Investigative judge of the unconstitutional HACC Viktor Nogachevskyi recently imposed a preventive measure on former MP...

Investigative judge of the unconstitutional HACC Viktor Nogachevskyi recently imposed a preventive measure on former MP Maksym Mykytas in the form of detention with the possibility of posting bail in the amount of 30 million UAH, instead of 200 million UAH as requested by the prosecutor.

Thus, the HACC reduced the amount of bail for Mykytas as an alternative to detention by almost 10 times, despite the fact that his assets more than doubled the amount of bail the prosecutor sought (according to the prosecutor of the SAP announced at the court hearing, Mykytas owns assets of about 500 million UAH).

It would all be fine if such decisions by Nogachevskyi were his usual practice in other cases; however, after reviewing the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, we are convinced that this is not the case.

In no other case has this judge made such radical decisions.

Also, the position of the SAP in this case is surprising: its prosecutors always “painted” astronomical bail amounts for the suspects, which clearly did not correspond to the suspects’ real financial condition.

So, as we can see, the court and the prosecutor treated Maksym Mykytas rather “leniently,” which can mean only one thing – Mykytas is an agent of NABU!

In principle, everyone already understood this, since he was a long-time “client” of NABU, and a sincere promise to cooperate with such an agency always ensured him the opportunity to be released from pretrial detention multiple times earlier.

That will happen this time as well.

However, listening to the recorded conversations, it is audible that Mykytas did not participate in all the NABU-published conversations, and Iryna Mudra’s voice is heard more clearly than all the other voices on them.

Therefore we predict that the “inappropriately” lenient preventive measure will be chosen by the “independent” HACC for another defendant in the case as well — Iryna Mudra, who is closely connected to Mykytas not only personally/intimately, but also in a “professional” capacity.

So there is not much left to wait. We are watching.

However, one rhetorical question remains: if Mykytas and Mudra recorded their colleagues and acquaintances in the interests of NABU, thus helping to expose a “criminal organization” in the highest echelons of power and in doing so received suspicions, preventive measures, and public humiliation — did they really not have the sense to secure better conditions for themselves, as, for example, notary Horbunov did in the case of former head of the Supreme Court Knyazev?

Someone in this whole story is clearly very unwise.