Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
❗️The NABU materials contain data that Mudra may have influenced the selection of the head of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC).
During the hearing of the complaints about pretrial measures for Iryna Mudra, new fragments of conversations surfaced between the former deputy of Yermak and Budanov and Maksym Mykytas. In particular, the suspects apparently discussed the possibility of influencing the election of the head of the HACC.
In addition, some conversations concerned resolving certain issues in exchange for providing the HACC with a new premises.
Judge Mykola Hlotov, who as part of the panel reviewed the defense’s complaint about keeping Mudra in custody, asked her whether she had discussed with Mykytas or others matters of influencing HACC judges and the election of the head of the Anti-Corruption Court.
He then read part of a conversation between Mudra and Mykytas, in which, judging by the context, they discuss the selection of the HACC head.
In a conversation dated 28 December 2025, judges of the HACC Tatiana Lytvynko and Olena Chernova are likely mentioned. From the conversations, Mudra and Mykytas are consulting on whether they should “call them in.”
Mudra then mentions a member of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) from the president’s quota, Vitalii Makhinchuk, whom “you can somehow use.”
Mudra also says that Panaid (likely HACC judge Ihor Panaid) is “absolutely not.” She says there is no point in persuading him because he is definitely for Mykhailenko (likely a HACC Appeals judge who chaired the hearing of Mudra’s pretrial measure complaint or former HACC head Vira Mykhailenko).
The judge then quoted a Mudra phrase: “This Semennikov (likely HACC judge Oleksandr Semennikov), who… Vira (likely former HACC head Vira Mykhailenko) kind of told me this, Semennikov is thrilled about you, he follows all your…”
Next, a fragment of the conversation:
▫️Mykytas: Kaluhina (likely HACC Appeals judge Inna Kaluhina)…. So it turns out they vote together: both the AP and this one.
▪️Mudra: Yes, both chambers.
▫️Mykytas: You can’t touch the Appeals. You can touch Semennikov if he spoke like that, the others — you can’t. Those appellate judges — they will all be for Mykhailenko. Why persuade them? Also Kryklyvyi, Kryklyva (likely HACC judges Vitalii and Tetiana Kryklyvi), they…
▪️Mudra: Kryklyvyi, that’s him here, Mykhailenko, I think Bohdan, I communicate with him very well. (ed. possibly HACC administration head Bohdan Kryklyvenko or HACC judge Vitalii Kryklyvyi)
▫️Mykytas: He’s right, you can do it easily, he thinks he’s smarter, he works, he won’t check anything.
▪️Mudra: The question is how beneficial it would be for me for him to become (head of the HACC?). You understand? And how much is needed.
▫️Mykytas: But something needs to be done, very delicately. You should meet with him. With Kruk (likely HACC judge Yevhen Kruk). But do it at a distance.
▪️Mudra: Why? For what?
▫️Mykytas: So he doesn’t forget later.
Another conversation between Mudra and Mykytas concerns HACC Appeals judge Semennikov, with whom they allegedly need to “have coffee.”
After reading these conversations, Hlotov clarified: “Did you influence the election of the HACC head? Did you have communications with HACC Appeals judge Semennikov and HACC first-instance judges Kruk, Lytvynko and Chernova?”
Mudra began speaking in generalities, so Hlotov asked her to answer specifically: “Yes” or “No.”
Mudra replied that she had seen Semennikov once or twice, but “that does not prove that I had conversations with HACC judges.”
Judge Hlotov quoted another conversation from 19 December 2025, where former HACC head Vira Mykhailenko is mentioned. The conversations concerned a new premises that the HACC needed.
Mudra stated that the HACC has existed since 2016 or 2017 and claimed there were no facts of influence on judges. In fact, the HACC began operating in September 2019.
Answering whether these conversations meant there were attempts to influence HACC judges by resolving the issue of providing the court with a new premises, Mudra said that “90% — those are Mykytas’s words.”
She was also asked whether there were conversations with the HACC head at the time, Vira Mykhailenko, that if premises were provided the court would be favorable in its decisions.
Mudra acknowledged that there were conversations about premises because the HACC head had appealed to the Office of the President on this matter.
At the same time, she denied any allegations that she could have helped find premises in exchange for decisions on certain issues.
Telegram publication
