The defense team for former Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko is raising concerns about significant identification errors made by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) during its investigation into a corruption case. They argue that inconsistencies in the prosecution’s claims undermine the credibility of the charges.
According to Halushchenko’s lawyers, the prosecution has confused nicknames associated with their client, which they claim jeopardizes the logical framework and evidentiary basis of the allegations. “The individual referred to as ‘Sigizmund’ in the so-called Mindich tapes is not automatically the same person as Herman Valeriyovych just because it is more convenient for the prosecution. There is a lack of evidence in the motion that connects my client to the individual labeled ‘Sigizmund’ on the tapes. No expert analysis, no voice imitation, and no direct indications exist—only assumptions,” stated Halushchenko’s attorney.
The defense further pointed out that at the beginning of the pre-trial investigation in November 2025, media reports and official sources identified Halushchenko under a different nickname: ‘Professor,’ not ‘Sigizmund.’
“Law enforcement was so certain of this that it was presented as an established fact. However, later, NABU and SAP officials announced that they had made an error, clarifying that ‘Professor’ referred to another person who indeed holds a title of professor. Following this, Herman Valeriyovych inexplicably transitioned from being ‘Professor’ to ‘Sigizmund’ without any explanation or procedural justification for this change,” the lawyer added.
The defense emphasized that the motion lacks any evidence corroborating the identification of the nickname with their client, and the alteration of the label has not been explained. They believe these circumstances warrant a critical evaluation of the prosecution’s position by the court, urging caution in accepting their claims without scrutiny.
“There is no proper establishment of identity. What we have is merely a change of label. Given that anti-corruption agencies previously made an error in identifying the individual known as ‘Professor,’ it raises a logical question: why should the court unconditionally believe that there are no mistakes this time? If there has already been a mistake in linking a nickname to a specific individual within the same case, the court should be cautious and not accept every version as the ultimate truth,” the defense attorney remarked.
It is also worth noting that NABU had previously misidentified the workplace of another figure in the ‘Midas’ case, Ihor Myroniuk, who was incorrectly referred to as a former advisor to the energy minister. However, it was later clarified during a session of the High Anti-Corruption Court regarding corruption in Energoatom that Myroniuk had never held the position of advisor to Minister Halushchenko.
As of now, NABU has not commented on the defense’s claims regarding the confusion over nicknames.
The defense for former Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko is contesting the prosecution's identification of individuals in a corruption case, citing significant errors that undermine the charges. They argue that previous misidentifications by NABU necessitate a cautious approach from the court regarding the prosecution's claims.