36.7 million UAH in bail: who paid for the defense of two 'Servants of the People' MPs and what it means for trust in institutions
Reporters for "Schemes" uncovered who posted nearly UAH 36.7 million in bail for Olha Savchenko and Yevhen Pivovarov — a story not only about money, but about the mechanisms of accountability in parliament.
By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik
January 9, 2026 · 2 min read
Briefly
According to journalists from the "Schemes" project (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty), almost 36.7 million UAH in bail has been posted for Servant of the People MPs Olha Savchenko and Yevhen Pyvovarov. The amounts and sources of the payments raise questions about the transparency of financial support for the suspects and put mechanisms of parliamentary accountability to the test.
Who paid and how much
Journalists report that on 8 January Savchenko’s lawyer, Ihor Fomin, posted 16.6 million UAH for the suspect. According to him, part of the funds are personal savings and part were borrowed because of the large bail amount.
On the same day, bail for MP Yevhen Pyvovarov was posted by seven individuals in payments ranging from 150,000 to 5,000,000 UAH. The total amount is nearly 20 million UAH.
Context: what this operation indicates
On 27 December NABU reported the exposure of a group that included sitting MPs; among the suspects are Pyvovarov, Savchenko, as well as Ihor Negulevskyi, Yurii Kisiel and Mykhailo Laba. Posting bail is a routine procedural practice, but on this scale it raises several important questions:
- Origin of the funds. Large sums posted by private individuals or lawyers require a public explanation to avoid speculation about non-transparent funding chains.
- Signal to the public. When suspected politicians are able to remain free on substantial bail, it affects the public’s sense of fairness and trust in institutions.
- Judicial and investigative process. Bail addresses the issue of preventive measures but does not change the course of the pre-trial investigation or the possible judicial outcome.
"Part of the funds are my personal savings, the rest I had to borrow because of the size of the bail. Now the prosecution and the defense will continue to work within the framework of the pre-trial investigation."
— Ihor Fomin, lawyer
Why this matters to the reader
This is not just about individual names. For every citizen, transparency in funding the defense of politicians is a question of the effectiveness of anti-corruption institutions and equality before the law. If large bails are routinely covered by interested parties, the system risks becoming a field for political and financial manipulation.
What’s next
The next steps lie with the investigation and the court. NABU will continue the probe, and the defense will have the opportunity to defend its position during the pre-trial investigation. At the same time, it is important that authorities and the media maintain attention to the sources of funding for such bails and to the progress of the investigation — this is an issue of public trust in state institutions, which is measured not by loud statements but by transparent decisions.
Sources: journalists of the "Schemes" project (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty); statement of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine dated 27 December.
