According to the defense, the prosecution admits contradictions in the definition of the pseudonym that was allegedly used to designate their client in the case materials, which, in their opinion, casts doubt on the logic and evidence of the suspicion.
“The person nicknamed Sigismund, who appears in the so-called Mindich tapes, and the suspect in this case, German Valerievich, are not automatically the same person only because it is more convenient for the prosecution. The materials of the petition do not contain any evidence that would confirm that my client is related to the person who is referred to as Sigismund on the tapes. There are no examinations, no voice imitation, no direct indications – there is only assumptions,” said Galushchenko’s lawyer.
The defense also noted that at the beginning of the pre-trial investigation in November 2025, a different version appeared in the media with reference to official sources – then Galushchenko was called by the pseudonym Professor, and not Sigismund.
“Moreover, the law enforcement officers were so confident that this was presented as an established fact. But subsequently, NABU and SAPO workers throughout the country reported that they were a little mistaken. That the Professor is another person who actually has the academic title of professor. That is, there was, to put it mildly, a correction of the version. And after that, German Valerievich strangely ceased to be a Professor and becomes Sigismund. Without explanation and without a procedural justification for such a metamorphosis,” the lawyer said.
He emphasized that the petition lacked evidence that would confirm the identification of the pseudonym with his client, and the change in version remained without proper explanation.
The defense is convinced that in such circumstances the court must critically evaluate the prosecution’s position and not accept it unconditionally.
“There is no proper identification of persons. There is only a change in the label. In November 2025, the anti-corruption authorities already made a mistake in identifying a person under the pseudonym Professor, so the question logically arises: why should the court unconditionally believe that this time there is no mistake? If within one proceeding a mistake has already been made in identifying a nickname with a specific person, then the court should be careful. And not perceive each version as the ultimate truth,” the defense lawyer said.
Context
On November 10, 2025, NABU announced Operation Midas to expose a “high-level criminal organization” that was engaged in extortion at Energoatom. According to media reports, four ministers from different parts of the Ukrainian government appear in it.
In particular, NABU reported suspicion of illegal enrichment to former Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine Alexey Chernyshov. During the HACC meeting, the prosecutor stated that Chernyshov helped to legalize more than $1.277 million and over €36 thousand. The court arrested him, but Chernyshov was given bail. The ex-deputy prime minister states that he has “no relation” to Energoatom.
Against the backdrop of a corruption scandal, on November 19, 2025, the Rada fired Justice Minister Galushchenko, who previously also headed the Ministry of Energy, and Energy Minister Svetlana Grinchuk.
Galushchenko, as a person involved in the case, was detained on the night of February 15 during an attempt to leave for Poland. The next day he was informed of suspicion of money laundering and participation in a criminal organization (part 2 of article 255, part 3 of article 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
On February 17, HACS ordered Galushchenko to remain in custody for 60 days with the possibility of posting bail in the amount of UAH 200 million. The former Minister of Energy appealed this decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court.
