The Chief Rabbi of Kyiv, Yonatan Markovich, came to the anti-corruption court and offered to personally vouch for Irina Mudra. Moshe Asman responded with the phrase: “This is not the position of the Jewish community as a whole.” I analyzed why Asman is not Markovich’s superior, what connected Mudra with the rabbi long before the criminal case, and why 150 million hryvnias brought this story directly to Israel.
Author: Pavel Shveiko
On August 25, 2026, Moshe Reuven Asman publicly reacted to the decision of the Chief Rabbi of Kyiv, Yonatan Binyamin Markovich, to act as a guarantor for Irina Mudra — the former deputy head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, for whom the High Anti-Corruption Court was selecting a preventive measure. Asman formulated the most important phrase on August 25, 2026 in a comment to RBC very clearly:
“Rabbi Markovich’s statement about his readiness to act as a guarantor was his own initiative and is not the position of the Jewish community as a whole.”
I separately checked the structure of rabbinical organizations, the history of Markovich’s relationship with Mudra, and what was happening simultaneously in the anti-corruption court. It turned out that the short formula “the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine condemned the Chief Rabbi of Kyiv” is rather misleading here. Asman indeed uses the national title, Markovich — the capital one, but this is not a “superior-subordinate” system. Moreover, in Ukraine, there has been competition among several religious centers for the right to use the very concept of “Chief Rabbi of Ukraine” for decades.
If you are looking for who is more important — Asman or Markovich, why the Rabbi of Kyiv vouched for Irina Mudra, what exactly Asman said, whether it is related to the Jewish community of Ukraine, and what Timur Mindich has to do with it in Israel, all these questions indeed relate to one story. But they cannot be mixed: personal trust of a rabbi is not proof of innocence, suspicion by NABU is not yet a verdict, and Jewish origin or ties with Israel are not the subject of criminal charges at all.
What exactly did Asman say — and why there are two different boundaries in his statement
In a comment to RBC-Ukraine, Asman did not demand punishment for Markovich and did not state that the Rabbi of Kyiv had no right to become a guarantor at all. The wording was more subtle. According to Asman, when a person during a high-profile court case reminds of their religious status, it can be perceived by society as using the authority of the religious community. He called such a mixing of roles erroneous and stated that he categorically does not support it.
This is a significant difference. Markovich could trust Mudra personally. He could believe that she would not hide and would fulfill the court’s requirements. The Ukrainian Criminal Procedure Code just provides for personal guarantees of people whom the court is ready to trust. But Markovich explained his trust not only by professional acquaintance: in court, the community, prayer, his relationship with Mudra as a rabbi were mentioned. After this, the personal recommendation inevitably acquired a religious dimension.
Asman tried to cut it off. Not “Markovich has no right to have such an opinion,” but “this is Markovich’s opinion, not the collective position of the Jews of Ukraine”.
But then he drew a second boundary — in the opposite direction.
Asman stated that he categorically condemns the wave of anti-Semitism that, in his assessment, arose after Markovich’s decision. He emphasized: the act of an individual rabbi does not give the right to insult the Jewish people, spread anti-Semitic stereotypes, or accuse the entire community. At the end of his statement, three principles appeared: the law should be the same for everyone, responsibility should be personal, anti-Semitism has no justification.
Here I deliberately do not turn Asman’s words about the “wave of anti-Semitism” into independently established statistics by us. The source records that Asman characterized the reaction this way. For a separate conclusion about the scale of anti-Semitic manifestations, it would be necessary to study a mass of publications and comments. But the principle of his statement does not change from this.
In essence, Asman refused two collective generalizations at once. You cannot say: “since Markovich is the Chief Rabbi of Kyiv, it means the Jewish community vouched for Mudra.” But you also cannot say: “since the rabbi vouched for the suspect, it means the responsibility lies with the Jews.”
In a short news story, these two thoughts easily turn into one. For me, their separation is the first important detail that cannot be discarded from this story without losing meaning.
Markovich did not intend to pay for Mudra: what does the guarantee mean
On August 24, Yonatan Markovich personally came to the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine. HACC is a separate specialized court created to consider criminal proceedings on corruption at a high state level. For an Israeli reader, there is no exact analogue here: it is not just another district court and not a division of the regular police.
Markovich offered to take Mudra on personal guarantee.
This did not mean that he was going to deposit 20 or 150 million hryvnias instead of her. Personal guarantee in the Ukrainian criminal process is an independent preventive measure. The guarantor undertakes before the court to control the fulfillment of procedural obligations by the suspect and to assist in their appearance upon summons. The court, in turn, must decide whether a specific guarantor deserves sufficient trust.
Markovich stated that he had known Mudra for several years and was confident in her. At the meeting, it was mentioned that she came to the community, came to pray, and maintained a connection with the rabbi. He said that, in his conviction, Mudra would not let down the community, him personally, or the state. Reports of his speech confirm that the court separately clarified whether the rabbi understood the obligations of a guarantor. Markovich answered affirmatively.
There was more than one guarantor. Therefore, representing Mudra’s defense as a story built solely on Markovich’s religious authority would also be incorrect. But it was the rabbi’s participation that gave the meeting a public dimension that would not have arisen around an ordinary former colleague or acquaintance.
The court ultimately did not agree to leave Mudra only under guarantee.
On August 25, HACC sent her into custody for 60 days with the possibility of posting bail in the amount of 20 million hryvnias. This is about 1.33 million shekels or $448 thousand at the exchange rate on August 25. The prosecution requested an alternative bail of 150 million hryvnias — approximately 10 million shekels or $3.36 million.
The difference between 20 and 150 million is also important. The court did not support the entire financial risk assessment proposed by the prosecution, but also did not consider the personal trust of the guarantors sufficient grounds for a milder measure.
This is not a verdict for Mudra.
In Ukrainian news lexicon, the words “arrested,” “taken into custody” easily create the impression that guilt has already been established. Here we are only talking about a preventive measure during the investigation. Mudra disputes the charges, and the final conclusion about her guilt can only be made by the court after considering the evidence.