The High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine convened a closed hearing to determine a measure of restraint for Olha Stefanishyna, the country's former ambassador to the United States, after the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) formally notified her of suspicion of illicit enrichment and filing false asset declarations. The hearing was held behind closed doors at the request of the defence.

According to the SAPO prosecutor cited in court, the investigation focuses on assets acquired in 2024–2025 that allegedly exceed the diplomat's official income. These include two apartments in Kyiv's "Faina Town" residential complex, purchased through an intermediary and not declared, as well as renovation costs and the rental of another apartment. The prosecutor stated that the total value of undeclared assets surpasses 13.9 million hryvnias. Investigators also examined her use of a Mercedes-Benz registered to an assistant and a Land Rover linked to a lawyer who may have facilitated the property purchases.

Stefanishyna, who was dismissed from her post by President Volodymyr Zelensky on 3 August, has maintained that her resignation was voluntary and driven by personal circumstances. In a social media statement, she described the proceedings as "a storm in a teacup" and said she had previously addressed media questions about her real estate in detail. She has denied any connection to the business activities of her former husband, whose alleged role in managing seized state assets through a private consortium was the subject of a separate journalistic investigation.

The current suspicion is not the first legal challenge for Stefanishyna. She is already standing trial in the so-called "Lukash case", dating from 2013, when as a director in the justice ministry she is accused of embezzling funds allocated for an analysis of EU legislation. While a forgery charge in that case was declared time-barred, the trial for misappropriation by abuse of office continues. The court has yet to rule on the measure of restraint in the new illicit enrichment proceedings.