The following is Russian businessman Denis Katsyv’s response to a Hetq article published this June.

Regarding factual inaccuracies and incomplete information concerning Denis Katsyv contained in the article entitled Magnitsky Case Fallout: How Questionable 500,000 Swiss Francs Reached Armenia (hereinafter also referred to as the “Article”), published on the Hetq news website on 03.06.2026

Overall, the Article / publication is one-sided and predominantly accusatory in nature. The accuracy of the information contained in the sources used has not been verified, as a result of which information inconsistent with reality has been published; such information is in no way supported by the decisions of the Swiss law-enforcement authorities or judicial acts and harms the honor, dignity and business reputation of Denis Katsyv.

Thus, within the framework of criminal case No. SV.11.0049-KOD, initiated on 03.03.2011 against unknown persons, the Swiss law-enforcement authorities, over the course of an entire decade, among other matters, thoroughly examined the legality of the activities and funds of Denis Katsyv and the companies affiliated with him. As a result, the July 21, 2021, decision (Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland) established that all restrictions imposed on D. Katsyv’s personal accounts were to be lifted without any confiscation being applied. At the same time, the same decision provided that, out of the accounts of the three companies affiliated with D. Katsyv, only the accounts of one of them (Prevezon Holdings LTD) were subject to confiscation of approximately USD 50,000 and approximately EUR 22,000, while all restrictions on the remaining funds were lifted.

Moreover, by the above-mentioned decision of the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland, it was also decided to award compensation to D. Katsyv and the companies affiliated with him for the damages caused and expenses incurred as a result of the long investigation.

The subsequent court proceedings were initiated by D. Katsyv and the companies affiliated with him themselves, as they disagreed with the confiscation of funds from Prevezon Holdings LTD and with the amount of the compensation awarded.

That is, in general, at the initiative of D. Katsyv and the companies affiliated with him, the following three issues were made the subject of judicial review and examination:

• the legality and justification of the confiscation of approximately USD 50,000 and EUR 22,000 from Prevezon Holdings LTD;
• the amount of compensation to be awarded to D. Katsyv and the companies affiliated with him;
• the amount of attorneys’ fees to be reimbursed to D. Katsyv and the companies affiliated with him.

As a result, in its December 5, 2025, precedent-setting decision, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland held that, in money-laundering cases, where funds derived from unlawful activity or funds of unexplained origin are commingled with funds of lawful origin, this does not result in the “contamination” of the lawful funds in any proportion. The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland held that, in such cases, the residual balance method is applicable.

As a result of the said decision, only the two transfers made to Prevezon Holdings LTD became subject to recalculation / revaluation (at the transferring company), and only thereafter will it be possible to consider the status of the funds held in Prevezon Holdings LTD’s bank accounts.

It is noteworthy that, following the July 21, 2021, decision of the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland, the above-mentioned judicial acts did not alter the legal status of the funds held in Denis Katsyv’s personal accounts — namely, their status as verified and free of any restrictions.

It should also be noted that Hermitage Capital Management Ltd, referred to in the Article as the company that “has been initiating investigations into the ‘Magnitsky case’ for decades and filed the first criminal complaint in Switzerland,” was deprived of its status as a private claimant as a result of decisions by the Swiss law-enforcement authorities and court rulings.

In particular, by its November 23, 2022, decision (BB.2021.193–197), the Swiss Criminal Court confirmed the withdrawal of private claimant status, finding that Hermitage had failed to establish that it had suffered direct and personal harm as a result of the alleged offences. Subsequently, by judgment 7B_60/2022 of January 21, 2025, published on January 30, 2025, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland dismissed Hermitage’s appeal in its entirety and upheld the decision of the Swiss Federal Criminal Court, reaffirming that Hermitage Capital Management Ltd could not be regarded as a private claimant because it had failed to establish that it had been directly and personally affected by the alleged offences. That judgment is final and binding and is not subject to any further judicial appeal.

The information set out above reflects the content of the decisions of the Swiss law-enforcement authorities and the relevant judicial acts, whereas the information published in the Article is inconsistent with them.

Although some of the information published in the Article consists of references to other sources in which the facts had already been distorted, we nevertheless consider it necessary to address those statements in the Article that constitute the author’s assumptions and conclusions but do not stem from the facts of the case.

In particular, the publication states:

“The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has recorded that a Russian businessman under sanctions, Denis Katsyv, managed to withdraw about 6.5 million francs from Swiss banks and move them to Israel and Armenia. The Assembly discussed how a mistake by the Swiss courts allowed Denis Katsyv to move his money out of that country.”

The above assertions lack sufficient factual basis and create for the reader an impression that does not correspond to reality.

First of all, Denis Katsyv is not included in the principal U.S. sanctions lists maintained by OFAC (SDN, SSI, NS-MBS, etc.), nor in the public sanctions lists of the European Union or the United Kingdom. Accordingly, presenting him as a “person under sanctions” does not correspond to reality. This fact can easily be verified from publicly available official sources.

Second, the decision of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland did not in any way alter the status of the funds held in Denis Katsyv’s personal bank accounts or the assessment of those funds by the law-enforcement authorities.

The Article states: “The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland has already confirmed that the funds in Katsyv’s accounts are proceeds of crime. 6 million Swiss francs were transferred to Israel and 524,000 Swiss francs (about USD 592,000) to Armenia.”

This wording does not correspond to the content of the Swiss judicial acts and presents to the reader, as an established fact, a circumstance that has not been established by any court.

There is no Swiss judicial act (whether or not it has entered into legal force) by which the funds held in Denis Katsyv’s bank accounts have been recognized as proceeds of crime.

The Article reads: “On February 12, the day the funds were transferred, the Swiss Supreme Court had already overturned the previous decision in Katsyv’s favor and demanded a recalculation of the amounts subject to confiscation. This gives grounds to assume that the funds were transferred to Armenia to avoid their possible seizure in Switzerland.”

This passage presents distorted facts; therefore, the conclusion drawn on their basis is unfounded, yet it is presented to the reader as reality without any evidentiary basis.

As set out above, Denis Katsyv himself appealed the July 21, 2021, decision with respect to the methodology applied in calculating the approximately USD 50,000 and approximately EUR 22,000 subject to confiscation from the accounts of Prevezon Holdings LTD, and by its decision of December 5, 2025, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland overturned the lower court’s decision, making only the two transfers made to Prevezon Holdings LTD subject to recalculation / revaluation (at the transferring company), after which, and only then, will it be possible to consider the status of the funds held in Prevezon Holdings LTD’s bank accounts.

As for the funds transferred to Armenia, those funds were transferred from Denis Katsyv’s personal account; their legal status is verified, and they are free of any restrictions.

Thus, the author’s assumption that the amounts were transferred to Armenia to avoid their possible seizure in Switzerland bears no relation to reality and does not in any way follow from the judicial acts rendered.