When the SBU starts to involve its “chain dogs” in the consideration of cases in courts, there are no other thoughts but that the investigation has nothing on the merits of the case, and methods of pressurizing the court and public opinion by involving public activists are used. And they even go to crimes.
Let’s take a look at what’s going on. A little background, which became the reason for publishing this interview with the lawyer.
On January 27, 2025, the public activist Demyan Ganul (Дем’ян Ганул — Ukr) — the owner of more than one criminal proceeding and a lover of getting into traffic accidents — suddenly appeared in the Court of Appeal of the city of Odessa. But, in some strange way, all criminal cases against Ganul disappeared into oblivion. And this has long prompted many to think that Ganul is firmly on the hook with the local SBU and, as one movie said, “he can’t afford amateurishness”.
He showed up, threatened the lawyer, demanded criminal prosecution of the lawyer and posted the post on his Telegram channel. That’s not all, read on…
About the criminal case of the scientist Oleg Maltsev in the Internet is written a lot. However, whether he is guilty or not — to decide the court. However, what is very striking is the active disinformation campaign against Maltsev. We journalists know that the period of relevance of a topic is very short, especially when it concerns the detention of some persons. However, with Maltsev this topic is constantly heated up, which involuntarily leads to thoughts about the ordered nature of this case or attempts of the investigation and prosecutor’s office to justify their actions at the expense of the so-called “public opinion”. As they say in our country there are 2 courts: the court of law and the court of public opinion. Taking into account the aggressiveness and mass publications concerning Oleg Maltsev, it seems that the investigation counts on the fact that the court of public opinion will solve all the issues with the court of legal opinion.
The method is not new: they take a person, smear him with dirt in the information space. Then — everyone gets scared (judges are people too and they are scared too, especially scared to go into a confrontation with security bodies during the war), acquaintances scatter and the person is left alone.
So, the commentary of the lawyer Evgenia Tarasenko, who has previously answered the questions of journalists on this case. We should note at once that it is extremely difficult for us to believe that Ukraine, for which the whole civilized world has been fighting for the last 3 years, has actually turned into a country similar to the USSR, where the KGB methods of work play a significant role. However, what we have heard actively encourages these thoughts.
— Yevgeniya, can you tell me at what stage the criminal case against Oleg Maltsev currently stands?
The pre-trial investigation is still underway; however, in the near future, the case will be submitted to the court for consideration on its merits. The terms of the pre-trial investigation have been extended twice, with the investigators claiming that they have not had sufficient time to complete their work and transfer the case to the court within the initial two- and four-month deadlines. Yet, the SBU has been handling this case since early May 2024.
— How would you comment on activist Demyan Ganul’s recent publication calling for Maltsev to remain in custody? What do you believe is behind it?
The first thing I would like to emphasize is this: On January 27, the Odessa Court of Appeal held a hearing on lawyers’ appeals against the extension of detention for seven defendants in the case. Among the lawyers present was my colleague, Olga Panchenko, who represents not only Maltsev but also another defendant.
According to her account, the activist Demyan Ganul attended the hearing, accompanied by three robust young men of draft age. During the proceedings, Ganul openly voiced his dissatisfaction, accusing Panchenko of defending so-called «pro-Russian elements» and, by extension, implying that she shared their views. Knowing my colleague to be a woman of integrity, she responded by reminding him that acquittals do occur in Ukraine—suggesting that investigations are not infallible.
Ganul countered, asserting with confidence that he was certain of Maltsev’s guilt because he had «seen the case materials.» Panchenko, taken aback by this claim, asked him how he had obtained access to the pre-trial investigation materials. At first, Ganul claimed they were available online. However, when asked to specify which website had published them, he hesitated and admitted that he could not recall. Ultimately, he refused to answer the question and, in effect, threatened to retaliate against Panchenko for her defense of Maltsev by publicly smearing her and other lawyers in the case with misleading and defamatory accusations.
Under normal circumstances, such claims might be difficult to verify. However, my colleague records all court proceedings in audio format, allowing her to review her statements and improve her arguments. The conversation with Ganul was captured on this recording, and I am providing it to you (The conversation in the video is in Ukrainian).
— I wonder, is this even possible?
Under Ukrainian law, the identification of a lawyer and their client is prohibited. However, judging by the audio recording, Ganul appears to have his own interpretation of Ukrainian legislation. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the unauthorized disclosure of pre-trial investigation materials carries criminal liability. In this case, the responsibility would lie with either the investigator, the prosecutor, or operational officers. The defense, as you can understand, did not provide any materials to Ganul and does not have access to them in full until the case is submitted to the court.
In this regard, I have already filed a criminal complaint with the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI).
— Ganul writes that “In Odessa, members of the Russian underground want to go free.” How would you respond to this?
Such a statement could only be made by someone unfamiliar with Ukrainian law. Every individual has the right to appeal against a measure of restraint, particularly in cases of detention without the possibility of bail. Since when has exercising this right become a crime?
Moreover, if I am not mistaken, Ganul himself was once subjected to the same measure of restraint—detention in custody—by the Primorsky Court of Odessa. He subsequently appealed against it in the Court of Appeal. So what does this mean? When Ganul exercises his rights, it is legitimate, but when Maltsev does the same, it is considered a crime?
I am not even speaking of the presumption of innocence. Listening to the recording, I have the distinct impression that Ganul has taken it upon himself to assume the court’s authority, deciding who is guilty and who is not. As I noted earlier, the question of how he obtained access to the case files is a separate issue—one that strongly suggests malfeasance.
I can only hope that this time, the SBI will fulfill its duty rather than allow the matter to be swept under the rug, as happened in the case of the theft of more than 12,000 euros from Maltsev’s apartment during a search conducted on February 29 of last year.
— What can you say about the “list” published by Ganul?
This so-called “list” has become a kind of sacred cow that the prosecution clings to desperately. In reality, it is nothing more than a screenshot provided by a witness in the case—someone who, rather incredibly, claims to be “from another planet, Tinia.” What is more, this “list” appears highly dubious.
According to the logic of the investigation, the individuals named on it are supposedly dangerous state criminals, armed to the teeth. Yet, paradoxically, many of them are sent to serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU)—presumably to carry out subversive activities there. Others are summoned for interrogation and then allowed to walk freely around Odessa for three to four months; some even travel abroad. Clearly, the authorities themselves do not take this “list” seriously. If these individuals truly posed a threat, they would have been arrested alongside Maltsev back in September 2024.
It was only after Maltsev’s arrest that the authorities began detaining individuals from the list. But these arrests are highly questionable. People are taken into custody and then pressured into making deals with the investigation. In other words, they are presented with a stark choice: either languish in pre-trial detention indefinitely “until the court figures it out” or denounce Maltsev and walk free.
Notably, the list also includes the prosecution’s main witness—the very person who claims to be “from another planet.” And yet, unlike the six other individuals detained on the same charges—who remain in pre-trial detention without the right to bail—she was not subjected to any restrictive measures. Instead, the court sentenced her to a mere fine of 50,000 hryvnias because she “admitted guilt.” Strange, is it not? How could such a supposedly dangerous criminal be treated with such leniency? Why would that be?
This verdict serves as the clearest proof that the so-called “list” is nothing but a tool of intimidation, used to coerce false testimony against Maltsev.
Regarding the lawyer Olga Panchenko—her surname appears in the so-called “sacred list” taken from this “sacred screenshot,” which was handed to the investigation by the witness “from planet Tinia.” As I mentioned earlier, not only the SBU but also the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and the National Police have been working on the Maltsev case over the past year. These efforts have amounted to nothing—merely an attempt to fabricate something.
Olga successfully defended the case against the SBI and the National Police, leading to numerous official investigations against those involved. As you can imagine, certain individuals have not forgotten this, and at the first opportunity, they will eagerly seek revenge—something some do not even bother to conceal. It is unsurprising, then, that Panchenko has become a thorn in the side of those orchestrating this case. And if she is now a suspect simply “because the public—in the person of Ganul—demanded it,” then even those who previously doubted that the case against Maltsev was fabricated will have no doubts left.
Moreover, just recently, Olga gave an interview to one of the leading American publications, as her level of English allows her to do so. For almost five months, I was the only one providing commentary to the media, while Olga focused solely on the legal aspects of the case. I can only assume that her decision to speak out was triggered by Ganul and his conduct at the Court of Appeal.
The case is now approaching a critical stage—the opening of evidence from both the prosecution and the defense. Olga is leading this effort on our side.
One must also ask: why did activist Ganul suddenly develop such animosity toward her? On the recording I provided to you, he threatens to “expose” all the defense lawyers in this case as “bad people.” And yet, in his public post, he singles out only Olga. Why?
— One last question. Is Maltsev truly as innocent as you claim? I understand that you are his lawyer, but still—does the investigation have nothing?
The investigation has the testimony of a woman who claims to be “from another planet,” as well as a video whose content has been distorted beyond recognition through fabricated expert analysis. There is, and cannot be, any evidence of “pro-Russian activity” on Maltsev’s part—because one cannot find something that does not exist.
Given our defense strategy, I cannot disclose everything at this stage. However, believe me, when this case reaches court, you will be greatly surprised. I strongly suspect that the current wave of misinformation—spread by individuals like Ganul—is nothing more than an attempt by the prosecution to influence the court before the case is even formally submitted.
After all, consider this: if solid evidence existed, why would these tactics be necessary? Why resort to intimidation of defense lawyers through figures like Ganul? Numerous online resources have already written about a so-called “pro-Russian cell,” “GRU agents,” and even “space pirates.” Yet none of this is real, and sooner or later, the truth will be revealed in court. You may draw your own conclusions.
As I have said before, I sincerely hope that the prosecution has simply been misled and manipulated for personal interests—especially in these extremely tense times, given that the country is at war. That could explain how this case has taken such a course. But time will tell.
If the prosecution were to seek my advice, I would put it simply: Let us operate within the legal framework, as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code. Leave the information space alone, and it will return the favor.