Tymoshenko's property seizure: court announces adjournment until tomorrow
Kyiv • UNN
The High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) hearing on the pre-trial detention of Yulia Tymoshenko has been adjourned until January 20. The judge decided to hold it in camera, which caused outrage among Tymoshenko's lawyers and herself.
Today, January 19, the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) held a session in the case of People's Deputy and leader of the "Batkivshchyna" faction Yulia Tymoshenko, where the prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) considered a motion to seize the suspect's property. The session was accompanied by skirmishes, particularly over the judge's decision to hold a closed session, and eventually the court announced a recess until 1:30 PM on January 20, UNN reports.
Details
During the session, Tymoshenko stated that the prosecutor allegedly knew the name of the presiding judge even before the system officially distributed the case.
It turns out that the detective told us that you would be the judge in the case even when we just arrived. We arrived, and he told us that Judge Dubas would be the judge. How did he know? The documents had not yet been created, because there had not even been an interrogation. The motion had not been formalized at all, nothing had been done, but the case had already been distributed and the judge already had this case before there were documents for this case to be considered. This means that both the previous composition of the court and this composition of the court are illegal. And therefore all decisions that were made as a result of this are illegal. NABU, SAPO, and HACC are not different branches, but they are essentially one system that engages in political repression by order.
The SAPO prosecutor appealed to the court with a motion to hold the session in camera, arguing that it was necessary to protect the secrecy of the investigation and personal data.
Due to the fact that the information in this motion contains a secret
The judge supported this decision, while Tymoshenko's lawyers categorically opposed it.
I consider it necessary to consider this motion in a closed court session
After that, People's Deputy Kostiantyn Bondarev began shouting: "Crook, sham trial, shame." Law enforcement officers had to calm down the People's Deputy.
Eventually, the court announced a recess until 1:30 PM on January 20.
Later, Tymoshenko wrote on Facebook that her team insists on maximum publicity of the trial, because they have nothing to hide.
I have nothing to even justify myself for, because this whole case is a farce. But the judge forbade public broadcasting to hide the political motive of this openly fabricated case against me. This is political reprisal, not justice. The perpetrators of this shameful order want to destroy me and "Batkivshchyna", to remove us from parliamentary work, because we are the only ones who have the strength, courage and sufficient professionalism to protect the interests of Ukraine and Ukrainians.
Tymoshenko also stated that her accounts are going to be blocked by court order so that it would be impossible to pay bail. Thus, according to her, law enforcement officers are carrying out an order to throw her behind bars in order to destroy "the last team in parliament that protects and can protect Ukraine."
How can the same judge appoint bail with one hand, and block all possibilities to pay this bail with the other hand?
Recall
On January 16, the prosecutor filed a motion with the court to apply a preventive measure in the form of bail in the amount of UAH 50 million to the leader of the "Batkivshchyna" party, Yulia Tymoshenko, who is suspected of offering an improper advantage to people's deputies.
NABU and SAPO announced the suspicion to the head of the faction in the Verkhovna Rada on January 14.
According to the investigation, after NABU and SAPO exposed in December 2025 facts of receiving improper benefits by people's deputies of Ukraine for making decisions on draft laws in parliament, "the suspect initiated negotiations with individual people's deputies regarding the introduction of a systemic mechanism for providing improper benefits in exchange for loyal behavior during voting."
"It was not about one-time agreements, but about a regular mechanism of cooperation, which provided for advance payments and was designed for a long period. People's deputies were to receive instructions on voting, and in some cases - on abstention or non-participation in voting," SAPO said.
Qualification: Part 4 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Offer, promise or provision of an improper advantage to an official).