate precise, well-founded proposals for changes to legislation and bylaws, based on the real needs of those on the waiting list. Through their daily activities, RMA lawyers demonstrate a high level of professionalism, dedication to the legal profession, and the principle of the rule of law.

[01:14:40]He must adhere to the standards of legal ethics, avoid any actions or statements that may harm the authority of the bar, and on the contrary, actively contribute to its strengthening. Working on the committee of the National Bar Association, attorney Yermak systematically initiates and supports proposals aimed at strengthening the institutional capacity of the Ukrainian bar and providing effective legal assistance to military personnel, war veterans, their family members, victims of armed aggression, as well as to business entities that have suffered the consequences.

[01:15:16]Well, besides the fact that our people have suffered from armed aggression, a lot of companies, well, you know, have had their territories seized, their assets destroyed. We are also starting and working, working hard to somehow help them receive compensation. And we have hope at the international level. A separate strategic direction of the RMAC's activities is to initiate the formation of an All-Ukrainian human rights platform aimed at protecting and restoring the rights of individuals and legal entities who suffered as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine, as well as providing legal assistance in bringing perpetrators to justice for international crimes.

[01:15:59]and assets is consistent with the committee's task of developing compensation mechanisms for European integration legal support for the restoration of Ukraine and strengthening the role of the legal profession in the processes of protecting human rights in wartime.

[01:16:15]Yermak's professional approach is distinguished by a combination of practical work with the analysis of systemic legal problems. It is focused not only on responding to individual requests, but also on forming comprehensive legal solutions. capable of influencing the quality of regulatory regulation, the effectiveness of human rights mechanisms, and the availability of professional legal assistance for those who need it most. Through his activities, Mak contributes to the establishment of the authority of the bar, the enhancement of its institutional capacity, and the establishment of the role of the lawyer as an independent professional defender of human rights. His work is characterized by responsibility, consistency with organizational skills, respect for the principles of legal ethics and the values ​​of the rule of law. Lawyer Yermak fully fulfills his obligation to pay contributions. Well, this is very important for us for the cattery. He was not held accountable for disciplinary actions.

[01:17:14]The characteristic was compiled by the National Bar Association of Ukraine to confirm the personal, professional and moral qualities of the RMK lawyer. Head of the National Lawyers Council of Ukraine Lidiya Izavit.

[01:17:31]Many journalists asked what Yarmak does, whether he wants to engage in political activities. I think that the position of the National Bar Association of Ukraine answered this question. I also received from the commander, Colonel National, this is our National Guard of Ukraine, a military unit. Well, I won't mention the part number, yours won't be in the materials on the right.

[01:18:01]The content of the address is his gratitude, thanks for the preparation and implementation of the national project of legal support for military personnel, Advocate Plus, and certification of the results of its work in the first month. Yes, he says that he provides free initial legal consultations through a network of lawyers. implemented by the National Victims Protection Committee.

[01:18:31]The goal of the project is to ensure effective access of military personnel to the protection of their rights and legitimate interests in accordance with Article 59 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine on the Bar.

[01:18:45]The results of the pilot month are as follows: regular provision of free primary legal aid. 25 written appeals from servicemen have already been processed.

[01:18:59]Topics of deaths, injuries, receiving cash payments, legal advice for the needs of the military unit, issues in the field of intellectual property, restoration of documents lost by servicemen, appealing decisions of higher medical commissions, other issues related to the protection of rights and legitimate interests.

[01:19:19]So the leader, performing his duties as the head of this military unit, signed a certain document.

[01:19:30]Also applied. Let me take it, we will just have a number of documents.

[01:19:38]Let me go through the military.

[01:19:41]Another military unit. I won't announce her number. Also signed by the commander of the military unit. E, I also express my sincere gratitude to the National Bar Association of Ukraine for the restoration, ensuring the restoration, for the implementation of the Advocate Plus project, which is directly managed by Andriy Borisovich, the committee that implemented, conceived, and implemented this program.

[01:20:10]And it is noted that he strives to not only provide assistance directly to military personnel, but also helps, has a positive effect on discounts louder, more similar technologies are planned, see the rhythm of production and the number of new gadgets rather than the May discount, which is part of the interest in lasting assistance for them. He also signed I will provide to the court for the purpose of involvement.

[01:20:49]Igor Yuriyvych, let's take a 15- minute break, everyone will rest, you will rest and we will continue.