The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court reviewed the preventive measure concerning the people’s deputy and head of the parliamentary faction, referring to Yulia Tymoshenko, on January 26. Following the review, the panel of judges partially granted the appeals filed by the defense, canceling some of the obligations previously imposed on the suspect.
This is reported by Kyiv24
Which Obligations Were Cancelled and Which Remained
The court lifted the previous prohibition for Tymoshenko to leave the borders of Kyiv region, as well as the obligation to refrain from communicating with other people’s deputies. In this regard, a new ruling was issued, whereby the court denied the establishment of such restrictions for the suspect.
At the same time, VAKS left unchanged the other procedural obligations concerning the people’s deputy. Among them:
- the obligation to appear before the detective, prosecutor, investigating judge, or court upon each request;
- to notify about a change of residence or employment;
- to surrender foreign passports and other documents that allow exit from Ukraine for safekeeping.
Case Development and Tymoshenko’s Position
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office announced on January 14 that Yulia Tymoshenko was suspected under part 4 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. She is accused of offering, promising, or providing unlawful benefits for loyal behavior during parliamentary votes.
“As a result of the review, the panel of judges of the Appeals Chamber of VAKS partially granted the appeals filed by the defense,” the statement reads.
Tymoshenko, for her part, stated that she had not transferred any funds to anyone, emphasizing the provocative nature of the accusations and calling the case materials fabricated.
On January 16, VAKS set a preventive measure for Yulia Tymoshenko in the form of bail exceeding 33 million hryvnias and established a number of restrictions. On January 23, bail was posted on her behalf, after which some obligations were reviewed in an appellate manner. The final decision of the Appeals Chamber has taken legal effect and is not subject to appeal in the cassation instance.