NABU and SAPO accuse Vsevolod Knyazev of a record-breaking bribe. And his bad friend accuses him of a bunch of crimes. What does the former chairman of the Supreme Court say about this? Exclusive interview

Part 1. Gonchar

Letʼs start with the story of Gonchar, because it was his interview that became the reason for this conversation. Who is he? And how did you meet him in 2014?

I listened to his interview, in which he intertwines real facts with fiction — this is a manipulative technique that anonymous Telegram channels love. I think one of the side goals of his interview is to protect himself from creditors, whom he defrauded of money and who are pursuing him.

In this way, he wants to create the impression that he really decided some issues in the Supreme Court.

Back to the point — he is mistaken about the year of acquaintance. We were introduced in 2016 by the head of one of the central courts of Mykolaiv. At that time, I headed the administrative court in Mykolaiv. Gonchar was her compadre, and she introduced him as a large and influential Kyiv businessman.

What was the purpose of her introducing you? Why did you need to meet an influential businessman?

There was no specific goal. She and I were in Kyiv at the time, when the court heads went to the State Judicial Administration to resolve financial issues. When we finished the cases, she suggested we go have lunch and get to know her best man at the same time. We went to a restaurant, his wife was also there.

After that, we didnʼt see each other for a long time. And he appeared in my life in 2018, when I was appointed to the position of judge of the Supreme Court. I came from the provinces, I didnʼt know anything or anyone here. And then he appears and starts making friendship [with me].

So, was it he who initiated your communication in Kyiv?

I won’t lie, I don’t remember how it was. But he was the initiator — he said, come to my office, and let’s have coffee. Just so you understand, his office was located on Bankova Street, almost opposite the entrance to the Presidential Administration, a five-story building next to the House of Chimeras. To get there, you had to go through a metal detector and show your documents. As a person from the provinces, it shocked me…

In the comment under your post about the interview with Gonchar, you write that he “posed himself as an intelligent person, invited you to museums, theaters, and temples”. But, frankly, he does not give the impression of an intellectual or a theater-lover. Why did you draw such conclusions, and what was in common between you?

Now he looks the way he should look, given his background. By the time I arrived from Mykolaiv, he looked completely different. That office I was talking about, he rented together with the peopleʼs deputies — they had a common reception room, that was something for me too.

What kind of deputies? From the government or from the opposition?

They are not really to blame for this situation, so I wonʼt name anyone. But these were the majoritarian deputies from Mykolaiv.

When you have a shared reception room with deputies, law enforcement officers canʼt just come and search you. Businessmen did that for exactly that reason.

Look, I didnʼt think about it. Now I understand why it was. Looking ahead, I will say that later these deputies came to me and said that he took money from them for some purpose and wouldnʼt give it back — in fact, he cheated them out of money.

To return to your question, he seemed like an intelligent person, was interested in art and theater, had four children, went to church, had a priest visiting him all the time, said that he was his priest and that he never did anything without him.

Where was his house, and what church?

[It was] in Koncha-Zaspa. As for the church, then this division was not so obvious. But in general he is a pro-Russian person, a citizen of Russia, his wife is a citizen of Russia.

Were you not embarrassed that a Russian citizen was friends with deputies, with you as a judge of the Supreme Court?

I didnʼt know he was a Russian citizen, and I only found out about it in 2021. I thought he was a Ukrainian citizen, that he was just a businessman.

What kind of business did he have?

He never delved into these issues with me. The only time he invited me to have lunch together in the city center. I now understand that it was not just like that — he is a cunning schemer.

When we started having lunch at that restaurant, he said:

“My friend is coming here, would you mind if he also has lunch with us?” Well, what do I say? It seemed to me that a businessman had arrived. Gonchar told him that he had a plot of land and offered to build on it, but in the end the businessman said that he was not interested.

And why did he invite this businessman to lunch with you?

I was told that he could specifically invite people to the next table so that they could see him and I having dinner together, that is, so that they could see him talking to me. I now understand that he was a professional conman, he knew how to rub in trust.

How often did you meet?

I think about once a month.

Has he been to your house?

It seems there was once.

And in all the time youʼve known him so closely, have you never once asked him what he does, where he gets his money from?

Of course, he asked. He told me this phrase:

“I am like an oligarch, only non-public, I have interests in different things: both in construction and in land plots. I supply something from different countries and sell it.”

But he didn’t say anything specific. And already in 2021, it became clear to me that something was wrong.

Youʼve already mentioned 2021 twice, what happened then?

I started hearing rumors that he said he could resolve any issue in the Supreme Court because he knew me. As proof of our friendship, he showed us a photo together. He suggested taking it at the first or second meeting in 2018, when we got together as a group with his friends — those MPs.

I agreed and it was my carelessness. I had only been in Kyiv for half a year then, I didnʼt understand these capital political things. Now I donʼt take photos with anyone.

So they started telling me that, under the guise of friendship, he was offering dubious services to parties to legal proceedings. My friends from Mykolaiv were the first to tell me about it.

The scheme was as follows: he takes the money, and if the case is resolved in the right way, he keeps it for himself, and if not, he returns it and says, they say, I gave Knyazev the money, but he didn’t do it.

Then I met a deputy with whom he shared a reception room. He complained that Gonchar promised to resolve one issue unrelated to the court, took $250 000 and didn’t resolve it. And then his comadre — the head of the court — arrived and said that he had abandoned a bunch of people. He took the money, promised to do something and didn’t do anything. I felt strange. He seems like a serious person, he has such a luxurious house, drives a Rolls-Royce, security guards drive a Maybach...

In Ukraine (and not only), people with such a lot of money who drive Rolls-Royces did not always earn it honestly. Have you ever thought about this?

Letʼs be honest, we probably wonʼt find a single businessman in Ukraine, except in the IT sector or, for example, “Nova Poshta”, where there wouldnʼt be skeletons in the closet. There are no perfect ones. But I didnʼt think things were that bad.

After you found out about all this, you didnʼt tell him anything, didnʼt you ask him anything?

We talked [about it]. He said that it was people he had a fight with who were deliberately slandering him. But there is no smoke without fire, so I limited my communication with him.

So, you are a judge of the Supreme Court, you are told that someone, under the guise of you, is promising to resolve issues in the Supreme Court for money. Why didnʼt you contact law enforcement? This is a serious matter — accusations of bribery undermine your reputation.

It was at the level of rumors, I didn’t know any specific facts. Therefore, in order not to provoke, I stopped communicating with him. Somewhere after a few months, I saw on the Internet that he had been detained by the SBU officers while committing fraudulent acts.

And then a person came to me and said that Gonchar took money from her to resolve the issue with me, and I decided the opposite, so I had to return the money. Of course, I didn’t resolve or discuss any issues with him. I know that this person is suing Gonchar for the return of the money.

Is this [attorney Oleh] Horetsky? What case is this about?

Sorry, I wouldnʼt like to specify names and cases.

Well, look, if he is suing, it is easy to check in the registry. The only person who has been suing Gonchar for a long time for money is Goretsky.

I will not refute or confirm your words. I have nothing to do with this story. But I know that the relevant circumstances are currently being investigated in criminal proceedings.

Did Gonchar ask you about any court cases or ask you for anything?

He didn’t ask directly. He asked what was going on in this or that case? A case is sent to the Grand Chamber not to resolve a specific dispute — that’s what the Court of Cassation does, but to provide a legal position when there is a major legal problem.

That’s why he could ask several times, like, you have such a case pending regarding a legal problem? Isn’t that the wrong position? What do you think about it?

I tried not to have these conversations with him, but once I could emotionally say that I disagree with the existing practice and believe that it needs to be changed because it doesn’t correspond to this or that decision of the European Court or it’s unfair. Considering my words, he could understand how I would vote and that there were chances that there would be such a decision of the Grand Chamber in this case.

But you were one of 21 judges in the Grand Chamber and had one vote. How could Honchar conclude that the Chamber would vote as you did?

Yes, and so he couldnʼt always guess it. But look. I was the secretary of the Grand Chamber, my voice was perceived as more authoritative. And so with a probability greater than 1 in 21, he could predict that the legal position might change.

What do you mean when you say your vote was more authoritative? Are all judges equal under the law?

He probably thought that if I was the Secretary of the Chamber, the other judges could listen to my opinion. In fact, no. There is no such thing in the Grand Chamber, and everyone votes as they see fit.

And if you open the register of judicial decisions for this period, you will see that I — alone or with other judges — have many times written a separate opinion because I did not agree with the position adopted by the majority.

You say that the Grand Chamber only forms a position and does not decide cases, but that is not true. According to the law on the judiciary and the status of judges, it considers cases and acts as an appellate instance in certain cases.

You misunderstood me. Indeed, the Grand Chamber receives a specific case for consideration, but it ends up there not because they don’t want it to be considered in the Court of Cassation, but when it has an exceptional legal problem, the solution of which requires judges from different courts of cassation, or when the issue is inter-jurisdictional.

And when we considered such a case in the Grand Chamber, we never focused on whether party A or party B was right. We discussed the legal problem. Yes, the decision will still be in favour of “A” or “B”, but it doesn’t matter to us.

We have just talked about the fact that the Grand Chamber makes a decision that actually becomes a precedent for other courts. But in the case of [Andriy] Klyuyev, which Gonchar spoke about in an interview, the Grand Chamber, actually taking his side, broke its own practice. Let us recall that this concerns 3 hectares of land that Viktor Yanukovych’s close associate Andriy Klyuyev bought in Kozyn for zero in a dubious way. Then the prosecutor’s office tried to take the land through the courts, in 2017 the case was sent to the Supreme Court, and in December 2019 the Supreme Court returned the case to the court of first instance and the land remained with Klyuyev.

A good example. There were indeed other cases before the Klyuyev case in which the Grand Chamber took a certain position. I voted against and even wrote a separate opinion in another case six months before “Klyuyevʼs case” came into being. That position of the Grand Chamber caused a lot of discussion both among judges and in the legal community.

Accordingly, after some time, the Court of Cassation sent us a case to deviate from this conclusion, which so happened to be “Klyuyevʼs case”. Recently, by the way, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law that coincides with my position.

Youʼre talking about the law according to which, if you received some land...

... with a violation quite a long time ago, then after 10 years it is no longer possible to ask questions about it. This problem is very multifaceted: who is the defendant in the case, should there be compensation, are the lands of the forest fund and water fund different? What type of claim is this, and is the prosecutor limited by the statute of limitations when filing such a claim?

Gonchar and I really had a conversation about this, because when the Grand Chamber considered the case about the Mykolaiv coast, I knew this situation well: people took land for themselves, perhaps with violations, some for development, some for a private house.

And after 10 years the prosecutor comes and starts to give them nightmares: you have a recreation center in a protected zone, you took it ten years ago, but now I will file a lawsuit and take your base. And when they ask what needs to be done, he clearly hints at what he is hinting at. And then the next prosecutor comes. People constantly feel on the hook. So I believed that after a certain period of time it is impossible to take away land.

A separate topic is protective zones. If you follow the logic that nothing can be built in protective zones, then all of Odesa was built illegally. And the prosecutor will not go to the grandmother because of her shed, but will go to the developer who built a large skyscraper.

That is, these were corruption-prone norms, and I did not agree with him. In fact, the European Court of Human Rights says the same thing. For example, in the 2024 case “Odesa Sandwich Company v. Ukraine” and several others.

I defended this position in all cases, including the case you mentioned. My position was well known, a separate opinion was published in the register. It was also well known in legal circles that “Klyuyevʼs case” was sent to us for a retreat. I think, considering this, Gonchar decided to use this information…

So, the courtʼs position has changed?

This happens often. We consider complex issues — votes are often divided. The full composition of the chamber is 21 people. But someone is sick, or the head of the court is busy.

Well, for example, the votes were divided 10 to 11, and then someone resigned, a new judge came, and he has a different position, and now the ratio is 11 to 10. There are no safeguards in the law to prevent this from happening.

We in the Grand Chamber have been fighting this practice for a long time, trying to ensure that the position does not change for at least three years, so that there is stability. But people sometimes believe so sincerely in their legal position that they disagree.

And this contradicts the main goal — to develop a consistent practice that all courts will follow.

Unfortunately, there is such a drawback.

Gonchar says that the issue of this plot "cost" $400 thousand, which you were supposedly promised. I donʼt ask if this is true, because obviously you will deny everything...

I understand that no matter what I say, I wonʼt convince you. But, as you understand, there could be no question of either $400 million or $4.

Okay, but we talked to other lawyers. And many say that in this case, previous practice should have been taken into account, that is, the prosecutorʼs appeal should have been granted and not sided with Klyuyev.

Well, these are different opinions. My position has always been the same in all such matters.

By the way, regarding this case, Gonchar claims that I allegedly planned to send judges who disagreed with my position on business trips or vacations in order to secure the necessary votes.

But the case was considered by a panel of 19 judges out of 21 — this can be easily verified in the register — that is, by almost the entire court, and not a single person was on business trips or vacations.

That day, only the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Valentyna Danishevska was absent, whom I had no authority to send on vacation or business trips, because she was my superior. Another judge was sick, that is, he was on sick leave. This is a good example of the falsity of Goncharʼs words.

If you are sure that the previous practice is wrong, why did you send the case for review to the first instance instead of putting an end to it?

Iʼll tell you a secret: in 2019, no one would have ruled in favour of Klyuyev. When such situations arise, not only the Grand Chamber, but also the Supreme Court in general sends the case for a new trial to reassess the evidence, taking into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court itself does not have the right to evaluate the evidence. I donʼt know the current statistics, but somewhere in 2020-2021, 50-60% of proceedings were sent for a new trial.

In the video, Gonchar also mentions the Illichivsk port case. What can you say about it?

I remember the Illichivsk port case well. Gonchar asked me about it and even said that they were some of his acquaintances, asking if I could help or take a look.

So he still asked you for help...

I replied that I would not interfere in these cases. First, this is a commercial case and the preliminary decision on the case is being prepared by a judge-"businessman", and I am a judge in administrative cases, and I do not know what it will be.

Then, when this case was considered in the Grand Chamber, the vast majority of judges took the position that the appeal court made an unfair decision (the Commercial Court in Odesa sided with the enterprise.

The appeal court overturned this decision and dismissed the lawsuit). I do not remember that this case was controversial. The decision was made, it seems, almost unanimously.

He now says there was some Russian trace there. He didnʼt tell me anything like that then, and it was clearly not the case.

The media wrote that one of the founders of the company, whose side the court sided with, was Andriy Bezsalov. After the occupation of Crimea, he became the “Minister of Transport” there.

The media may have written about it. I don’t know Bezsalov. There were no such circumstances in the case. I never search the Internet for the founder when a case comes in.

It happened that one of the judges would dig up the relevant information and, let’s say, tell everyone that it was a Russian enterprise. But this shouldn’t have influenced the decision — we make decisions according to the law.

By the way, I’ve already searched the Internet that other media outlets say that the owner of that enterprise was an American-British investment fund…

But you said that when it came to Klyuyev, it was a political decision...

Well, everyone knows about Klyuyev. There was no need to look there.

So here Russia is an aggressor country.

Well, look, now we will have a party in the case of LLC "Promin". The case will contain an extract from the state register that LLC "Promin" is registered in the Pechersk district of Kyiv. There is no information about the founders. How can we know who the founder is and what his share is? It is impossible.

When we prepare materials about people or events, we study available information about them, Google them, look at registers...

This is understandable. The Supreme Court does not depart from these categories, we do not look at who the founders are, whether there is an influential person there, we should not look into the history of the enterprise.

And there is no time for this, and it should not affect the resolution of the dispute. Unless sanctions are imposed. But we cannot refuse a companyʼs claim just because its founder is a Russian citizen. That is why I did not delve into it.

And most importantly, this case was not particularly complicated. Most judges believed that something had been unfairly taken from the investor. I sincerely believed that it was good that it turned out that way, that we protected the investor.

The next case is the dispute between Ukrzaliznytsia and Donbasenergo.

I donʼt even remember such a case. I listened to his interview, and we definitely never talked about this case. During my time at the court, we reviewed 5 000 cases. Often, we reviewed 100 cases a day.

We spoke with the judges, they said that in this particular case the Grand Chamberʼs decision was logical. Gonchar also mentioned the case of the Hotel "Ukraine".

Itʼs all some kind of fantasy, especially the words that I wanted to buy a penthouse there — itʼs just ridiculous. Although it actually made me sad, because he says that, and people like to savor such details — in his underwear, a penthouse.

Speaking of details that people love, he also talks about your real estate, that you have a luxurious apartment on Lutheranska, a house in Turkey, and a bank deposit box measuring 80 by 80 centimeters.

But Bigus didnʼt believe him either, he said that there were no such cells. I once rented a cell — they were all small. If I really asked him for a cell, there should have been some documents, for example, a cell rental agreement, a power of attorney for the cell.

There is a single register of powers of attorney, so itʼs easy to check whether I or my family members issued a power of attorney for Gonchar or his relatives. This is another fake.

Regarding the apartment, he says: “It’s 350 meters,” then a pause, then he says “only living space”. The person wants to create some kind of sensation. The whole country saw the video of my detention and search.

You can see in what conditions I live: I rented a “Stalin-era house,” which was renovated back in the days of the Soviet times. There was also disciplinary proceedings against me for allegedly not paying the owner of this “Stalin-era house” in addition to the market price. I gave documents, all her receipts, that she took money from me in the full amount of $1 100 per month. This is a normal price for a murdered “Stalin-era house”, even in the Pechersky district.

Neither you nor any of your relatives have an apartment on Lutheranska and a house in Turkey? Maybe your ex-wife does?

No one has it. My ex-wife is now living in Turkey with her sister, she moved there with her children during the war. This is an apartment in a townhouse. My sister is the wife of a wealthy foreigner, and they live together.

We provided a document about this to the detectives three years ago when I was arrested. They began to question me about whether I had real estate. We provided an extract from the unified real estate register of Turkey that neither I nor any of my relatives have real estate and never had.

Have you been to that apartment in Turkey?

No, Iʼve never been.

And none of your relatives, maybe distant ones, have an apartment on Lutheranska Street?

This version probably arose from the fact that distant relatives had bought an apartment there, and we were planning to rent it from them. But it didnʼt come to that.

When was that?

Probably in 2022.

And how distant are the relatives?

They are actually my wifeʼs relatives, some distant ones. Some third or fourth aunt, but I donʼt know for sure. As far as I know, my ex-wife now lives there with her new husband when sheʼs in Kyiv.

We usually donʼt ask about personal relationships, but here we have to. Because when criminal proceedings arise, couples often divorce in order to transfer money to their wives, hide property, etc. Didnʼt your wife get new apartments or cars after the divorce?

My wife doesnʼt have a car or an apartment, not even in Mykolaiv. Nothing.

Gonchar also mentioned the story with Judge Bohdan Lvov. According to Gonchar, he let you down several times, promising to solve the case, but never did. And then you fired him. According to our information, you had a difficult relationship with Lvov. Tell us your version?

I never had a good relationship with Lvov. We only communicated because we had to communicate in the course of work, especially after I was elected chairman of the Supreme Court. He was against my election, in the chairmanship elections he had his own candidate, whom he promoted, so after that the relationship generally deteriorated. Therefore, I could not discuss any issues with him, let alone ask for anything.

The last question about Gonchar. Everything he talks about happened a long time ago, he could have told it a long time ago, so why do you think he spoke now?

As far as I know, Gonchar is an agent of NABU. That is, for a certain fee he goes to officials and offers them bribes. If they agree, he documents them. And then he brags that he receives a fee for it. He has a mountain of criminal cases, a bunch of problems.

It is known that in 2021 he was detained under Part 4 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code — fraud. Today is 2025. He has no preventive measure, the case is not moving anywhere, he is at large, everything is fine with him. Why? Because he cooperates with law enforcement agencies. When law enforcement agencies need to make some material or a tip-off, they use such people.

To sum it up, I will say that in the proceedings against me, which are being considered by the High Anti-Corruption Court, not everything is so smooth for the prosecution, because the evidence is problematic.

In October 2021, SBU detained Honchar. He and his accomplices were suspected of illegal land acquisition schemes. They allegedly tried to illegally sell one of the land plots for a million dollars.

Are you implying that Gonchar is on the hook with law enforcement and when they had problems with your case, they got him? But the cases against Gonchar are not in NABU, but in other law enforcement agencies, for example, in the National Police.

Letʼs count how many NABU detectives worked in the police in the past. Many. Was it difficult to agree on cooperation at a stage when there was no current confrontation between NABU and the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), and the authorities?

Agents are transferred, law enforcement officers help each other. I assume that law enforcement officers can help so that the case does not move quickly or moves in a different way.

The day after Goncharʼs interview, I myself filed a statement with NABU regarding the facts he had stated, so that they could verify them. By the way, they say that Gonchar, who came to the interview in military uniform, is no longer serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but I donʼt know for sure.

You wrote that he serves in a military unit that [former head of the State Fiscal Service Roman] Nasirov unsuccessfully tried to mobilize into.

Thatʼs what I was told. I know that in the case of the former head of the State Judicial Administration [Oleksiy] Salnikov, they checked Goncharʼs phone billing to see if he had really ever been at the front, but he was in Kyiv all this time.

Part 2. The Bribery Case

Letʼs move on to your case, which is being heard in court. We know the position of NABU and SAPO well. You say that things are not so good with it. Letʼs go through the issues that you consider to be the weak points of the prosecution.

Letʼs go back to the very beginning — to the search of my house in May 2023. The door to my apartment is broken down, the NABU special forces rush in together with detectives from the secret department.

They knock me down on the floor, put a machine gun to my head — normal treatment of the head of the Supreme Court? Itʼs evening, Iʼm not armed, and Iʼm — excuse me — in pajamas. They pull the bolt around my head. Iʼm a fairly stable person, but then I felt embarrassed too. They search the apartment.

What theyʼre doing — I canʼt see, because they ordered me to lower my head to the ground and put a machine gun to it. Then one of the detectives starts interrogating me, I canʼt hear what heʼs saying, everything merged into one noise for me.

Some time passes, and I hear the words: "Well, thatʼs it, you can bring witnesses and an investigator." After that, a few minutes later, the investigating detective who is conducting this case enters the apartment, with witnesses, with a video camera, and starts looking for something.

And what he is looking for, one of the detectives already has in his hands. The investigating detective asks: “Where did you find it?” The detective says that he found it right there, on the sofa. “Yeah, witnesses, did you hear? The detective just found it on the sofa,” but the camera doesn’t show it.

How do you like such a search?

And what was in your hands?

A mobile phone, and next to it was a bag, which was later seized.

Was there money in the bag that was also seized?

There were items in it that looked like money. I wonʼt go into more detail now, because no one has examined them or examined them very carefully. This, by the way, will also be visible on the video. I invite you to the meeting and you will see everything.

Were the numbers of the banknotes in the bag compared with those used by NABU to pay the bribe? Because we know that during the search of your office, the numbers of the banknotes found were compared.

I donʼt know what was compared in the office, I wasnʼt there. And the report of the search of the office actually states: "Money was found, the first and last bills match those given to the applicant."

The first and last of $400 thousand. Was it compared or not?

Youʼre talking about a search of the office. What about the apartment?

Nothing was compared in the apartment either.

Didnʼt they take it out? Didnʼt they put it away?

They took it out, laid it out, but they didnʼt compare anything. And all this is visible on the video, you can see it if you come to the meeting.

But all of this must be recorded in the case files, every single note.

There is no such thing.

But there should be a list of banknote numbers.

There are numbers, but are these the same bills that were seized, how are they tied? No one tied them.

So the numbers match?

The documents match, but in fact they were not checked. You can compile the documents, you can have this list of bills with you, you know what I mean?

Okay, is this your bag?

No, of course not mine. And its contents are not mine either.

And now to your question about what are the weaknesses in the case. Here they refer to the protocol of handing over this money to agent [Horburov], right? They drew up this protocol and they didn’t calculate it a little bit — they drew it up on the wrong date.

It just wasn’t drawn up at all, probably, and then they thought, let’s write that we handed over this money. So, the protocol states that detective so-and-so and the applicant [Horburov] were on such and such a date at such and such a time at the NABU’s secret apartment on Maidan Nezalezhnosti.

But the date was taken so randomly that they didn’t take into account that on this very day and time the same detective was conducting visual surveillance using a video camera of this same agent and they were in a completely different place in Kyiv.

And during visual surveillance, as you may know, the smallest details are recorded: he got into the car, got out, scratched his head, made a phone call — and so on all day. And according to these records, no one was in any of the secret apartments. Thatʼs it.

The anti-corruption authorities told Babel that before Knyazev was given the second tranche of the bribe, $450 000, detectives drew up a report on the inspection, identification, and delivery of the funds. They recorded the number and series of each banknote, made notes in the report, and made copies of the banknotes.

After the money was handed over to Knyazev and during the search of his apartment, detectives filmed each banknote on video, named its series and number — and recorded this in the search report. And already at the NABU premises, both reports, where the numbers and series of the banknotes were indicated, were compared.

When the series and numbers matched, this became proof that these were the same funds that were handed over to Knyazev as an illegal benefit.

Weʼve heard about this and the "adventures" of the bribe bag. You insist that it somehow appeared in your apartment by mistake. Tell us what is it about?

In short, after agent [Horburov] left the apartment, the NABU officers ran after him with a bag very similar to the one that was later found in my apartment. This moment was recorded by the chest camera that the agent was wearing.

And you need to understand that a lot of time passed between the moment when NABU broke into my apartment and the moment when the detectives with the witnesses entered.

This is visible on the video from the agentʼs chest camera. He opened the door, they pushed him away, after that he went downstairs, there were detective investigators standing there, even without the witnesses, they met him and only after a while began to go up.

All this time, only those who broke into my apartment were there, without the witnesses and the video recording, and I was upside down. And when the witnesses arrived, the search was already in full swing.

And how do you prove that itʼs not your bag? Because a similar, blurred bag in the video is a kind of proof.

I have never had such a bag — you can see photos, videos on the Internet. This is the first. Secondly, I have nothing to prove — there is a presumption of innocence. If it was like you say, then there would be no presumption of innocence.

And my fingerprints, some biological traces [that remained on the bag] — there are none and there will be none. If there were, then it would already be in the case.

We do not deny the presumption of innocence, but the defense works, and if the bag is not yours, you could have the examinations you are talking about.

After so much time had passed, we really didnʼt conduct an examination. And what would the examination show? That there were no biological traces of me there?

Maybe, maybe it was worth [to do it], but we didnʼt.

We heard about another complaint from your defense. That the detectives who searched your apartment were not listed in the search report.

Yes, the report was drawn up by the detectives who stood waiting at the entrance, and when they were told to come in, they came in and said: “Oh, the bag!”

And who was not on the record then?

Detectives from the NABU secret department, who ran into the apartment first.

But procedurally, they did not conduct a search.

Yes, it was not conducted procedurally.

And those who came and conducted the search are in the report.

Yes.

Letʼs move on to the search of the office. What kind of money was in the safe?

I donʼt know what kind of money it is. Some of it is money that my friends gave me for safekeeping. And since the numbers werenʼt checked, and I donʼt know the numbers either, I donʼt rule out that it was some kind of forgery.

As far as we understand, some of the money matched the amount used to bribe NABU, and some did not.

Look what happened in the office. I wasn’t there, and I later watched the video of the search. When the detectives searched my apartment, they searched my backpack and found the key to the work safe there. They took it away.

Then they get a call from other detectives who searched the office and say: here, in addition to the key, you also need to know the code for the safe. It’s really on the code and on the key. They ask what the code is.

I say that I don’t remember the code itself, but if I see the layout, I’ll tell you, because it’s such a memory of hands. They quickly took a photo of the keyboard, showed it to me, and I told them the code.

In the office, they opened the safe with a code, and the inner cell, where they later found the money, was locked. There were only documents in the safe. And then the detective says, letʼs go search the break room — itʼs a separate room in the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Everyone goes to the break room, all the witnesses, one of the detectives (there were only three detectives there), two representatives of the Supreme Court. Everyone goes to the kitchen, there they search some dishes, they look for something in the bathroom under the toilet.

And all this time, about 10 minutes, only the NABU employees who have the key that I gave them remain in the office with the safe. And then the detective enters the break room and says: "Thatʼs it, now letʼs go see whatʼs in the safe."

I donʼt understand why such a sequence of searches, and why the cell was not opened right away.

And then they opened the cell and found the money?

Yes.

Letʼs get back to the money you admit to having kept at the request of friends. It sounds quite strange to keep a large sum of someone elseʼs money in cash in a safe deposit box at the Supreme Court.

These are my friends, businessmen, who were able to take money out during the occupation of Kherson. I don’t want to say how much money... There is documentary evidence of the withdrawal of this money from accounts. And they didn’t know how to take this money abroad when they left.

They told me a story that you could take $10 000 abroad. They hired buses, and students took $10 000 out of them. Part of the Kyiv region was under occupation at the time, my family lived in Lviv.

Why donʼt you name these people?

Why donʼt I name them, they are in the case. I donʼt want to speak publicly now — itʼs for peopleʼs safety. They said, take $5 million, hide it. They know that I have 24-hour security, itʼs safe.

And it was just a weekend or something, because I came to Lviv to see my family, and they were leaving just through the Lviv region, and we met them there. He asked to take the money. I say, I wonʼt take it. Itʼs such a huge amount of money, I wonʼt be responsible for it. And in the end, he agreed to take a million dollars for safekeeping.

The money was in the Lviv region for a while, where I stayed with my family for a few days, and then I returned to Kyiv and, of course, took the money with me.

Yes, maybe it was wrong — to hide the money inside the Supreme Court, thatʼs not what working safes are designed for. But there is an official contract, there is confirmation of the withdrawal of this money from the bank account.

So do you have a storage agreement?

Yes, or rather, there is a receipt, no one made a contract. There is confirmation that they withdrew this money from the bank a few days before. And there is confirmation that the next day after meeting with me, they crossed the border and went abroad.

And these businessmen didnʼt have any proceedings in the Supreme Court or other courts?

No. Theyʼre just my friends.

So you say you took a million, but found a million and a hundred.

One hundred thousand is the money I declared, you can look at the declaration, it is declared as my savings.

Then how do you explain that the banknote numbers matched?

No. First of all, I donʼt know who actually put what in that safe. I could give you a video and you would see it, but probably only with the permission of the investigator: you would see that this is exactly how it was.

This was investigated in open court, journalists saw it. No one actually reported or copied the banknote numbers.

Letʼs talk about lawyer Horetsky. What was your relationship with him?

I didnʼt communicate with him very often, but the relationship is friendly, letʼs say.

According to the investigation, Horetsky was your back office...

This is a complete fabrication, and the investigators abandoned this version at the end of the investigation and excluded it from the indictment, because it is absolutely not confirmed by anything. It was, you know, such a circumstance to create a certain image.

What back office? We did not discuss matters with him at all, we could have lunch or dinner together somewhere. He helped me with some, letʼs be honest, such issues that I could not solve myself.

For example, I need to go to the military registration and enlistment office to change my military ID, because I am registered in Mykolaiv, but the war has started and I need to be in Kyiv. This is an example of what I asked him for.

Or, for example, certain individuals, I think it could have been from Lviv, spread information about me that I am a Russian citizen and my wife owns some factory and apartment in Crimea. It appeared everywhere on the Internet, in Telegram channels. People love that.

I ask Horetsky, do you have any acquaintances to get information from Russian registers, who actually owns this Crimean apartment? Who owns this factory? What kind of passport is this — punch it in by number?

He has connections with lawyers, and he got me a real photo of this passport with the photo and surname of another person — a real citizen of the Russian Federation — and an extract from the register, who really owns this apartment and factory in Crimea. We published it to refute the lie.

Itʼs like Gonchar — they throw out lies, and people like it.

And what did they give up on Horetsky? He made a deal with the investigation.

They initially suspected me of creating an organized group, a back office, and so on. Then they investigated for several months and came to the conclusion that there was none, and these circumstances were excluded from the indictment. No organized group, no back office. None of this was confirmed.

That is, it was necessary to create a beautiful picture for the media.

And what was left of Zhevahoʼs bribe?

Thatʼs right. Everything else was just to throw dirt, and you made excuses. They threw it well, because it was written everywhere, it was spread by journalists, bloggers, opinion leaders.

An image has already been created, you already have a stigma that you are a bribe taker, that you organized a criminal group. And this went on for a year, while I was in the pre-trial detention center and could not actually fight it.

In September of this year, the court declared a new suspicion in your case...

I donʼt have any specific information, but from those sources, from my own sources, I know that the suspicion was handed over to lawyer Anatoliy Rekun, supposedly lawyer Zhevaho, who supposedly transferred money to Horetsky.

Do you know Rekun, have you met?

Iʼve never even heard of that name. My indictment says that Horburov handed over the money.

The key or one of the key pieces of evidence in your case is the NABU films, where, according to the detectives, Horetsky, Horburov and you agree on receiving a bribe and how to divide it. The amounts in the case appear there, the names of Zhevaho and Oleh are mentioned, meaning Horetsky. Your voice is very similar. And in general, the conversations coincide with what the investigators say. How do you explain all this?

I wouldnʼt like to go into details right now. Weʼll be evaluating these recordings in court soon, so itʼs inappropriate to discuss them in detail now. I can only say that objectively there are traces of editing, and I donʼt remember such conversations.

The video shows Horburov coming to your house on May 15, bringing a bag, and you discuss it. But you tell us that the bag was brought later. So the video, the audio, and your voice are all fake?

Regarding the bag — agent [Horburov] came to me, he had a bag with him, but not the one that was found during the search. This is clearly visible if you look at the protocol of the inspection of the bag and the video recording of the search.

The found bag somehow appeared in the apartment after NABU detectives had searched it for some time without the participation of witnesses and video recording.

On the NABU recordings, Horburov is heard best. Was he wiretapped?

No, it was in Horetskyʼs premises. By the way, you asked about the weaknesses. NABU installs stationary listening equipment in the lawyerʼs premises and listens to the lawyerʼs conversations with his clients, with everyone, around the clock for three months.

Was this with his permission?

No, it was without any permission. Even the court did not give permission for this. I will tell you more, the investigating judge refused it because he understands that wiretapping in a lawyerʼs office is a violation of the European Convention.

Are you saying that the recordings as evidence are not legalized?

Yes. The court gave permission for audio monitoring of Horetsky. What is this? This is wiretapping in a public place, and they asked for the installation of equipment inside the lawyerʼs office. The court refused them this.

Nevertheless, the equipment was installed, and wiretapping was carried out for three months. This is absolutely illegal in any case. “A” is about you cannot wiretap lawyers in their offices, as the European Court noted in a recent decision in the case "Denysiuk v. Ukraine". “B” is about you cannot wiretap without the permission of the court.

How significant are these recordings now for the prosecution?

They are important, and most importantly, there is such a thing as the doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree”. Do you understand? If they caught Horetsky or Horburov, recorded such conversations with clients of a lawyer or notary. And then, for example, they can call someone, and say ʼhere we recorded thisʼ, or ʼyou work with usʼ, or ʼwe are now transferring itʼ, for example, to the National Police, with which the NABU, in your opinion, has no connections, and you will have big problems, because you are advising people who, for example, are evading criminal liability.

Because, in fact, lawyers have a very fine line on which issues they can advise and which ones they cannot. But such actions of law enforcement officers undermine the entire institution of the bar.

Who will go to consult a lawyer if, probably, law enforcement officers are “eavesdropping” on him?

You mentioned ECHR. Do you plan to complain there?

We have already complained, proceedings have already been opened at ECHR.

Why do we emphasize this so much? Because if there was no ruling, then this evidence is inadmissible.

Of course, but the court refused to declare them inadmissible.

With what formulation?

Based on the fact that the evidence in the case has not been fully investigated, and it is still unclear whether these recordings were made by breaking into the office or not.

But if they find out what was recorded in the office, they may declare it inadmissible at the end of the hearing.

The board decided that it would give an assessment in the conference room. But the fact remains a fact.

The anti-corruption authorities informed Babel that permission to conduct covert investigative actions is available in the lawyerʼs office in the case. It was granted based on a ruling by the investigating judge of the Supreme Judicial Council at the request of the Deputy Prosecutor General — the head of SAPO.

Letʼs talk about the collateral. In January 2024, “Soltis” paid almost UAH 18.2 million for you. Who are these people?

I would not like to answer that question. They have nothing to do with this case.

These arenʼt the people whose money you were saving?

No, I honestly donʼt want to drag these people into this situation at all. They helped.

But there is a register and the name of the company is already public information.

These are people who have absolutely nothing to do with the criminal case.

But speaking of bail, Gonchar says that I had a bank deposit box with a volume of almost a cubic meter. And at the same time, I spent a year in pre-trial detention and once a month asked the court to reduce my bail.

I was in a moldy place, and there was not enough to eat every day. And how does this compare to the millions of dollars that Gonchar talks about, with an 80 by 80 cell?

With such wealth, I would probably post bail and be released the next day.

Part 3. Power

Look, everything youʼve told us, your entire version is based on your innocence. And as we said at the beginning, obviously you wouldnʼt tell us "yes, I took all these bribes". But if you insist that the case was fabricated, then someone fabricated it for a specific purpose. Who did it and why?

You understand that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is not detained for no reason. How many interested parties were there to remove me from office? A large number.

But very few people could organize such an operation involving law enforcement.

Yes, there are very few of them, but this scheme only seems complicated to you and me, because we donʼt work there. For law enforcement officers, organizing such a scheme is not very difficult.

We are talking about something else: if your version were true, then very few people could force law enforcement officers of this level to fabricate a case. Letʼs be more specific — the leadership of SAPO and NABU could do this if they had a motive, or the authorities if they had a motive and sufficient influence on these bodies. We see that you do not want to name names, but this is a logical continuation of your version of a fabricated case. And speaking of the authorities, according to our information, when it came to who would head the Supreme Court, former Prosecutor General [Andriy] Kostin and Deputy Head of the Prosecutor Generalʼs Office Oleh Tatarov supported your candidacy.

I didn’t know Tatarov before his appointment as the head of the Supreme Court. And I really knew Kostina, because he was the head of the legal committee of the Verkhovna Rada — we communicated on the job. But I didn’t hear that they were in favour of my candidacy.

I was told completely different things, namely that Portnov brought a completely different candidate to the President’s Office and approved him there. This is the candidate who competed with me for the position.

Which judge did Lviv support, right?

Well, I donʼt want to name him because thereʼs no hard evidence, and heʼs not a bad person in himself. The stars aligned so well that he was nominated to run for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and they started doing everything for him. But he didnʼt win.

Letʼs get back to Tatarov. You didnʼt know him before he headed the Supreme Court. And then?

And then, of course, we talked about work.

Why did you communicate with Tatarov about work?

Well, because repeatedly in the Office of the President some round tables, meetings were held. Well, letʼs say, he was quite a statesman. That is, he was responsible for certain state issues.

For example, he could call and say that there is a practice that for AWOL a mild punishment is assigned. This can lead to negative consequences, and maybe it is necessary to somehow consult with judges.

Or that law enforcement agencies complain that in this or that court there are not enough investigating judges, so canʼt we consider the issue of sending judges there. There could have been conversations of this kind.

Itʼs interesting because various people are on record saying that Tatarov and Portnov, who you mentioned, were people who controlled what they could control in the judicial system. And your communication with Tatarov suggests that he was interested in the judicial branch of government.

Of course, I was interested, because, as far as I understand, he oversaw the law enforcement unit in the Presidentʼs Office. And, as far as I understand, there was some conflict between Tatarov and [then deputy head of the Office of the President Andriy] Smirnov.

And so it was.

At some point, I became, so to speak, a hostage to this conflict. And this influenced the further development of events.

Letʼs talk about this in more detail.

Well, I wonʼt argue because I donʼt want to have lawsuits tomorrow for the protection of honour and dignity.

But this is important. Explain in more detail.

Well, letʼs put it this way, my relationship with Smirnov deteriorated very much towards the end of my work as the head of the Supreme Court. And there was an episode when Smirnov called and said that he had already agreed and… What did he say? That “you will have problems with NABU”.

I thought then that this was ridiculous, that this could not be. This was a few months before all these events with me. But maybe it was a coincidence.

Did Smirnov try to influence your decisions before this?

He tried to run the court system manually, so to speak. I thought that was not entirely right.

What exactly is it about, what to manage, for example?

Formation of the High Council of Justice, the Supreme Judicial Council, vision of the further development of the judicial system. I had one opinion, he had another. And on this basis, after a certain time, conflicts began to arise.

Then it all became intertwined, and a serious confrontation arose.

In our interview with Smirnov, we asked him about the conversation with you that prosecutors mentioned in his case. He asked to speak to a judge of the 6th Court of Appeals in the case, as we understood it, of “Privat”.

I donʼt remember such a conversation.

NABU is talking about this call. And Smirnov confirmed the fact of the conversation. But it is interesting that Smirnov hinted that he called so that the court would make a fair decision.

You see, there are cases when they want to manage the judicial system in manual mode and tell what decisions will be made... Well, for example, it would be difficult for me to even call someone and say, make such or such a decision.

And this, of course, caused misunderstanding. Maybe he had the idea that this is how it should be — they will call from the Presidentʼs Office and decisions will be made as someone needs. But there is a limit to everything.

Overall, I donʼt think that everything in this case happened because of one person. There were several circumstances that came together.

And who else?

I wouldnʼt like to say in advance, because Iʼm still studying this issue to a certain extent.

Are these people in power?

Yes, of course, these are people in power.

The Presidentʼs Office?

No.

And what other real power do we have? Not military administrations.

I promise to tell you as soon as I am completely sure. Because right now it could harm the clarification of this information.

Okay, letʼs say at some point you realized that you were being pressured. You had very good relations with Western partners, a very high level of trust. Did you tell them about the pressure?

Here too, everything is very non-linear. With Western partners, itʼs a different story. Not everything always looks the way it is presented in the media. There were also some misunderstandings with Western partners regarding, for example, the ways in which they wanted the money provided in the form of grants for the judicial system to be used. Corruption is everywhere.

Letʼs clarify here. We have been told in off-record more than once that Western partners often have their own opinion about fair sentences in high-profile cases. And that their wishes in this regard can also be interpreted as pressure. Are you talking about that?

No, itʼs not about decisions. Itʼs about money. You know, when a conditional manager from an international partner organization says that we will allocate money for the judicial system, but it has to go to certain purposes and this work has to be carried out by this firm, conditionally, from Lithuania.

Then, for example, it becomes clear that this firm may be connected to that manager. Well, thatʼs how it happens. And some misunderstandings began to arise about this. So, as I said, there were several different things going on here.

However, if you have problems, the judge has other ways to report pressure — the Supreme Court of Justice, for example.

Are you serious? The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court declares to the Supreme Court of Justice during the war that he is being pressured by the Office of the President or grant organizations? Are you serious?! Do you think this happens?

And you understand what the point is... In a country at war, to declare that the Office of the President is pressuring the court is to cast a shadow on the president himself and generally create a very bad media background. And, probably, this is the main motive that did not allow me to raise these issues publicly.

You are right about preventing pressure from the point of view of the law, but letʼs be realistic. And let me remind you, the Supreme Court simply did not function at that time. So should I complain to myself? And what next?

Itʼs bad form to ask about predictions about how the case will end, but still. You have a lot of experience as a judge, do you have an idea of how it will all end?

The Supreme Court of Justice has not had a single acquittal in cases involving bribery. This means that either there are no cases of bribery, or that is what it means.

Will there be a guilty verdict?

Well, there are no acquittals, especially not according to the judges. Especially in my case, when the presumption of innocence was violated to such an extent, when from the very beginning they made me out to be almost the worst corrupt person.

How will society perceive an acquittal after such a verdict? How do you imagine it? All the judges will be carried out of the courtroom on pitchforks.