17 March, 09:16
On March 12, 2025, the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) reviewed an appeal regarding the seizure of Pavlo Prysyazhnyuk's assets.
From 14:00 to 16:00 on the same day, the High Anti-Corruption Court held a hearing on case No. 991/13507/24, No. 11-cc/991/89/25, concerning the appeal against the seizure of Pavlo Prysyazhnyuk’s property.
Given the public significance of this case and its connection to the so-called "Sennichenko case", which has attracted widespread public interest, a journalist from the Ukrmedia news agency was able to attend the hearing to report on the topic in the media.
The "Sennichenko Case"
The "Sennichenko Case" is a large-scale investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), in which former head of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, Dmytro Sennichenko, is suspected of involvement in corruption schemes related to state property assets.
As part of this investigation, seizures and arrests of financial assets, movable, and immovable property have been carried out this year.
Key Figures: Hmyrin and Sennichenko
The Main Organizer
According to several media reports, the investigation considers Hmyrin the "main organizer" or at least one of the leaders of the group responsible for corrupt activities in the privatization of state property.
However, it remains unclear who exactly is cooperating with the investigation and under what conditions.
Previously, Serhiy Bayrak was mentioned in the case—initially as a suspect, but according to the defense, his status was later changed.
Dmytro Sennichenko’s Role
The former head of the State Property Fund of Ukraine remains one of the central figures in the investigation. However, his defense argues that the charges are politically motivated and unproven.
Serhiy Bayrak
Initially, he was listed as a suspect/co-organizer. However, according to the latest statements by the prosecutor, he no longer has the status of a suspect.
At the same time, it was mentioned that he was allegedly the one who "invited" Hmyrin, one of the key accused individuals, to the suspected criminal group.
Pavlo Prysyazhnyuk
His exact status in the case materials remains unclear:
Prosecutors mention that he is wanted.
However, Austrian police have not detained him.
Investigators claim he may be involved in money laundering or is listed as a witness.
Searches in Austria: What Exactly Happened?
Date and Location of the Searches
According to information revealed in court hearings, searches were conducted on February 19, 2025, at the apartment of Khrystyna Prysyazhnyuk in Austria.
It was also stated in court that a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) between Ukraine and Austria was officially established on February 16, 2024, for a formal period of 12 months.
However, by legal documentation, its mandate expired on February 16, 2025.
The searches were formally conducted by Austrian police within the framework of the JIT collaboration with Ukraine.
Seized Assets and Funds
During the search, foreign currency was discovered and seized. However, the prosecution did not specify the exact amount.
More precisely, two different sums were listed with a discrepancy of 540 euros.
According to defense attorney Tsyhankov, this was due to a prosecutorial error, where one document listed 600 euros instead of 60 euros.
Lawyers claim the seized money belongs to Khrystyna Prysyazhnyuk's relatives and friends.
In addition to cash, the authorities also seized:
Pavlo Prysyazhnyuk’s vehicle
His wristwatch
The prosecution petitioned the court to seize all the discovered assets as potential evidence in the case regarding alleged money laundering.
Pavlo Prysyazhnyuk’s Status: Suspect, Witness, or "Involved" in the Scheme?
Prosecution’s Position
According to the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), Pavlo Prysyazhnyuk appears in the case as a person who may be involved in money laundering and is allegedly wanted.
However, there are no records of his arrest by Austrian police or any official Interpol actions, which creates legal uncertainty in the case.
Statements from the Defense and Insiders
Defense Position
Lawyers insist that Prysyazhnyuk has no role in the "Sennichenko case"; he is falsely attributed with excessive significance, he does not "fit" into the case's evidentiary base at all, and the investigation is trying to "pull" him in to expand the circle of suspects. Alternatively, this may be an attempt to pressure him into cooperation.
The fact that Prysyazhnyuk's role in the case is, to put it mildly, greatly exaggerated is evidenced by the lack of actual detention or formal extradition procedures in Austria, despite claims that he is wanted.
Original Receipts and Transaction Documents
Initially, there was public information suggesting the absence of original receipts and supporting documents. However, during the court hearing, the defense stated that such receipts do exist in the case materials. This shifts the focus in disputes over the ownership of the seized funds.
Nevertheless:
Prosecution: Refers to documents (including original receipts) to argue that the money could have belonged to participants in criminal schemes. However, there is no actual evidence of Pavlo Prysyazhnyuk’s involvement.
Defense: Argues that the presence of receipts confirms the personal nature of the funds (belonging to relatives, friends, etc.) rather than any criminal origin.
Irregularities in the Evidence Base and NABU’s Actions
According to various sources and statements from the defense, Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) relies heavily on the testimony of an individual who may have been part of the organized scheme himself but is now acting as a complainant or a "cooperating witness."
Defense Criticism
Argues that such an approach may distort the investigation, since a "co-conspirator" received immunity in exchange for testimony.
Claims that the investigation is being built around a single source.
Prosecution’s Counterargument
Explains that cooperation with witnesses is a recognized mechanism for uncovering complex criminal schemes, and the court will ultimately evaluate the credibility of the testimony.
What’s Next?
Investigative actions are ongoing in both Ukraine and Austria. If new evidence or assets are discovered (including in other EU countries), they may be seized at the prosecution’s request.
The Appeals Chamber of Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) periodically reviews the legality of asset seizures and the procedural status of some figures involved.
If the court finds sufficient evidence against Sennichenko, Hmyrin, and other members of the alleged "criminal organization," the case will move to a detailed trial.
If procedural violations or insufficient evidence are identified, part of the materials may be excluded from the case, which would, in turn, affect the prospects of the charges.
Conclusion
The "Sennichenko case" remains one of Ukraine's most high-profile anti-corruption investigations. New details about searches in the Austrian apartment of Khrystyna Prysyazhnyuk, the seizure of Pavlo Prysyazhnyuk’s vehicle and watch, and the confirmation that original receipts proving the nature of the funds do exist, add further complexity to the court debates.
However, key questions remain unanswered:
Is Pavlo Prysyazhnyuk a participant in a criminal scheme, or was his role fabricated to "pressure him into cooperation"?
How justified is NABU and SAP’s reliance on testimonies from "cooperating" witnesses?
Bayrak, who was previously listed in the case materials as a suspect and one of the potential co-organizers, according to the latest statements from the prosecutor, no longer holds this status. However, during court hearings, it was repeatedly mentioned that he played a key role in recruiting one of the main defendants—Hmyrin—into the alleged criminal group.
According to various sources, there is speculation that Bayrak reached a deal with the investigation and received immunity from prosecution. What raises particular interest is that this alleged agreement, if it truly exists, is reportedly written in German. However, neither the prosecution nor the defense has officially confirmed its existence, leaving this issue unresolved.
What will be the real outcome of the joint investigation if some figures have already been "removed" from suspicion, while others continue to be persistently featured in the case materials?
Only the court will provide the final answer as it continues to review motions and examine the investigation's materials. We will continue to monitor developments and inform our readers about new details in this intricate case.