Photo: Hanna Kruchynina
The prosecution’s evidence regarding the motion to select a preventive measure for the former head of the Office of the President, Andriy Yermak, is based on assumptions rather than specifics and actions, believes Yermak’s lawyer, Ihor Fomin.
“What does Yermak have to do with this? He had no connection to receiving an improper benefit,” the lawyer emphasized while presenting the defense’s position regarding the motion at the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) on Wednesday.
He expressed conviction that there is no crime in the suspicion incriminated to his client—”it does not exist at all”—because any specifics are absent. According to Fomin, the validity of a suspicion depends on evidence, whereas the prosecution relies exclusively on assumptions.
The lawyer also pointed out that in the conversations of third parties quoted by the prosecution, there is no reference to any specific illegal actions by Yermak.
“What does Andriy Yermak have to do with this? We must talk about his actions, as it is impossible to commit such a crime through inaction! He had to have acted in some way. Not gossip, but actions; not conversations, but actions,” the lawyer summarized.
He added: “Regarding the assumptions… AB, LL, R2—these are all conversations of third parties and all of this is Yermak… someone, someone else, somehow…”.
According to the lawyer, in all 16 volumes of the case, there is not only no witness who would testify that Yermak carried out any actions regarding the laundering of dirty money, but “in general—not a single protocol of a single witness—zero!”
