TYMOSHENKO TRIAL: KEY FINDINGS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 14 January 2026, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-CorruptionProsecutor’s Office (SAPO) notified Yulia Tymoshenko, the leader of the political party Batkivshchyna, of suspicion foroffering undue benefits to Members of Parliament of Ukraine in exchange for their voting. On 16 January, a court hearing was held to decide on the suspect’s preventive measure, marking the first stage in theproceedings of one of NABU’s most important cases in the context of combating political corruption in the Parliament.As a result, the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) set bail at UAH 33 million as a preventive measure. Also, she will besubject to a number of obligations, including handing over her foreign passport and restricting contact with more than60 Members of Parliament (primarily members of the President’s party and those who voted in line with Batkivshchyna).

Key challenges which need to be addressed:

• The risks of abuse of power and undue influence on the investigation under the guise of parliamentary oversight.
  
  Yulia Tymoshenko has repeatedly emphasized, both in the courtroom and during public speeches in Parliament, that this case is an act of revenge, because her close associate, Serhii Vlasenko, heads a Parliamentary Temporary Investigative Commission, whose powers also concern the work of NABU and SAPO. Moreover, its mandate is used to
  put pressure on civil society, the judiciary and the anti-corruption system. Considering that Yuliia Tymoshenko retains her parliamentary seat and leads a 23-member faction, she along with Serhii Vlasenko may use the commission’s mandate to influence the investigation and access case materials.

Therefore, we urge the termination of the powers of the Temporary Investigative Commission under the leadership of Serhii Vlasenko.

• The need of an independent expert institution for the NABU
  
  The main evidence within this criminal proceedings is the audio recording of the conversation between Yuliia Tymoshenko and the Member of Parliament. In this context, a key piece of evidence will be the timely conduct ofan independent examination of the audio recordings to confirm the speaker’s identity and verify the absence of editing or manipulation. However, the NABU still has not its own independent expert institution and is obliged to rely on expert institutions operating under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, and the Security Service of Ukraine that possesses risks of experts’ bias from management, unlawful influence by participants in criminal proceedings, and delays in the conduct of expert examinations.

Thus, for the effective investigation of such high-level corruption cases, we once again emphasize the need to finally establish an independent expert institution for the NABU, as defined in strategic documents and the conditions of cooperation with internationalpartners

CASE DETAILS

1. Essential facts

• 27 November 2025
  During the court hearing, it was stated that a criminal proceeding, registered at the request of NABU detectives and initiated by the Prosecutor General against certain Members of Parliament, concerns the investigation of an organized criminal group involved in bribing other Members of Parliament. Chronologically, this occurred immediately after the exposure of a widespread corruption network of friends of the President of Ukraine in the Mindich case, which caused tension within Parliament and the President’s faction.
• 9 January 2026
  A Member of Parliament from the Presidential party, contacted NABU with information that Yulia Tymoshenko was attempting to bribe him and a group of other MPs. The investigation did not disclose the MP’s name; however, during the court hearing, Yulia Tymoshenko stated that it was Ihor Kopytin.
• 12 January 2026
  As part of covert investigative actions, a meeting took place between the MP and Yulia Tymoshenko in her office, during which she allegedly offered USD 10,000 per month for each MP in exchange for loyal voting in line with herinstructions.
• 13 January 2026
  Before the vote on key personnel decisions, Yulia Tymoshenko sent voting instructions to Ihor Kopytin, but he refused to follow them. They then had a two-minute phone call after.
• 13–14 January 2026
  Under the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the offense is considered complete at the stage of making a specific offer of an undue benefit, despite the fact of bribery delivery (the offer alone is enough to constitute a crime; actual transfer of funds is not required). Accordingly, on 13 January 2026, a search was conducted at the office of Batkivshchyna Party, and on 14 January, Yuliia Tymoshenko was notified of suspicion.

1. High-level conspiratorial measures applied by Yuliia Tymoshenko demonstrating a systematic approach and the intentional structuring of corrupt activities.
   
   According to the data collected within the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor confirmed that Yuliia Tymoshenko employed a high level of conspiratorial measures, including: (1) regular inspections of the office premises using modern technical equipment to detect potential surveillance or wiretapping devices; (2) a strict prohibition on carrying mobile phones during in-person meetings; (3) the use of separate mobile phones for communication with specific contacts (as evidenced by the seizure of six mobile phones); (4) the use of a paid secure messaging service (Threema); (5) the transfer of funds through third parties, with intermediaries (including assistants) often unaware from whom the funds were being
   delivered.
2. Yulia Tymoshenko position
   Yuliia Tymoshenko has approved a meeting with Ihor Kopytin and described engaging new like-minded MPs as normal parliamentary activity. However, she challenges the authenticity of the recording and denies offering USD 10,000 in exchange for votes. She has repeatedly insisted that Ihor Kopytin was used by NABU detectives to provoke Yuliia Tymoshenko in order to obtain personal benefit within the framework of his criminal case being conducted by NABU. NABU has not officially announced any suspicion against Member of Parliament Ihor Kopytin, nor has there been any information about a criminal proceeding concerning him. At the same time, in August 2024, he was involved in a traffic accident. Journalists later
   found out that Ihor Kopytin held an identification card from the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine of the Ministry of Defense. The car he was using, which he did not declare, had an operational pass issued for it. NABU may be investigatingthis as a potential case of false declaration.

KEY CONCERNS AND CHALLENGES

1. The need of an independent expert institution for the NABU
   The main evidence is the audio recording of the conversation between Yuliia Tymoshenko and Ihor Kopytin. In this context, a key piece of evidence will be the timely conduct of an independent examination of the audio recordings to confirm the speaker’s identity and verify the absence of editing or manipulation. For a long time, NABU has been advocating for the establishment of its own independent expert institution in order to avoid cases of experts’ bias from management, unlawful influence by participants in criminal proceedings, and delays in the conduct of expert examinations. At present, NABU is obliged to rely on expert institutions operating under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, and the Security Service of Ukraine. The requirement to establish an independent expert institution for NABU is enshrined in a number of national and international policy documents, including:

• the previous State Anti-Corruption Program for 2023–2025 (measure 3.3.2.3.1.),
• the draft Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2026–2030 (problem 1.10.1),
• the EU Enlargement Reports on Ukraine for 2024 and 2025,
• as well as in the conditionality requirements of the International Monetary Fund.
  
  Currently, the relevant draft law is still not registered in the Parliament.
  Notably, under the eighth review of the IMF financing program in July 2025, Ukraine committed to providing NABU with an independent expert institution by February 2026. While the Ministry of Justice, NABU, and SAPO reportedly held consultations, there are concerns that no substantive progress was made in drafting the legislation or establishing the expert institution. At that time, the Ministry of Justice was headed by Herman Halushchenko, who has been linked in NABU recordings to Tymur Mindych, and whose advisor was Oleksandr Ruvin, a former head of Kyiv Research Institute
  of Forensic Expertise with known political influence and criminal corruption proceedings. Thus, there are doubts that these individuals had neither the interest nor the political will to support NABU in establishing its independent expert institution.

2. The risks of abuse of power and undue influence on the investigation under the guise of parliamentary oversight

On January 13, during searches at the office premises of the Batkivshchyna political party, detectives also inspected the office of Serhiy Vlasenko, Yulia Tymoshenko’s close associate and former lawyer. According to information provided by the prosecutor during the court hearing on January 16, 2026, this was related to the fact that the conversation with the Member of Parliament took place in Vlasenko’s office.

Yulia Tymoshenko has repeatedly emphasized, both in the courtroom and during public speeches in Parliament, that this case is an act of revenge, because her close associate, Serhii Vlasenko, heads a parliamentary temporary investigative commission, whose powers also concern the work of NABU and SAPO. However, its mandate was used last year to put
pressure on civil society, the judiciary and the anti-corruption system. This year, the commission plans to continue to review the work of NABU, HACC, and SAPO between April and June. Considering that Serhiy Vlasenko’s commission is abusing its parliamentary oversight functions, the MEZHA Anti-Corruption Center along with a coalition of civil society organizations are demanding the termination of the temporary in vestigative commission’s activities.

3. Yuliia Tymoshenko continues to consistently advocate the elimination of involvement of international experts in selection commissions for senior public positions

As emphasized by Yuliia Tymoshenko during the court hearings on January 16, 2026, “we merely proposed a law in tended to eliminate the role of opaque international advisory councils in decision-making, where the identities of the experts are unknown, accountability for decisions is absent, and the objectives pursued remain unclear.”

Such rhetoric by the Member of Parliament appears consistent with the earlier position of the Batkivshchyna parliamentary faction regarding the adoption of Draft Law No. 12414 (concerning the deprivation of the independence of NABU and SAPO), as well as with the initiation of a submission to the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of the
participation of international experts in selection commissions