Lawyer Kostiantyn Hloba: Victims in Chervinskyi case are now being forced to be victims against their will
Despite his discreet profession, Colonel Roman Chervinskyi, who previously served in the Security Service of Ukraine and the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense, with a record of successful special operations conducted before the full-scale war, became known to the wider public when he chose to step into the public arena following the failure of the high-profile "Avenue" operation, also known as "Wagnergate".
Its objective was to identify, recruit, and detain Russian mercenaries of the Wagner PMC. However, this objective was not achieved. Later, Chervinskyi publicly commented on certain circumstances of what had happened and suggested that the operation’s failure might have been caused by an information leak from the Presidential Office.
Thus, when Chervinskyi became the subject of two criminal proceedings and claimed political persecution, this also sparked widespread public outcry.
The intelligence officer, who is accused in the first case of abuse of power during an operation to hijack a Russian plane, which, according to the prosecution, resulted in a missile strike on the Kanatove airfield in the summer of 2022, has repeatedly stated that he acted within his authority and in Ukraine’s interests and that the special operation had been authorized. His lawyers maintained that the charges were unfounded and challenged them in court.
When the case was referred to court with an indictment, the trial was made closed at the insistence of the prosecution.
As for the second case, it involves the alleged extortion of $100,000 from a businessman. In this instance, Chervinskyi not only denies his guilt. The defense argues in court that this constitutes entrapment and insists on the initiation of criminal proceedings regarding this matter.
We spoke in more detail about these cases with Roman Chervinskyi’s lawyer, Kostiantyn Hloba.
"NEITHER LEGAL ENTITIES NOR INDIVIDUALS HAVE FILED CIVIL CLAIMS"
– Kostiantyn, the trial in the case of the missile strike on the Kanatove airfield is closed. Therefore, we primarily learn about the proceedings from statements made by the defense, including yours. Recently, on your Facebook page, you mentioned that the stage of victim interrogation was nearly complete and that "not a single victim has stated their willingness to be recognized as a victim of Chervinskyi’s actions." Can the stance of these individuals, officially recognized as victims, influence the course of the trial?
– I would begin with a fundamental point that is crucial at this stage of the case. Victims today are forced to be victims against their will. Let me clarify what I mean. After Chervinskyi was placed in pretrial detention as a preventive measure, the investigation began arbitrarily assigning victim status to individuals who did not consider themselves victims of his actions. They explicitly stated this during interrogations, yet, against their will, the investigation failed to document these statements in the official records. We uncovered it when comparing the interrogation transcripts with the direct testimony given by the victims in court. All victims confirmed that, at the time of their interrogation, they told the investigator that they did not consider themselves victims of Chervinskyi’s actions but rather victims of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation. At the same time, there is a separate case specifically concerning the actions of the aggressor—the Russian Federation—regarding the missile strike on the Kanatove airfield. All of these victims were also interrogated in that separate proceeding.
However, the issue is that these individuals are not lawyers. As a result, they were unable to articulate this statutory concept in the interrogation protocol. They were manipulated by the investigation, which formally designated them as victims.
Moreover, one of the alleged victims filed a written statement during the pre-trial investigation stage, stating that he did not consider himself a victim of Chervinskyi’s actions at all. Despite being officially registered and included in the case file, he is still arbitrarily listed as a victim in the indictment. In other words, against his will.
When we questioned the victims in court, they stated that their intent was to declare themselves victims solely of the actions of the Russian Federation and as a result of armed aggression—not of Chervinskyi’s actions. Each victim clearly distinguished these aspects for themselves.
Additionally, I have separately compiled all the legal facts from the indictment regarding what Chervinskyi is accused of. In court, we ask each victim specific questions about these allegations. For example, whether they are aware that Chervinskyi allegedly informed the Russian side about the arrival of the plane. We also ask other questions related to the factual allegations. Not a single victim stated that they had any such knowledge. This is also crucial, as a victim’s testimony during interrogation serves as evidence.
To date, there is not a single piece of evidence in the case file proving that the alleged victims are aware of any facts outlined in the indictment and constituting the essence of the charges against Chervinskyi.
In addition, the defense has obtained a number of documents confirming the absence of other victims in this case.
– Who are you referring to?
– We submitted a request to the military unit stationed at the airfield and to the Air Command "Center" which is responsible for the airfield’s property. Air Command "Center" responded that they are not victims in the criminal proceedings and that no damage has been assessed and military unit also confirmed that they are not considered victims in these criminal proceedings.
Thus, neither individuals nor legal entities are recognized as victims. Moreover, neither legal entities nor individuals have filed civil claims.
– What does this mean for this case?
– One of the key legal elements in this proceeding is harm. There is no harm. And if there is no harm, then the legal qualification does not apply.
– But, as we know from previous open court hearings, aircraft were damaged at the airfield. The investigation should have assessed the amount of damage. Is this amount included in the indictment?
– Yes. But that’s the point: legal entities assert that they are not victims and have not filed a civil claim, while the prosecutor, in court, states that damage was inflicted on both the military unit and the Air Command "Center".
– How do you plan to respond to this?
– Once the stage of victim questioning is completed, we will respond with an appropriate statement. However, I cannot disclose its content at this time.
– You mentioned that, at present, no one has recognized themselves as a victim of Chervinskyi’s actions. Could this be grounds for dismissing the case?
– The prosecutor must continue constructing the appearance of a crime, and he will do so. At this stage, the defense has no legal grounds to file a motion for case dismissal. However, we will certainly draw the court’s attention to circumstances that already negate the elements of a criminal offense at this stage.
– One of the key questions repeatedly raised in court during the pre-trial investigation stage was whether Zaluzhnyi had authorized the operation. After being released from the pre-trial detention center on bail, Roman Chervinskyi stated in an interview with Ukrainska Pravda that such authorization did exist, however, because the unit where he served was disbanded and had no archive for classified documents, it was destroyed. How do you intend to prove that this operation was authorized?
– Indeed, not all written evidence is available today. There is a logical explanation for this. The case file includes the testimony of an SSU official who explained that, at the time, there was an instruction from the Head of the Security Service of Ukraine that there should be no document circulation due to the armed aggression of the Russian Federation. As I understand it, there was a concern that Russian troops or intelligence services might gain access to this documentation in the event of a possible invasion of Kyiv.
Therefore, some orders were given verbally, while others were documented in writing, confirming our version of events. These include official orders for the deployment of Security Service of Ukraine personnel to a joint operational group.
Furthermore, when the indictment was first submitted to the Kropyvnytskyi court, Chervinskyi’s immediate commander was questioned. He provided information on what documents were drafted, during what period, and which ones he had personally seen. Moreover, a higher-ranking commander also confirmed the existence of these documents during interrogation at the pre-trial investigation stage.
In other words, we have a clear evidentiary framework demonstrating the existence of written approval, which was accompanied by oral authorizations across the entire chain of command, as stipulated.
During the questioning of specific individuals, we will press for answers that will substantiate the existence of these documents.
– Can Mr. Zaluzhnyi, who is now serving as an ambassador, be called as a witness?
– Yes, he can, and we will request his testimony. However, based on Mr. Zaluzhnyi’s current stance, it seems to me that he may refuse to testify. Nonetheless, we hope that he will provide testimony in court.
– Is it possible to refuse to testify after receiving an official court summons?
– The country is at war. It is difficult for me to predict what will happen tomorrow or what circumstances certain witnesses might invoke. The question is whether Mr. Zaluzhnyi will create circumstances that would prevent his testimony or whether he will appear for questioning upon the first summons. I hope that he will attend.
– Does the law allow for testimony via video conference?
– Yes. For example, the High Anti-Corruption Court has extensive experience conducting witness examinations via video conference.
I have also had several witness examinations in this format in my own practice.
So this is not an issue. However, we still hope for his personal appearance.
– There was information in the media that the SSU leadership had allegedly halted the operation. Why did your defendant continue carrying it out?
– Firstly, no one halted the operation. Secondly, after this alleged halt, officials of the Security Service of Ukraine issued formal written orders for the detachment of officials to the group that had been established, which also included Chervinskyi. This detachment was authorized, including by Mr. Zaluzhnyi.
What is the logic behind this? The SSU allegedly halted the operation, yet afterward, an official order—contained in the case file—was issued to assign an official from the Security Service of Ukraine to this group, of which Chervinskyi was a part. This is nothing more than wordplay.
– Will you also call Mr. Bakanov as a witness?
– He is a prosecution witness. And I would be surprised if the prosecutor does not insist on questioning him or refuses to do so.
– The defense actively insisted on questioning prosecution witnesses at the pre-trial investigation stage, when the courts were considering the issue of the lack of reasonable suspicion.
– From the very beginning of the pre-trial investigation, we insisted on examining the evidence collected by the prosecutor’s office itself. It is unheard of for defense lawyers to do this. However, we did it because, as I mentioned earlier, 90% of the evidence exonerating Chervinskyi is contained in the case file. The rest consists of information that neither confirms nor disproves anything.
– Have you managed to convince your opponents and the court of this?
– At the outset of the pre-trial investigation, prosecutors claimed that Chervinskyi was engaged in intelligence activities. We proved that he could not have been conducting intelligence operations a priori. The prosecutor then shifted tactics and now claims that Chervinskyi carried out actions that exhibited characteristics of intelligence activity. We are requesting that the prosecutor provide a legal definition of what these actions entail.
The trial against Chervinskyi has turned into a mere clink-clank. The prosecutor does not see any objective legal facts, and we insist that everything is in the case file. Meanwhile, the court sits with its eyes and ears shut. But it is already breaking through. We can see it in the judges’ reactions and the questions they are asking—they are indeed starting to process what we are saying. They are not yet responding to it, but they are beginning to hear us.
– Is the video recording released by Russian television, which allegedly shows Chervinskyi passing certain information to the Russians, one of the prosecution’s key pieces of evidence?
– This is the only evidence that supposedly indicates any connection with the Russian side.
However, if you examine it closely, you will see that there is not a single word suggesting that Chervinskyi provided any information—coordinates, corridors, or troop deployments. After all, in simple terms, he is accused of allegedly informing the Russian side about the deployment of troops at a specific location at a specific time. Yet there is not even a hint of this in those conversations. I have analyzed this video in nearly every court hearing, displaying it on my dashboard and citing it.
Firstly, there are other individuals in the video. On the Ukrainian side, the voice of a representative of the Air Command "Center" is present, and he is the one actually leading the conversation. He explicitly states that he is the one making all the decisions. In other words, he is in charge—not Chervinskyi. Of course, this is not a verbatim quote, I am simply explaining it in laypeople's terms.
But there is not a single mention of coordinates, troop locations, or any indication that an operation is underway or that personnel would be at the Kanatove airfield.
This raises a fundamental question: who informed the Russians, and how? Provide evidence. Because no other conversation exists.
– The Constitutional Court has considered Roman Chervinskyi’s appeal against the extension of his detention without an actual court hearing. Has a decision been made yet?
– Yes, we attended the court hearing and supported the appeal that was filed. After hearing the arguments, the court retired to deliberate. However, we were informed that before a decision is issued, the court will seek consultations with the relevant authorities.
There is no specific timeframe for when the decision will be rendered. We hope to see it within about a month.
"THE LEGISLATIVE PROVISION ON THE APPLICATION OF COMBAT IMMUNITY IS PURELY DECLARATIVE"
– When we spoke with your colleague, lawyer Serhii Lysenko, who defended Chervinskyi during the pre-trial investigation stage, we discussed the concept of combat immunity. At the time, he said: "If they manage to avoid applying combat immunity to Chervinskyi, they will be able to do the same with the rest." This has since been confirmed, as we now see numerous trials of military personnel where combat immunity is also disregarded. This has sparked discussions about the need to improve the relevant legislative provision. In your opinion, what needs to be changed to ensure that this provision is actually applied?
– The legislative provision on the application of combat immunity is purely declarative. The second issue is the absence of clear criteria for assessing combat immunity. The third problem is that the judicial system is not institutionally prepared to make decisions on the application of combat immunity.
Therefore, to ensure consistency, three steps need to be taken: refining the provision itself, establishing clear criteria, and developing judicial practice in applying combat immunity mechanisms.
I frequently communicate with military personnel, and we defend them in court. So I can state with full confidence that all these mechanisms need to be carefully worked out. Every military officer makes decisions based on the circumstances at a given moment, considering the risks that exist at the time, the information available—which may be insufficient—and other factors.
I am not a lawyer for any of the generals currently under investigation. However, I assume that they were hardly asked what kind of military situation they were in at the time. Whether they had sufficient intelligence data to make certain decisions. Whether their personnel were adequately supplied with the necessary equipment. All of this should also be taken into account when applying combat immunity. Because if it turns out that an individual under investigation was not provided with the necessary resources, this is not their fault. This only further underscores the need to refine and properly apply the concept of combat immunity.
– Don’t you think the significance of all these factors might be overstated? And then, the application of combat immunity would serve as a kind of indulgence for those whose actions or inaction led to the loss of lives or territory?
– I don’t know exactly how this principle operates in the U.S., but I once read an article by an American military officer that clearly outlined a brief framework. When a unit is deployed on a combat mission, it must be accompanied by drones and intelligence support. If even one of these critical components is missing, making the unit's mission unsafe, it is the state's responsibility—not the military’s.
In the U.S., this is a well-developed legal doctrine. A soldier going on a combat mission understands that their security is ensured. Only then can they carry out their tasks with full dedication.
– Let's talk about the second criminal case, in which Chervinskyi is accused of allegedly impersonating an SFS official and attempting to obtain $100,000 from a businessman who sought to lift the seizure of a cargo container. Could you elaborate on Chervinsky's role in this case?
– When the businessman's lawyers began to question the legitimacy of his intentions, they asked him to speak with someone who had experience in law enforcement. At that moment, Chervinskyi, whom they had known for a long time, happened to be at the lawyers' office on his way.
– What does extortion have to do with this?
– We have full access to the wiretapping materials. After reviewing them, we clearly saw that the businessman was engaged in entrapment. This is evident from the conversation. The lawyers also sensed that something was off. That’s why they asked Chervinskyi to speak with him.
– What was the conversation about?
– The lawyers repeatedly asked the businessman to provide documents needed to prepare a lawsuit to lift the seizure in court. He assured them that he would bring them, but at the meeting, he instead made statements implying that he had come with a package of money. He was told that documents were required, not money.
– I don’t understand what a package of money has to do with this if we are talking about a lawsuit to lift the seizure in court.
– His goal was not to lift the seizure but to provoke a situation where the money would either be accepted or demanded from him.
– We don’t know what his actual intention was…
– After reviewing the documents, we have a clear position: this individual created the impression that he needed to lift the seizure of his cargo, but in reality, he was attempting to provoke a bribery situation. That is what was happening.
Let’s assume I’m the provocateur and you’re the lawyer. My only objective is to make you accept a bribe from me—and to push you into demanding it.
You see me as a client and, as a lawyer, you say: "Okay, I understand, you have a problem with the cargo, it has been seized, give me the documents." I’m sitting here with a bribe and need to find a way to hand it over to you. And not only that—I also need to provoke you into actively demanding money from me.
This individual claims that he had a conversation with the lawyers, that they asked him for documents, but he interpreted their request as a demand for money rather than for documentation—and then attempted to hand them the money.
So, what was the key failure of the investigation? There were about three or four attempts to offer money. But each time, the lawyers explicitly told him that they did not need any money.
After each conversation with his lawyers and other involved parties, he provided statements to the SSU, claiming that he had been extorted for money, referring to it as documents. This is the essence of the manipulation. We are now proving this in court. How are we proving it? When a person cooperates with law enforcement agencies, they are prohibited from taking any active steps, they must not take the initiative but only observe the actions of individuals who, according to the investigation, are preparing or committing a crime.
However, in this case, the individual continuously pressured the other party into taking certain actions. Moreover, he personally initiated all meetings with the so-called "accomplices." Notably, during the pre-trial investigation, the investigators attempted to conceal this fact by omitting several minutes of conversation from the official transcript. While reviewing the case materials, we discovered an audio recording in which the provocateur was coordinating with unidentified individuals, assigning roles on who would call whom and what should be discussed. He issued direct instructions on whom to call and by whom. Such actions are explicitly prohibited by law. In other words, all steps were initiated and orchestrated by the provocateur.
As a result, we now have clear evidence of entrapment. Relying on the case law and rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, we have prepared a comprehensive and substantive legal motion asserting that key individuals in this criminal case were subjected to provocation.
– When we first submitted the motion, it was denied consideration. The court dismissed it, let’s say, on technical grounds, citing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) that state the court would not examine this issue at this stage. When we filed it a second time, we were accused of allegedly abusing our rights. The judge then announced that any further submissions of similar motions would be regarded as an abuse of process. However, we did not stop. We submitted the motion for the third time. And that’s when things started to shift.
– What does this mean?
– The judge attempted to avoid considering the motion because it was inconvenient. It is difficult for me to explain the nuances of the provocation right now, as there is an extensive comparative table analyzing linguistic expressions. It spans nearly 30 pages. Any lawyer familiar with such cases would clearly recognize the elements of entrapment. And the judge saw it. This is now the second court hearing at the Pecherskyi District Court (Kyiv - ed.) that has not taken place. Twice, the judge took a one-day leave on the day of the scheduled hearing. And during the court session on March 18, 2025, the judge announced that he intended to recuse himself. I interpret this as a sign that he has finally acknowledged what we have presented.
– Are you requesting the closure of the criminal proceedings?
– We are requesting one of the actions provided for by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Either to close the criminal proceedings or to suspend them until the case on provocation is considered. We have filed an application to initiate criminal proceedings in this regard. However, the judicial system is making every effort to deny us the registration of this case in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (URPTI).
On several occasions, a representative of the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) participated in hearings related to appeals against the failure to register the case. In two court hearings, he made a rather extraordinary statement. His argument essentially boiled down to this: if the court grants the defense’s motion and the information is entered into the URPTI, it would completely undermine the ongoing trial in the Pecherskyi District Court. In other words, the SBI representative himself acknowledges that if this motion is registered and an investigation is launched, the proceedings at the Pecherskyi District Court will no longer stand.
– Has a decision been made to initiate criminal proceedings?
– We were denied in the first two judicial instances, but we are not stopping. We will submit a new criminal complaint to the State Bureau of Investigation.
– Where did the sum of $100,000 come from?
– It was the businessman who first mentioned this amount—before Chervinskyi was even in the picture, so to speak. The case materials include witness testimonies describing the very first meeting. While it was not officially recorded by the investigation, all participants unanimously stated that this individual was the first to name the sum of $100,000. The lawyers never discussed money; they only requested documents to assess their legal position in court.
And there’s another important point. When a person cooperating with the investigation is refused, they are legally required to stop. Savchenko and Shtanko (the lawyers – ed.) refused him multiple times. Yet, he kept leaving and then returning.
– I still don’t understand why this person chose to cooperate with the investigation and was able to do all this. What was the logic behind it?
– We are awaiting this individual’s interrogation and hope to get answers to all these questions. Chervinskyi has his own theory as to why this is happening—because the investigation needed to fabricate a case against Savchenko and Shtanko.
– But you’re saying that the businessman initiated all of this…
– We will seek answers to this question during the case hearing.
– If the lawyers refused the money, how did it end up being handed over?
– There is a video of their last meeting, where they asked him again for the documents, and he responded that he had brought the money and wanted to give it to them, saying it would make him feel more at ease. The individuals involved discussed several options for handling the money, one of which was depositing it in a bank. However, the businessman needed to create the impression of a financial transaction, which is why he asked them to count the money while he stepped outside for a smoke. A few minutes later, Shtanko and Savchenko were detained.
– According to media reports, one of these lawyers fought in the war and was killed. What about the other?
– I have no information on that.
– They are essentially the only witnesses who could clarify Chervinskyi’s role.
– No, they are not the only ones. But I am not going to discuss that.
Tetiana Bodnia, Censor.NET
Photo: from the archive of Kostiantyn Hloba
