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.
For NANews — News of Israel this separation is also fundamentally important because Israel appears further in the material. The surname of a person living here, the family ties of the suspect with Israel, and the biographies of the two rabbis should not imperceptibly turn into a substitute for evidence.
Who is more important — Asman or Markovich: Israeli logic does not work here
When I first saw the two titles side by side — “Chief Rabbi of Ukraine” and “Chief Rabbi of Kyiv,” — the most obvious answer seemed simple: the chief of the country should be above the chief of the city.
For a person living in Israel, such logic is natural.
We have the Chief Rabbinate of Israel — a state-organized system. The Council of the Chief Rabbinate operates on the basis of law, has specific powers in the field of kashrut, rabbinical qualifications, the preparation of dayanim, and other religious issues. The council includes two chief rabbis of Israel, and one of them is also connected with the leadership of the rabbinical court system. This is a real institutional structure enshrined by the state.
In Ukraine, there is no such unified state pyramid of Jewish religious authority.
And this is not a nuance of terminology.
History shows that the title “Chief Rabbi of Ukraine” has been used for decades by representatives of different structures. Yaakov Dov Bleich was widely recognized as the Chief Rabbi of Kyiv and Ukraine back in the early 1990s. Then in 2003, the national title was received by Azriel Haikin, associated with another Chabad structure. In September 2005, Moshe Reuven Asman was elected Chief Rabbi of Ukraine — and this decision immediately caused a public dispute. JTA then described the situation with a formula almost incredible for an Israeli reader: “one country — three chief rabbis”.
The reason was not that someone forgot to cancel the old appointment.
Different religious associations, communities, and Hasidic networks defined differently who exactly had the right to represent the Jews of Ukraine. The position of Chief Rabbi there gave public weight, access to state leaders, and a symbolic role as a community representative, but did not arise from a single Ukrainian analogue of the Israeli law on the Chief Rabbinate.
And today this is not just a story from the archives.
Forward in 2022 detailed the ongoing rivalry between Moshe Asman and Yaakov Bleich for the national title. The publication directly noted that both appear in the media as Chief Rabbis of Ukraine. JTA later also called Asman one of several people claiming this title.
Markovich is in yet another position.
He is the Chief Rabbi of Kyiv and the official Chabad emissary in the Ukrainian capital. For more than two decades, he and his family have managed their own community infrastructure. Times of Israel in 2025 described his work with the Ukrainian army to create procedures that allow for Jewish burial of fallen soldiers; for consultations, Markovich met with the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, Eyal Karim.
There is also another detail here that I would not discard as a historical trifle. Asman himself is associated with Chabad but is not part of the official structure of Chabad emissaries in Ukraine, whereas Markovich is an official shaliach — an emissary of the movement in Kyiv. Forward noted this structural peculiarity, and old JTA publications show that relations between various Chabad centers in Ukraine and around the national title have long been complicated.
Therefore, the correct answer to the question “who is more important?” consists of two parts.
By the scale of the declared title, Asman is higher: Ukraine versus Kyiv. Administratively, Asman is not Markovich’s superior.
He cannot cancel his guarantee, remove him from the position of Chief Rabbi of Kyiv, or issue an order binding on his community just because he uses the national title.
This completely changes the meaning of the statement on August 25.
Asman spoke not as a superior publicly reprimanding a subordinate. He spoke as another influential Jewish leader and told society: do not transfer Markovich’s decision to all of us.
Why does Markovich trust Mudra at all: the story did not start in court
If you leave only the frame from HACC, you might decide that a well-known rabbi unexpectedly appeared in court and stood up for a high-ranking official.
But their relationship began long before Operation “Forrest Gump.”
In the previous material NANews — News of Israel I checked Mudra’s public Jewish biography with her interviews and official events. In an interview recorded on January 19, 2026 — about seven months before the searches — Mudra herself talked about her acquaintance with Markovich.
According to her, the rabbi once came to her office. They talked about Israel, and Markovich noticed that there was no mezuzah on the door.
During the next visit, he brought a mezuzah and installed it. Mudra said that after this, Markovich and his wife, Rebbetzin Inna, continued to visit her from time to time, and her family celebrates Jewish holidays. This backstory is detailed in the NANews material from August 25.
A completely different logic of guarantee emerges.
Markovich did not evaluate bank documents and did not conduct his own investigation. He vouched for a person he considered part of a familiar circle and with whom he had long-standing relationships.
This simultaneously explains his action — and shows the limit of such testimony.
If the rabbi knows that Mudra came to the community, fulfilled promises in personal communication, and regularly maintained contact, this may give him grounds to believe that she will appear in court.
But from this, it is impossible to conclude whether she knew the origin of the specific 150 million hryvnias, participated in a financial scheme, gave instructions to bank employees, or committed other actions mentioned by the investigation.
Personal trust answers one question.
Criminal proceedings — another.
Mudra also has real family ties with Israel. Her mother repatriated and lives in Rishon LeZion. Mudra’s daughter has Israeli citizenship and studied here. Ukrainian declaration data also included assets in the Israeli banking system. At the same time, I did not find confirmation of Mudra’s own Israeli citizenship, and in the previous check by NANews, we deliberately separated this unconfirmed media thesis from established family facts.
This is especially important now.
After Asman’s statement, it is very easy to build a toxic chain: Jewish official — Israel — rabbi — guarantee — money.
But the criminal case is not arranged like that.
The investigation speaks of specific actions by specific people. A family in Rishon LeZion proves nothing. A mezuzah in the office proves nothing. Israeli citizenship of the daughter proves nothing. Just as the rabbi’s guarantee itself proves nothing.
These circumstances explain the human and public part of the story. Evidence must explain the criminal one.
From 150 million hryvnias to Timur Mindich: why Israel stopped being just a biographical background
Irina Mudra held a position that an Israeli should also decipher.
Until August 19, she was the deputy head of the Office of the President of Ukraine. This is not an analogue of the office of the President of Israel. The Ukrainian Office of the President is an influential administrative-political center under the head of state, involved in decision preparation, legal policy, international processes, and interaction with other branches of power.
Before moving there, Mudra worked as the Deputy Minister of Justice. Among her public directions were the international legal responsibility of Russia, work with frozen Russian assets, and the creation of compensation mechanisms for Ukraine.
That is why her appearance among NABU suspects became a politically loud event.
The operation was given the code name “Forrest Gump.” NABU — the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, a special body investigating corruption of high-ranking officials. SAP — the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, which procedurally accompanies such proceedings and supports the prosecution.
In one of the key episodes, the investigation speaks of 150 million hryvnias.
This is not a random round sum.
In June 2026, it was exactly 150 million hryvnias that were posted as bail for the former Minister of Energy, Herman Galushchenko — a figure in another high-profile case known as “Midas.”
The investigation’s version is that cash of alleged criminal origin needed to be processed through legal entities and banking infrastructure, turning them into non-cash money that could be transferred to an official court account.
I emphasize: this is the version of NABU and SAP, not an already established court fact of Mudra’s guilt.
But on August 25, this version received a new continuation.
At the hearing on the preventive measure for the head of Sense Bank, the SAP prosecutor stated that the cash for Galushchenko’s bail was given to Mudra by Timur Mindich. Publications from the hearing are dated August 25; it is about the same 150 million hryvnias.
According to the version presented by the prosecutor, Mudra was supposed to help find a mechanism for legalizing funds through banking operations.
Here Israel first appears not as the place of residence of the suspect’s mother and not as part of the rabbis’ biography.
Timur Mindich is in Israel.
And this is not a separate coincidentally matched plot. He is a figure in the “Midas” case, for which Ukraine has already sent an official extradition request to Israel. NANews tracked this procedure separately: documents, after correcting technical deficiencies, were sent to the Ministry of Justice of Israel on March 31, 2026, and on August 10, SAP head Oleksandr Klymenko said that the Ukrainian side is still waiting for a response.
At that moment, 132 days had passed.
The lack of a response cannot be called a refusal by Israel to extradite Mindich. We do not know this. The Israeli extradition procedure includes a legal review and, under certain circumstances, a court hearing.
But the new prosecutor’s statement on August 25 adds another material to the extradition plot: according to SAP, Mindich’s money now appears not only within “Midas” but also in the “Forrest Gump” episode, where Mudra is involved.
And here it is already impossible to reduce the story to “the rabbi stood up for the official.”
During the day, Markovich tells the court about personal trust and the community.
The court sends Mudra into custody.
Asman separates the rabbi’s act from the entire Jewish community.
And almost simultaneously, the prosecutor in another hearing names a person located in Israel as the alleged source of cash at the center of the criminal episode.
These events do not legally prove each other. But journalistically, they change the context.
Now any careless mixing of religion, Jewish identity, Israel, and criminal suspicions becomes even more dangerous.
Why the words “not the position of the Jewish community” are more important here than the dispute between two rabbis
After checking all the lines, I would not call what is happening a “split among the Jews of Ukraine.” There are no grounds for such a conclusion.
We have a specific decision by Yonatan Markovich, a specific public reaction by Moshe Asman, and a long-existing system of different Jewish centers, within which no national title creates a single administrative authority over all communities. The story of Irina Mudra should be resolved in a completely different plane — by the court, bank documents, conversations, testimonies, and other evidence, not by the origin of the participants.
Therefore, Asman’s phrase “not the position of the Jewish community as a whole” turned out to be more accurate for me than any headline about a conflict between rabbis. It simultaneously returns responsibility to the specific guarantor and protects the community from the collectivization of this responsibility. Markovich vouched in his own name. Asman has the right to publicly say that he does not share such a step. But neither of them turns the criminal case into a “Jewish case,” just as the appearance of Timur Mindich in the prosecutor’s version does not turn it into a case of the state of Israel.
And there remains a question that is now more important than finding out “who is the more important rabbi.” The court will have to figure out whether the chain described by SAP from Mindich’s cash through Mudra and banking infrastructure to the 150 million hryvnias bail existed, and Israel will have to decide on a separate procedure around the extradition request for Mindich.
Against this background, Asman’s statement establishes a useful boundary even before the future verdict: the law evaluates people’s actions personally. A religious community cannot be a collective guarantor or a collective defendant.