NBU recommended that banks block bail payments in corruption cases — Stolar and Mudra affected

Ukrainian banks are refusing to process payments for bail deposits on behalf of MP Vadym Stolar and former deputy head of the Office of the President Iryna Mudra, citing a recommendation from the National Bank of Ukraine.

This was reported by Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, citing sources.

On September 11, the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) imposed a preventive measure on Stolar — a suspect in the Femida and Forrest Gump cases of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) — in the form of bail amounting to approximately €5.8 million, without pre-trial detention. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a suspect not held in custody is required to post bail no later than five days from the date the preventive measure is imposed. Stolar did not post bail within the prescribed period, yet NABU and SAPO did not file a motion with the HACC to change the preventive measure to pre-trial detention.

As the publication found, Stolar informed the prosecution that he has the necessary funds and is ready to deposit the full amount, but banks are refusing to process the payments. The refusals are coming from financial monitoring units, which classify funds intended for transfer to the HACC’s account as “high-risk.” In private conversations, bank representatives explain this by saying that the NBU has recommended against processing payments related to bail deposits in corruption cases. Stolar may use this situation as an argument in court against changing his preventive measure to pre-trial detention.

A similar situation arose with the bail for Iryna Mudra. On August 25, the HACC remanded her in custody for 60 days with the possibility of release on bail of approximately €389,000. Mudra managed to deposit 5 million hryvnias of her own funds, after which her accounts were frozen. Her husband attempted to deposit the remaining amount, but banks refused to process the payments. Lawyers tested the possibility of conducting transactions even in payments of one thousand hryvnias — banks would not accept those amounts either. As in Stolar’s case, the refusals came from financial monitoring units citing the NBU’s recommendation. As a result, Mudra remains in custody, even though the court provided for the possibility of her release: the alternative to pre-trial detention cannot in practice be exercised due to the impossibility of making a bank payment.

“Cases where funds of dubious origin previously passed scrutiny for bail purposes were linked not to the absence of the necessary mechanisms, but to manual interference in their operation. Now, according to sources, the opposite extreme has emerged: instead of verifying the origin of specific funds, the very possibility of posting bail is being blocked,” the article states.

Dzerkalo Tyzhnia is considered a publication from NABU’s “support group.” The article reflects concern that the blocking of bail payments due to banks’ actions may be exploited by suspects to avoid both posting bail and remaining in custody — as in Stolar’s case — or used as an argument in court for a more lenient preventive measure, since the institution of bail has de facto ceased to function.

The publication also notes that the case against Mudra itself — based on accusations of illegally raising funds for the bail of former Energy Minister Halushchenko — was built on the principle of prosecuting the entire chain of individuals involved in the bail payment, including the management of the banks through which the payment was made. The heads of Sens Bank are among those named as suspects in the case. As the publication notes, in this situation bankers prefer not to process any payments, citing NBU recommendations. At the same time, under the law, banks are entitled to refuse transactions even without explanation — on the basis of their own financial monitoring conclusions.